Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
Read this because there's a lot of stupid stuff out there and people who pedal it. Having worked in television I can vouch for his rant against the media and it's goals and aims when covering a science story. Married to a doctor -- who also felt this book expresses all of her frustrations-- I vouch again for his take on medicine. Read it alone for the chapters on AIDS and MMR.
It's a book of fiery rants, yes -- and often funny if not a little sarcastic. But they are singed with truth.
It's a book of fiery rants, yes -- and often funny if not a little sarcastic. But they are singed with truth.
A funny and scathing analysis of irresponsible science journalism, pseudoscience, and the rampant use of cognitive illusions to sell bad ideas to a gullible public. He places too much blame on the intellectual insufficiencies of editors, however, and not enough on the inherent conflicts of interest built into media that are driven by the profit motive.
One of the best books I've read in a while! It's written for the lay person, has a lot of interesting information & facts. Clarifies a lot of misunderstandings & things most of us are likely ignorant of. I LOVE this book! I recommend it for all
All right, I'm pretty terrified now. Hope you become the same.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Great overview on some of the most prevalent abuses and misuses of science and scientific research. There's a couple of topics that I wished he had covered, namely the bizarre inability of a vast portion of scientific trials to be replicated, meaning they are either fabricated or at least useless), the absurd fixation on the quantity of papers that any respectable scientist is expected to churn out, and the recent findings that a lot of papers submitted to peer reviewed journals are not actually peer reviewed and in some cases just computer generated gibberish.
From my #CBR5 review...
You guys. YOU GUYS. This book is amazing. I started reading it Sunday morning. Now it’s Monday night, and I’ve finished all 258 pages, and I’m sad that it’s over.
I found out about this book thanks to Cannonball Reader Mei-Lu, and picked up a copy on that same trip to Powell’s that netted me an okay and a good book (so far – more reviews to come). As a background, I do have a bout two years’ worth of graduate-level statistics training, and took a philosophy of science class that focused exclusively on evidence, objectivity, and how that all interacts with policy, and I still found things in this book that I’d not been exposed to before. Frankly, I’d love to see it be required reading for freshman in college (or seniors in high school) to help them become better informed citizens.
The book is extraordinarily well written. At times Dr. Goldacre sounds a bit arrogant, but that’s really only relevant if that’s something you find it difficult to get past, which in this case I did not. What is more relevant is that he has great information, strong examples to illustrate his points, and an overall way with words that makes this book feel more like an outstanding novel than a science non-fiction. It reminded me a bit of Mary Roach’s works, which makes sense – she even provided a supporting blurb for the back of the copy I purchased.
The biggest point I took away from this reading is frustration that the people we expect to be providing good information to us often aren’t. And that isn’t just the scientists (or I guess “scientists”) engaging in all manner of deceit to bend data their way; it’s the newspapers and members of the media who either choose not to engage in serious examination of the data and papers themselves, or frame the issue in ways not supported by the evidence. Not everyone has time to read through all the supporting evidence on an issue; that’s why we have the scientists, and the science reporters (or sadly, the general reporters tasked with reporting on science issues). When one or more of those folks aren’t providing good information, or willing to do their jobs, those of us who rely on them are taking a huge gamble.
Please check this book out. I’m so glad I purchased a hard copy of it; I can tell I’ll be re-reading it and referencing it a lot in the future.
You guys. YOU GUYS. This book is amazing. I started reading it Sunday morning. Now it’s Monday night, and I’ve finished all 258 pages, and I’m sad that it’s over.
I found out about this book thanks to Cannonball Reader Mei-Lu, and picked up a copy on that same trip to Powell’s that netted me an okay and a good book (so far – more reviews to come). As a background, I do have a bout two years’ worth of graduate-level statistics training, and took a philosophy of science class that focused exclusively on evidence, objectivity, and how that all interacts with policy, and I still found things in this book that I’d not been exposed to before. Frankly, I’d love to see it be required reading for freshman in college (or seniors in high school) to help them become better informed citizens.
The book is extraordinarily well written. At times Dr. Goldacre sounds a bit arrogant, but that’s really only relevant if that’s something you find it difficult to get past, which in this case I did not. What is more relevant is that he has great information, strong examples to illustrate his points, and an overall way with words that makes this book feel more like an outstanding novel than a science non-fiction. It reminded me a bit of Mary Roach’s works, which makes sense – she even provided a supporting blurb for the back of the copy I purchased.
The biggest point I took away from this reading is frustration that the people we expect to be providing good information to us often aren’t. And that isn’t just the scientists (or I guess “scientists”) engaging in all manner of deceit to bend data their way; it’s the newspapers and members of the media who either choose not to engage in serious examination of the data and papers themselves, or frame the issue in ways not supported by the evidence. Not everyone has time to read through all the supporting evidence on an issue; that’s why we have the scientists, and the science reporters (or sadly, the general reporters tasked with reporting on science issues). When one or more of those folks aren’t providing good information, or willing to do their jobs, those of us who rely on them are taking a huge gamble.
Please check this book out. I’m so glad I purchased a hard copy of it; I can tell I’ll be re-reading it and referencing it a lot in the future.
Apologies for the spoiler (never quite sure what constitutes a spoiler in non-fiction) but this book is best explained by one of the many hilarious/head-against-brick-wall insights found within.
- you'll always find the science reporting in newspapers (and other mass medias) dummed down, however notice that the financial, sports and literature sections are not thusly treated -
Bad Science is pretty much about what it says its about. In perhaps a similar vein to "The Republician War on Science" Goldacre reviews many a popular misconception, with a particular focus on health (the author having a medical background and all) and slams the glimmicky bussiness of alternative with hard science.
Goldacre puts a slightly audacious, (but yet to be disproven) theory that much of the misconceptualisation of science comes from humanity majors working in the reporting industry and failing to, or actively neglecting to get the science right.
Clearly, hard science won't give you as many headlines, or hold the interest of the public for long, however Goldacre outlines exactly what will, and has already gone wrong with bad science reporting.
Sadly its hard to imagine this book making any difference where it counts. Maybe just maybe, someone might pick it up and learn a thing or to. Most likely this book will be read by those already mostly aligned with science, but its still a better world with this book in it than without.
- you'll always find the science reporting in newspapers (and other mass medias) dummed down, however notice that the financial, sports and literature sections are not thusly treated -
Bad Science is pretty much about what it says its about. In perhaps a similar vein to "The Republician War on Science" Goldacre reviews many a popular misconception, with a particular focus on health (the author having a medical background and all) and slams the glimmicky bussiness of alternative with hard science.
Goldacre puts a slightly audacious, (but yet to be disproven) theory that much of the misconceptualisation of science comes from humanity majors working in the reporting industry and failing to, or actively neglecting to get the science right.
Clearly, hard science won't give you as many headlines, or hold the interest of the public for long, however Goldacre outlines exactly what will, and has already gone wrong with bad science reporting.
Sadly its hard to imagine this book making any difference where it counts. Maybe just maybe, someone might pick it up and learn a thing or to. Most likely this book will be read by those already mostly aligned with science, but its still a better world with this book in it than without.
A little dry at times and lacking in the white space that can make dry reading easier to digest (tightly-packed print here) but contains some important full of food for thought.