Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
Hilarious and scathing at the same time, a very adept attempt to bring science to the masses and inform us how easily fooled we are. He deals quite succinctly with statistics and shows how to read a research paper. A scary and necessary read.
Though this was enjoyable to read and it made some really excellent points, it was at times a bit too patronizing for my liking.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book, it takes a specific focus on the part the media plays in proclamation of scientific findings. It uncovers how the media tell truths, half-truths and lies about all different discoveries, as well as scientists that have portrayed false findings to support their theory (shown in the Media’s MRSA and MMR Hoax). It showed how complex scientific studies are, but also that sometimes it is quite hard for ‘normal’ people to understand the complexities of them, including the journalists that write for the media.
It was fascinating how many headlines were released in 2002 about the MMR Hoax and how very little of them were true. I found the chapters about the Placebo Effect and how Pills Solve Complex Social Problems very fascinating as they largely tied into one another, and related a lot to my psychology studies. I was captivated by the rules for new medicines that are coming into the market, and how much it costs for them to do so.
I loved reading about the manipulation of clinical trials, the way scientists, and drug companies etc. can make the product look as beneficial as possible. Usually they test alongside along a placebo, when in reality Goldacre suggested that drugs should be tested alongside adequate competitor drugs to see which takes more effect and how much impact they actually have.
My 4 star rating is purely because I prefer reading Fiction
It was fascinating how many headlines were released in 2002 about the MMR Hoax and how very little of them were true. I found the chapters about the Placebo Effect and how Pills Solve Complex Social Problems very fascinating as they largely tied into one another, and related a lot to my psychology studies. I was captivated by the rules for new medicines that are coming into the market, and how much it costs for them to do so.
I loved reading about the manipulation of clinical trials, the way scientists, and drug companies etc. can make the product look as beneficial as possible. Usually they test alongside along a placebo, when in reality Goldacre suggested that drugs should be tested alongside adequate competitor drugs to see which takes more effect and how much impact they actually have.
My 4 star rating is purely because I prefer reading Fiction
Buy 2019 I’ve come across books explaining similar concepts better.
This books is definitely still relevant, but not as revolutionary, as most of the facts are common knowledge by now. And although I feel bad giving it a low rating, I couldn’t rate it higher. Because I was really annoyed how much the author concentrated on ill-natured crooks and how little was dedicated to solutions or to teaching better practises.
But I do wish someone gave this to me in 2008 when I was writing my first thesis.
This books is definitely still relevant, but not as revolutionary, as most of the facts are common knowledge by now. And although I feel bad giving it a low rating, I couldn’t rate it higher. Because I was really annoyed how much the author concentrated on ill-natured crooks and how little was dedicated to solutions or to teaching better practises.
But I do wish someone gave this to me in 2008 when I was writing my first thesis.
It's Christmas break and I am inexplicably interested in reading non-fiction for once in my life. Or maybe not inexplicably because when school is on my brain needs a break from reality and that's not weird.
But yeah I extremely support this author's premise that scientific literacy should be taught in schools much earlier than it is, in courses that are mandatory (grade 9/10 in Ontario are our last mandatory science courses). The process of how science is done is just as important as memorizing foundational concepts I think, especially because knowledge changes and improves and becomes outdated whereas scientific thinking will always be useful. It's just true that as adults most teens who don't go into science will have relatively little use for idk spectroscopy (one of the main things in grade 9 astronomy) but we all are bombarded with so much bullshit that it's genuinely confusing. My parents who are educated (one has a bachelor's degree (not in science) and both have high school diplomas) and like to be knowledgeable not just believe all kinds of weird weight loss advice (which ok there might be some knowing they're weird but hoping they work anyway going on there but even without that there are multiple "schools of thought" that seem actually credible yet somewhat contradict each other and how much of their details are frivolous for the sake of having a trademarkable system and agghh) and lets not even get into covid and anti-vaxxers.
