Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
funny
informative
slow-paced
Brilliant, and more relevant than ever. Not as funny as I may have hoped, but a scathing review of the (mis)representation of science and statistics.
informative
informative
informative
slow-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
The has to be one of the most infuriating books I've read in years. That said I mostly liked it.
Ben Goldacre is a doctor who writes for a British newspaper called The Guardian. He mostly writes from the point of view of someone who challenges those "sciencey sounding claims" that people make about the products they make (and goes on to suggest what a more accurate claim would be).
The book is split into 2 sections. First he explains how scientists do research, how they interpret data, and how they disseminate results. That's about 20% of the book. The rest of the book looks at certain areas (like homeopathy or nutritionism) or certain scientists (like Gillian McKeith or Patrick Holford), and debunks their claims.
It's not bad bookwise. It's clearly laid out, and easy to read, but it doesn't assume you're an idiot either. Goldacre's attitude seems to be "If I can explain something difficult clearly enough, you'll understand it."
So why did I get so irritated by the book? It's just the content will drive you mad. You'll probably leave the book thinking "Grrrr" a lot, and that'll irritate you slightly I think.
If I had one criticism of the book, it'd be that it can almost explain an idea to death (or repeat an explanation), and that might irritate you. My suggestion to get round that (if it irritates you) is to treat the chapters as discreet, it'll probably make them more enjoyable.
Ben Goldacre is a doctor who writes for a British newspaper called The Guardian. He mostly writes from the point of view of someone who challenges those "sciencey sounding claims" that people make about the products they make (and goes on to suggest what a more accurate claim would be).
The book is split into 2 sections. First he explains how scientists do research, how they interpret data, and how they disseminate results. That's about 20% of the book. The rest of the book looks at certain areas (like homeopathy or nutritionism) or certain scientists (like Gillian McKeith or Patrick Holford), and debunks their claims.
It's not bad bookwise. It's clearly laid out, and easy to read, but it doesn't assume you're an idiot either. Goldacre's attitude seems to be "If I can explain something difficult clearly enough, you'll understand it."
So why did I get so irritated by the book? It's just the content will drive you mad. You'll probably leave the book thinking "Grrrr" a lot, and that'll irritate you slightly I think.
If I had one criticism of the book, it'd be that it can almost explain an idea to death (or repeat an explanation), and that might irritate you. My suggestion to get round that (if it irritates you) is to treat the chapters as discreet, it'll probably make them more enjoyable.
informative
slow-paced
Grāmata laba, aktuāla, nekas kopš 2008.g. zinātnes komunikācijā un mediju kvalitātē nav ievērojami mainījies. Piemēri interesanti, varēja būt drusku īsāk aprakstīti, reizēm kļūst pagarlaicīgi. Noteikti izmantojama skolā, dažas idejas konkrēti arī paņemšu stundām. Norādīti kvalitatīvi papildu resursi.
Wish such books were more widely read,it would improve our understanding of the inherent human fallacies,propagandist publications and shady(or not so shady) monetary underpinnings of 'new findings'.Bad science can be your guide to good science in life.