Scan barcode
the_jesus_fandom's review against another edition
1.0
Lol this was so bad
- Ad hominem arguments (attacking the person instead of the arguments)
- Fear mongering (We're not sure, but maybe if you take this medicine your life could be ruined)
- Lazy art. Just using photos and then sketching some ugly-looking figures is so low-effort
- Genetic fallacy (This is basically saying "this argument comes from a bad place so it sucks". So because the person who invented the argument was a bad person, the argument is bad. Or because the reason behind the argument is bad the argument is bad: "This argument was just made up to defend murder!" <- still doesn't mean the argument is wrong. That was just an example btw, not from the book itself)
- Claims things are unscientific, unproven, etc. without giving any actual proof of this. Why should I trust the author?
- Anecdotal proof (The classic "I knew a man who smoked every die and still lived to be a 100")
- strawman (subtly changing what the other person said and attacking that instead of their real argument)
- attributing other motives to the other party (You don't know why people say what they say. And it doesn't really matter, either.)
- Outdated information and theories
- Appeal to the majority (If everyone agrees it must be right)
- Unimpressive bibliography: lots of sources with the same author, in some cases he clearly only looked up sources that agreed with him, not varied at all
- clear bias toward religion that shows even when it's not relevant at all
- Ad hominem arguments (attacking the person instead of the arguments)
- Fear mongering (We're not sure, but maybe if you take this medicine your life could be ruined)
- Lazy art. Just using photos and then sketching some ugly-looking figures is so low-effort
- Genetic fallacy (This is basically saying "this argument comes from a bad place so it sucks". So because the person who invented the argument was a bad person, the argument is bad. Or because the reason behind the argument is bad the argument is bad: "This argument was just made up to defend murder!" <- still doesn't mean the argument is wrong. That was just an example btw, not from the book itself)
- Claims things are unscientific, unproven, etc. without giving any actual proof of this. Why should I trust the author?
- Anecdotal proof (The classic "I knew a man who smoked every die and still lived to be a 100")
- strawman (subtly changing what the other person said and attacking that instead of their real argument)
- attributing other motives to the other party (You don't know why people say what they say. And it doesn't really matter, either.)
- Outdated information and theories
- Appeal to the majority (If everyone agrees it must be right)
- Unimpressive bibliography: lots of sources with the same author, in some cases he clearly only looked up sources that agreed with him, not varied at all
- clear bias toward religion that shows even when it's not relevant at all
sarahanne8382's review against another edition
3.0
Cunningham fights the good fight of destroying conspiracy theories and non-scientific thinking in this graphic title tackling conspiracies from the moon landing being fake, vaccines causing autism, to general attacks on the scientific method. My favorite nerdy thing is that the guy who wrote the foreward argues with Cunningham about some of the claims he makes, but does so in a respectful way with sources sited, only furthering the scientific search for knowledge. The graphic format also makes it easier to digest.
I thought this book seemed familiar when I picked it up, and then I realized that I'd seen the chapter on the MMR vaccine shared on Facebook years ago. And I even found that blog post.
If you're a fellow science lover, you should pick up this book, or check out Cunningham's blog, or read any of his other books.
I thought this book seemed familiar when I picked it up, and then I realized that I'd seen the chapter on the MMR vaccine shared on Facebook years ago. And I even found that blog post.
If you're a fellow science lover, you should pick up this book, or check out Cunningham's blog, or read any of his other books.
aoosterwyk's review against another edition
4.0
A graphic non fiction that analyzes several controversial areas of science/pseudoscience. The subtitle of the book is Lies, Hoaxes and Scams. The author explores the history of each topic and applies basic reasearch to illuminate the real science and separate it from the faux. Topics covered: electroshock therapy, homeopathy, MMR/autism, chiropractic, moon landing, fracking, climate change, evolution, and a final excellent section on scientific method, "truthiness" and science denial.
This is an accessible and clarifying book that I will definitely put in our library.
This is an accessible and clarifying book that I will definitely put in our library.
ziyal's review against another edition
4.0
“The science predicts that these events could happen. Let’s not leave it to the super-rich to decide who lives and dies.”
From the section on climate change and possibly the best quote in the book.
From the section on climate change and possibly the best quote in the book.
mxmrow's review against another edition
4.0
Mainly giving it 4 stars for easily digestible bits of information. I was expecting it although it suits Graphic Science better than this book. In a slightly different mood it could easily have been 3 stars.