Like genuinely let's not. Though at least in my experience most people are or at some point were various degrees of vaccine-hesitant ("let's wait a few months and see how the first people react" sound familiar? because basically everybody I know said that) and their reasons for feeling that way were obviously understandable, and while some people and groups handled informing people about vaccines and flattening the curve and that there is a risk of adverse effects that comes with the vaccines but that the risk is low and that the risks of covid are higher than the vaccine and that vaccines seem relatively effective at reducing your chances of ending up in the ICU (which is most likely to happen if you're old or have underlying conditions but can also happen to young healthy people) genuinely pretty well, and obviously loud anti-vax voices have been just plain malicious and acting in bad faith, some pro-vaccine messaging has been not the best approach too. Namely the loudly yelling that we should listen to the experts cuz the experts know everything and science is perfect (ok idk anyone that said these words but the sentiment was implied). And of course even if the general public was scientifically literate the expectation of reading every study about covid and reviewing the methodologies would also be infeasible so of course at some point you have to pick a person to trust and if we're gonna pick the best person to trust it should be someone that specializes in the relevant thing. But also if "listen to doctors" is the argument then the other sides can pull out anti-vax doctors that support their argument and the people who said that are forced to refine that to listen to doctors who are insert qualifier. And of course the doctors were not certain and did not know everything and new information was always coming out and acting all-knowing at first makes this fact more of a betrayal. So idk but I have really gone off on a tangent and this book doesn't talk about covid at all.
It does talk about types of biases like publication bias, regression to the mean and the placebo effect, experiments vs observational studies, the importance of randomization and double-blinding, it touches on how we don't understand statistics (but I still don't understand statistics) and it goes over things like cleanse fads, homeopathy, nutritionists, and the MMR scare and the way journalists who weren't familiar with some of these previous things amplified it and rarely even mentioned when studies were conducted that found the negative because that is less sensational of a story.
But yeah I extremely support this author's premise that scientific literacy should be taught in schools much earlier than it is, in courses that are mandatory (grade 9/10 in Ontario are our last mandatory science courses). The process of how science is done is just as important as memorizing foundational concepts I think, especially because knowledge changes and improves and becomes outdated whereas scientific thinking will always be useful. It's just true that as adults most teens who don't go into science will have relatively little use for idk spectroscopy (one of the main things in grade 9 astronomy) but we all are bombarded with so much bullshit that it's genuinely confusing. My parents who are educated (one has a bachelor's degree (not in science) and both have high school diplomas) and like to be knowledgeable not just believe all kinds of weird weight loss advice (which ok there might be some knowing they're weird but hoping they work anyway going on there but even without that there are multiple "schools of thought" that seem actually credible yet somewhat contradict each other and how much of their details are frivolous for the sake of having a trademarkable system and agghh) and lets not even get into covid and anti-vaxxers.
Like genuinely let's not. Though at least in my experience most people are or at some point were various degrees of vaccine-hesitant ("let's wait a few months and see how the first people react" sound familiar? because basically everybody I know said that) and their reasons for feeling that way were obviously understandable, and while some people and groups handled informing people about vaccines and flattening the curve and that there is a risk of adverse effects that comes with the vaccines but that the risk is low and that the risks of covid are higher than the vaccine and that vaccines seem relatively effective at reducing your chances of ending up in the ICU (which is most likely to happen if you're old or have underlying conditions but can also happen to young healthy people) genuinely pretty well, and obviously loud anti-vax voices have been just plain malicious and acting in bad faith, some pro-vaccine messaging has been not the best approach too. Namely the loudly yelling that we should listen to the experts cuz the experts know everything and science is perfect (ok idk anyone that said these words but the sentiment was implied). And of course even if the general public was scientifically literate the expectation of reading every study about covid and reviewing the methodologies would also be infeasible so of course at some point you have to pick a person to trust and if we're gonna pick the best person to trust it should be someone that specializes in the relevant thing. But also if "listen to doctors" is the argument then the other sides can pull out anti-vax doctors that support their argument and the people who said that are forced to refine that to listen to doctors who are insert qualifier. And of course the doctors were not certain and did not know everything and new information was always coming out and acting all-knowing at first makes this fact more of a betrayal. So idk but I have really gone off on a tangent and this book doesn't talk about covid at all.
