Take a photo of a barcode or cover
whiteowl 's review for:
Bad Science
by Ben Goldacre
Maybe 2.5 stars. It was ok. I didn't like Goldacre's style of writing much, and there were errors that should have been picked up at editing.
Working in research I knew a lot of what he was talking about already: that not all research is properly done and all has its flaws etc. I've also never trusted a journalist or a homeopath so that was nothing new. But it was interesting and enlightening (frightening) to extent to which some of them will go.
I think maybe someone who doesn't know that much about research may benefit from the book more than I did. And as he repeatedly says, he's making things easier to understand so that it's readable for everybody not just 'geeks' like himself. I especially think that people who believe that what they read in the news is always correct and the 'specialists' or 'experts' quoted are actually experts in the field and/or are credible should read this.
His little footnote on page 254 irritated me: 'I'd be genuinely intrigued to know how long it takes to find someone who can tell you the difference between 'median', 'mean' and 'mode' from where you are sitting right now.' Sitting reading your book you cocky little shit. That was one among quite a few little remarks that makes him seem like he thinks he is one of very few people who actually understands research. I found myself complaining out loud to my partner about a few of the things he says because they were irritating. This is why I cannot rate the book higher, and why 3 stars may be too generous.
Working in research I knew a lot of what he was talking about already: that not all research is properly done and all has its flaws etc. I've also never trusted a journalist or a homeopath so that was nothing new. But it was interesting and enlightening (frightening) to extent to which some of them will go.
I think maybe someone who doesn't know that much about research may benefit from the book more than I did. And as he repeatedly says, he's making things easier to understand so that it's readable for everybody not just 'geeks' like himself. I especially think that people who believe that what they read in the news is always correct and the 'specialists' or 'experts' quoted are actually experts in the field and/or are credible should read this.
His little footnote on page 254 irritated me: 'I'd be genuinely intrigued to know how long it takes to find someone who can tell you the difference between 'median', 'mean' and 'mode' from where you are sitting right now.' Sitting reading your book you cocky little shit. That was one among quite a few little remarks that makes him seem like he thinks he is one of very few people who actually understands research. I found myself complaining out loud to my partner about a few of the things he says because they were irritating. This is why I cannot rate the book higher, and why 3 stars may be too generous.