Ultimately it is pop science and is what I expect from pop science. It is like reading science news in any pop science medium, mostly specific but parts added for entertainment and through it's brevity only gives a small part of the scientific view. It is generally more focused on methodology than what to look out for when you come across science related stuff but it is a book about well known hoaxes, lies and scams. It would be called How Not to be Duped if it was about critical thinking. Some parts of the book makes it seem the author has forgotten this and is where it falls down the most.
I did not know very much about the therapy in the first chapter other than through One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest and the horrendous history of it for LGBTQIA+ people. The chiropractor section explains the widely varying results and found it interesting despite easy to be critical of the use of anecdotes and describing a third as tiny fraction.
Somehow it misses out what gets researched and what doesn't. For me the offhand dismissal of herbal medicine showed his bias more than scientific evidence. Herbal medicine is not completely unfounded, it just is much more unreliable and has a mixture of useful and harmful elements, so it is hard to know which herbal remedies you should go for over the off the shelf options for example cough medicine. Of course there are medicines that are specific enough and for health issues serious enough that doctors advice is needed and this is where herbal medicine is not worth the risk because anecdotal evidence is not robust but clinical trials are very robust (not fully but still very).
Ultimately it is pop science and is what I expect from pop science. It is like reading science news in any pop science medium, mostly specific but parts added for entertainment and through it's brevity only gives a small part of the scientific view. It is generally more focused on methodology than what to look out for when you come across science related stuff but it is a book about well known hoaxes, lies and scams. It would be called How Not to be Duped if it was about critical thinking. Some parts of the book makes it seem the author has forgotten this and is where it falls down the most.
I did not know very much about the therapy in the first chapter other than through One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest and the horrendous history of it for LGBTQIA+ people. The chiropractor section explains the widely varying results and found it interesting despite easy to be critical of the use of anecdotes and describing a third as tiny fraction.
Somehow it misses out what gets researched and what doesn't. For me the offhand dismissal of herbal medicine showed his bias more than scientific evidence. Herbal medicine is not completely unfounded, it just is much more unreliable and has a mixture of useful and harmful elements, so it is hard to know which herbal remedies you should go for over the off the shelf options for example cough medicine. Of course there are medicines that are specific enough and for health issues serious enough that doctors advice is needed and this is where herbal medicine is not worth the risk because anecdotal evidence is not robust but clinical trials are very robust (not fully but still very).
crabbygirl's review against another edition
1.0
this book is evidence that everything and anything is being turned into a graphic novel.
short vignettes that could easily be communicated through a magazine article. i didn't see any need, or additional insight, in the use of pictures throughout.
only benefit: my pre-teen picked it up, read it entirely, and can recall it all (the recalling isn't special - it's the impetus to start it) so i guess there is an audience for what i think is redundant.
short vignettes that could easily be communicated through a magazine article. i didn't see any need, or additional insight, in the use of pictures throughout.
only benefit: my pre-teen picked it up, read it entirely, and can recall it all (the recalling isn't special - it's the impetus to start it) so i guess there is an audience for what i think is redundant.
orangerful's review against another edition
3.0
I really liked the *idea* of this book but the execution, not so much. I wish it had just been straight text, maybe with a few graphics to illustrate some of the issues, but the graphic novel format did not help the author make his case any better. I could have read more on some of these subjects and perhaps even more rumination on why "deniers" have become so trendy and pervasive in society over the last few years (though I'm sure The Internet is part of the problem).
Still, I did learn from this so extra star for that.
Still, I did learn from this so extra star for that.
cantrememberthedreamthatihad's review against another edition
3.0
A fun little read that is fairly informative on some of the more contentious scientific issues of our time. The author doesn't always represent his case in the best manner--the chapter on Fracking in particular is dependent on a great deal of the same anecdotal evidence that the author is so critical of in other chapters.
Overall a fun read and, for the most part, spot on, but the tough of condescension and slight hypocrisy in sections drops it down a couple notches.
Overall a fun read and, for the most part, spot on, but the tough of condescension and slight hypocrisy in sections drops it down a couple notches.
the_lobrarian's review against another edition
- Illustrations are digital, ink, and mixed media (including photographs)
- Each section of this book explores an avenue of science denial, which it debunks and encourages readers to do their own research; a great book for information literacy