It does talk about types of biases like publication bias, regression to the mean and the placebo effect, experiments vs observational studies, the importance of randomization and double-blinding, it touches on how we don't understand statistics (but I still don't understand statistics) and it goes over things like cleanse fads, homeopathy, nutritionists, and the MMR scare and the way journalists who weren't familiar with some of these previous things amplified it and rarely even mentioned when studies were conducted that found the negative because that is less sensational of a story.
Did really find this book interesting but at times boring, and had to force myself to finish it. Just felt repetitive at times mainly at the start but last half was fantastic.
Loving this book so far. I'm determined not to be led down a merry garden path any longer by all the 'science' perpetuated on social media. Tony will be proud of me. I'm learning all about experiments, evidence and what they mean to us without all the noise 'experts' and food bloggers use.
Well I think a lot of people need to read this book in our current situation so that they can realize just how much they don’t understand
Also statistics needs to be required in high school nationwide immediately kthxbye
Also statistics needs to be required in high school nationwide immediately kthxbye
Audiobook. The guy doing the audiobook has a ton of passion.
---------------------
Bad Science is an excellent book about how to approach news articles about scientific papers. He goes over what flaws to look out for in the studies themselves, as well as the common ways journalists completely screw up reporting about subjects they don't always understand. In particular, he focuses a lot on homeopathy and the MMR autism link (which doesn't actually exist), both of which he destroys.
The takeaways from this book are how to identify shoddy reporting, what questions to ask about research to know if it is shoddy research, and a deep distrust of anything you're ever told. :p
The most interesting bit to me, as someone who is used to not trusting reporters' science articles, was the bit on the placebo effect. This was by no means a new concept, but the depth of it is staggering. That four sugar pills are better than two sugar pills for treating pain is insane. That red pills are better than yellow pills for treating pain is nuts. There is more, but I am wary of misquoting it, so I'll stop. Just note that the placebo effect defies every bit of good sense you have.
My primary complaint about the book is the tone. It is amazing when he is preaching to the choir as he is with me, but he calls a spade a spade. He has no problem calling Big Parma evil, nor some researchers frauds (by name), nor calling some journalists incompetent. If you currently believe in homeopathy, you might find yourself insulted too much to listen. He doesn't mean to. His anger is firmly directed at greedy businesses, stupid/unethical/greedy researchers, and terrible journalism that is telling you lies as truth. But I can see how one could take his attack on homeopathy (and various other things) as attacks on themselves. They are not though, so do attempt to look past his flippant and challenging tone to what he is presenting.
---------------------
Bad Science is an excellent book about how to approach news articles about scientific papers. He goes over what flaws to look out for in the studies themselves, as well as the common ways journalists completely screw up reporting about subjects they don't always understand. In particular, he focuses a lot on homeopathy and the MMR autism link (which doesn't actually exist), both of which he destroys.
The takeaways from this book are how to identify shoddy reporting, what questions to ask about research to know if it is shoddy research, and a deep distrust of anything you're ever told. :p
The most interesting bit to me, as someone who is used to not trusting reporters' science articles, was the bit on the placebo effect. This was by no means a new concept, but the depth of it is staggering. That four sugar pills are better than two sugar pills for treating pain is insane. That red pills are better than yellow pills for treating pain is nuts. There is more, but I am wary of misquoting it, so I'll stop. Just note that the placebo effect defies every bit of good sense you have.
My primary complaint about the book is the tone. It is amazing when he is preaching to the choir as he is with me, but he calls a spade a spade. He has no problem calling Big Parma evil, nor some researchers frauds (by name), nor calling some journalists incompetent. If you currently believe in homeopathy, you might find yourself insulted too much to listen. He doesn't mean to. His anger is firmly directed at greedy businesses, stupid/unethical/greedy researchers, and terrible journalism that is telling you lies as truth. But I can see how one could take his attack on homeopathy (and various other things) as attacks on themselves. They are not though, so do attempt to look past his flippant and challenging tone to what he is presenting.
I wished I could like this book. Don't get me wrong I did like the ideas of the book but I could not stand the ranting of the author and his mockery of not only the readers but everyone in general. Firstly he repeats the same thing in every chapter. Secondly he is all over the place just attacking people and venting his anger everywhere. I feel as if I am reading a one sided arguments in a fight which is packed in terms of a book. Could not take it left the book half way.