Scan barcode
antlersantlers's review against another edition
5.0
A no-nonsense graphic novel about science denial. The art is super simple (which might be distracting or lower the rating for some), but the ideas come through clear as a bell. The only bad thing about this book is that it bummed me out super hard that there are so many dummos who believe nonsense and deny genuine science.
The one odd chapter was about fracking. I don't really disagree, but it seemed really tonally dissimilar to the rest of the book.
The one odd chapter was about fracking. I don't really disagree, but it seemed really tonally dissimilar to the rest of the book.
greeniezona's review against another edition
4.0
This book caught my eye on a recent trip to the bookstore, and I bought it on impulse. A non-fiction graphic "novel" about science denialism and various quackery? I mean, how could I resist?
Cunningham chose topics that are intentionally controversial. The kinds of things that cause comment wars in science blogs over and over again: The Moon Hoax, Homeopathy, Chiropractic, The MMR Vaccination Scandal, Evolution, Fracking, and Climate Change. Which is exactly how they appear in the table of comments, though there is also a final chapter on Science Denialism in general.
This was a fast read, visceral and concise. That makes the essays great nuggets for urging on a science-denying friend, but I sometimes wished for a little less brevity, particularly in the Moon Hoax chapter, But what I do particularly like about this book is that Cunningham does not try to set himself up as the ultimate authority on any of these issues. Rather, what he is promoting is the scientific method itself -- which, by its very nature is open to new conclusions should new evidence become available.
So, yes. There are a few chapters that I'm yearning to find a tactful way to force on some particular friends who jumped instantly to mind. If that process is successful, this book will have paid for itself in spades. Until then, I suppose it can find a happy enough spot on my shelves.
Cunningham chose topics that are intentionally controversial. The kinds of things that cause comment wars in science blogs over and over again: The Moon Hoax, Homeopathy, Chiropractic, The MMR Vaccination Scandal, Evolution, Fracking, and Climate Change. Which is exactly how they appear in the table of comments, though there is also a final chapter on Science Denialism in general.
This was a fast read, visceral and concise. That makes the essays great nuggets for urging on a science-denying friend, but I sometimes wished for a little less brevity, particularly in the Moon Hoax chapter, But what I do particularly like about this book is that Cunningham does not try to set himself up as the ultimate authority on any of these issues. Rather, what he is promoting is the scientific method itself -- which, by its very nature is open to new conclusions should new evidence become available.
So, yes. There are a few chapters that I'm yearning to find a tactful way to force on some particular friends who jumped instantly to mind. If that process is successful, this book will have paid for itself in spades. Until then, I suppose it can find a happy enough spot on my shelves.
danaya's review against another edition
3.0
A quick read that is perfect for someone who is intrigued by science but has little-to-no knowledge of how scientific research is carried out. The book explores various topics that have been previously brought up in the media, and at one point (some still today), have been considered controversial. Both sides of the coin are presented, but I think the author could have put more effort into the backing up of the arguments with evidence. Apart from that, the illustrations are eye-catching, and as such, do a good job at keeping you focused. All in all, a great read that I would definitely recommend to people who are intrigued by science and are just getting into the field.
pmileham's review against another edition
4.0
This was really good and thought-provoking. It was like reading the love child of Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics and Phil Plait's blog, Bad Astronomy.
skyepieonthefly's review against another edition
2.0
I'll just start by saying that I do believe in the things he is discussing in his book, and honesty I am probably the audience that is most likely to pick this up. I know a little bit to have a fairly good idea and opinion on the topic but want some good solid facts to back this up when discussing with the naysayers.
I felt this book was too rudimentary for it, in fact it came off as an angry person arguing on Facebook and pulling facts that they heard somewhere. In fact a large proportions of his "sources" are the same ones her critiques for spreading this misconceptions.
Also I feel that the graphic novel medium was not used to its potential. This felt like a bunch of pamphlets that he tried to connect to pictures, which did not add to his argument.
Overall I feel this was a good idea, just poorly constructed
I felt this book was too rudimentary for it, in fact it came off as an angry person arguing on Facebook and pulling facts that they heard somewhere. In fact a large proportions of his "sources" are the same ones her critiques for spreading this misconceptions.
Also I feel that the graphic novel medium was not used to its potential. This felt like a bunch of pamphlets that he tried to connect to pictures, which did not add to his argument.
Overall I feel this was a good idea, just poorly constructed
melodyriggs's review against another edition
3.0
Loved the moon landing section. The rest of the book totally went another direction with topics that are more hotly debated. To be fair- science proves that these things are real (like climate change) but Cunningham then points the finger at the media for giving coverage to science deniers in the name of not being biased. While that’s a valid point, it made each of the topics that came after the moon landing seem the same. I would’ve liked to have seen more topics like the moon landing discussed and drawn.
buildhergender's review against another edition
4.0
Good collection of debunking subjects presented in comic form.
Drawing is pretty basic but most of the arguments are well laid out and references provided.
The weaker of the bunch is against Fracking where he does a good job of showing the chemicals and possible problems with it, he shows incidents of ground water pollution but can not connect the two.
Basically it boils down to I’m pretty sure these are related but I have no definitive proof. Which is what I believe but not the best basis for an argument
Drawing is pretty basic but most of the arguments are well laid out and references provided.
The weaker of the bunch is against Fracking where he does a good job of showing the chemicals and possible problems with it, he shows incidents of ground water pollution but can not connect the two.
Basically it boils down to I’m pretty sure these are related but I have no definitive proof. Which is what I believe but not the best basis for an argument
kare's review against another edition
2.0
It's a quick read, but I found it over-simplifying. I think his data is right, but the presentation didn't click with me.