You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
If you are open to learning that the science you're hearing daily is wrong, this may have some allure. Some of the ideas in this journalist's journey can help you grow.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
One of my absolute favourite non-fiction novels. Goldacre is a wonderful writer.
informative
The content of this book was fair (if somewhat out of date at times). But the delivery was patronising, sexist, condescending and downright rude at times. Ben Goldacre sounds like a total arse.
Ben Goldacre begins his book by stating that if, by the end, you still disagree with him that "you'll still be wrong, but you'll be wrong with a lot more panache and flair than you can possibly manage right now." Such a smarmily snarky, and condescendingly conceited statement would usually turn me off of a writer. As a supremely insecure and mildly intelligent person, I generally prefer a little humility and self-deprecation from my betters. And by a little I mean a lot. However, just as Ryan Gosling could get away with commenting on how handsome he is, because he just is that handsome, Goldacre gets away with pointing out how right he is, because he just is that right.
As a moderate leftist (i.e. I read Zinn, but still support Obama), I often find myself listening to friends who are doing “toxic cleansings” or seeking “homeopathic treatments” for their ailments. In fact, I used to buy into it myself. Now, whenever I clumsily try to explain why such and such a treatment is silly, I’m usually accused of buying into the establishment claims. I’m just sucking on poisoned teat of big pharma. I need to buy organic, natural ingredients untainted by the genetically modified touch of Satansanto. One of the best passages I’ve read all year provides a great counter argument: “…one of the most destructive features of the whole nutritionist project; it’s a distraction from the real causes of ill health, but also…a manifesto of right wing individualism. You ARE what you eat, and people die young because they deserve it. THEY choose death, through ignorance and laziness, but YOU choose life, fresh fish, olive oil, and that’s why you’re healthy. You’re going to see eighty. You deserve it. Not like THEM.”
One of the more welcome surprises of BAD SCIENCE is that it mostly avoids the well worn topics of scientific skepticism: creationism and global warming denial. Not that Goldacre supports either delusion, just that he figures anyone reading his book has probably read plenty on the subjects. His focus is a three tier assault on: 1) the lack of general science education in western society; 2) inept science journalism; and 3) deliberate science distortion by those looking to make a profit. He also looks into the cognitive biases and heuristic shortcuts which make swallowing bullshit seem more palatable than critical thinking: 1) We see patterns where there is only random noise; 2) We see causal relationships where there are none; 3) We overvalue confirmatory information for any given hypothesis; 4) We seek out confirmatory information for any given hypothesis; and 5) Our assessment of the quality of new evidence is biased by our previous beliefs. Goldacre goes to great pains to show that the only failsafe against these biases is adherence to the scientific method, but even that is subject to foibles of the primates using it.
Goldacre, cognoscente of the weakness of our brains, often extends an olive branch, and assumes those peddling pseudoscience are acting out of mere ignorance, and not purely evil intentions. While he doesn't pull any punches in debunking the fantastical bullshit of alt-med practitioners, he also explores the genuine wonder of the placebo effect, and devotes a large portion of BAD SCIENCE to pointing out the bad science of big pharma. In a “pay no attention to the homeopath behind the curtain” twist, he reveals that “big pharma isn’t afraid of the food supplement pill industry; it IS the food supplement pill industry.”
The only single person who comes off as completely evil is the diabolically evil Matthias Rath. Over the course of this book I went from never having heard Matthias Rath’s name, to repeating Matthias Rath’s name over and over to anyone who will listen because he is one of the worst, most awful, terrible, no good, dirty rotten humans alive. If you don’t read this wonderful book, which you really should for the sake of your brain and your wallet, I at least urge you to read the chapter on the dastardly, bastardly, Matthias Rath, which you can read, free, in its entirity here: http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/
As a moderate leftist (i.e. I read Zinn, but still support Obama), I often find myself listening to friends who are doing “toxic cleansings” or seeking “homeopathic treatments” for their ailments. In fact, I used to buy into it myself. Now, whenever I clumsily try to explain why such and such a treatment is silly, I’m usually accused of buying into the establishment claims. I’m just sucking on poisoned teat of big pharma. I need to buy organic, natural ingredients untainted by the genetically modified touch of Satansanto. One of the best passages I’ve read all year provides a great counter argument: “…one of the most destructive features of the whole nutritionist project; it’s a distraction from the real causes of ill health, but also…a manifesto of right wing individualism. You ARE what you eat, and people die young because they deserve it. THEY choose death, through ignorance and laziness, but YOU choose life, fresh fish, olive oil, and that’s why you’re healthy. You’re going to see eighty. You deserve it. Not like THEM.”
One of the more welcome surprises of BAD SCIENCE is that it mostly avoids the well worn topics of scientific skepticism: creationism and global warming denial. Not that Goldacre supports either delusion, just that he figures anyone reading his book has probably read plenty on the subjects. His focus is a three tier assault on: 1) the lack of general science education in western society; 2) inept science journalism; and 3) deliberate science distortion by those looking to make a profit. He also looks into the cognitive biases and heuristic shortcuts which make swallowing bullshit seem more palatable than critical thinking: 1) We see patterns where there is only random noise; 2) We see causal relationships where there are none; 3) We overvalue confirmatory information for any given hypothesis; 4) We seek out confirmatory information for any given hypothesis; and 5) Our assessment of the quality of new evidence is biased by our previous beliefs. Goldacre goes to great pains to show that the only failsafe against these biases is adherence to the scientific method, but even that is subject to foibles of the primates using it.
Goldacre, cognoscente of the weakness of our brains, often extends an olive branch, and assumes those peddling pseudoscience are acting out of mere ignorance, and not purely evil intentions. While he doesn't pull any punches in debunking the fantastical bullshit of alt-med practitioners, he also explores the genuine wonder of the placebo effect, and devotes a large portion of BAD SCIENCE to pointing out the bad science of big pharma. In a “pay no attention to the homeopath behind the curtain” twist, he reveals that “big pharma isn’t afraid of the food supplement pill industry; it IS the food supplement pill industry.”
The only single person who comes off as completely evil is the diabolically evil Matthias Rath. Over the course of this book I went from never having heard Matthias Rath’s name, to repeating Matthias Rath’s name over and over to anyone who will listen because he is one of the worst, most awful, terrible, no good, dirty rotten humans alive. If you don’t read this wonderful book, which you really should for the sake of your brain and your wallet, I at least urge you to read the chapter on the dastardly, bastardly, Matthias Rath, which you can read, free, in its entirity here: http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/
I really enjoyed this book but it did mostly reinforce my existing views. I am also glad I took statistics in college because without a little background on designing studies and stats I probably would have been confused in the later parts of the book.
Unsurprisingly very informative, but less obviously quite entertaining too. It has taught me - as though I'd never guessed it - never to trust anything I hear in the media. Reading it has made me feel knowledgeable, like lettuce.
informative
reflective
fast-paced
informative
medium-paced