Skip to main content

Nonscience Returns - Brian Ford ****

This is a book of two halves, or more accurately two interlaced parts. Biologist and science communicator Brian Ford published a book called Nonscience in 1971. What we have here is that original book, but with a new introduction, while every chapter has an extra section on the end of it written in 2020 including text that is up-to-date enough to include, for example, the COVID-19 pandemic. The four star rating of Nonscience Returns is entirely and only for the extra material. I'm afraid the old material has not aged well, but the book is still worth reading for the modern parts.

 What we have here is a satirical look at the way that what used to be simple science has increasingly become a field where 'Experts' hold forth to the public and work primarily to forward their careers rather than carry out research that has any value. In the modern section, which we'll return to, Ford is great at bringing down pomposity and irrelevance. But let's get the original book out of the way first.

 Back in the late 1940s and 1950s, the author Stephen Potter wrote a number of parodies of self-help books, notably including Gamesmanship, Lifemanship and One-Upmanship. Portrayed on the screen as School for Scoundrels in 1960, the underlying idea was that Potter ran a self-help correspondence school that helped people get on in the world by being devious and totally self-centred. Ford seems to have modelled the original Nonscience on this approach, portraying it as a guide to becoming an Expert. Unfortunately, it has a very dated feel and a style of humour that is better suited to the 1940s than the present: I found it hard going.

 The modern sections are far better written and not trying so hard to be funny. This would have been so much better a book if Ford had simply based a new book on the old one, adopting his new style throughout. However, I do think it's worth reading, because underlying both old and new parts is a very real problem. There are plenty of people out there, often portrayed in the media as experts, who as Ford suggests practice not science but nonscience. They are engaged in pointless research, put out widely exaggerated press releases and are loved by the media as portraying expertise that is often not based on solid grounds.

 Ford gives strong examples, including some from the response to the pandemic. I have a lot of sympathy with his assertion that we (and the media) need to move away from putting too much trust (and public money) in the direction of these self-proclaimed experts, focussing more on the real science.

 There's more that Ford could have done. He makes no mention of what is surely the biggest example of nonscience (and dodgy experts), economics. And while there is plenty of negativity in criticising such people, there's no concrete suggestion of how academia could be reinvented to get it back to more of a true scientific approach. Even so, in an era of fake news, this is a timely reminder that science is not without its own flaws in this regard.
Hardback:   
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more