Skip to main content

Why Trust Science? - Naomi Oreskes ***

I'm giving this book three stars for the topic and content - if I went on readability alone, I'd only give it two. I wanted to mention this upfront. It might seem a little unfair of me to expect an academic book to be readable but a) there's no reason why they shouldn't be and b) there's no point writing a book like this unless it is approachable by those outside academia, otherwise you're just preaching to the converted. Also the blurb does not suggest it is being aimed at an academic audience.

The book has a strange format. We get two chapters from Naomi Oreskes (based on lectures), then several chapters by other people commenting on what Oreskes wrote, then Oreskes returns to respond to the comments. In those opening chapters, there was a lot to like. It was good to gain a more detailed view of philosophy and sociology of science, as mine had been what is probably the typical view of a scientist who has read a little on the topic but not enough. I tended to think: Popper - good but too simple, Kuhn - interesting but a lot weirder than most scientists think, and the weirdos - anything goes. Here there was far more gradation and some thought-provoking material on subjectivity in science.

I was disappointed there wasn't more on reproducibility, p-hacking, small sample sizes, poor studies and the way that the media picks up on poor studies as if they were facts, giving the public the idea that science flip-flops, but this was discussed at length, if rather oddly in one of the commentaries. There were also a couple of oddities in the main text. It gave the wrong date for a book by Galton, and there was a very worrying statement in support of 'traditional medicine' that seemed to confuses medicine - which is more like engineering - with medical science. Traditional medicine may have some successes (just as medieval architects with no scientific knowledge) but has no scientific validity. Note that this is quite distinct from the problematic distinction between science and technology that Oreskes later describes. Technology here is based on science, but traditional medicine is not.

The book got harder to read once we reached the commentaries. It was partly my fault, as to start with I totally missed that from chapter 3 onwards each chapter was written by someone else. The result was that, for a while, it seemed the author was unnervingly agreeing with herself in the third person: ‘Oreskes shows how much science now needs defenders, and defenses… This kind of argument is utterly persuasive to me.’ It was also the case that some of the authors had less writing ability than Oreskes. I rest my case here with the phrase 'everyday technologies make visible the imbrication of science in quotidian life.' Right.

Much of the response to the commentaries was also distinctly dull, often comprising of two academics patting each other on the back, though it did get mildly entertaining when Oreskes tore the arguments of one of her fellow professors apart.

This is a very important topic, and there are good points hidden amongst the unnecessary academic language - it's just a shame it's not a better-written book.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sticky - Laurie Winkless *****

There has been a suggestion doing the rounds that if you don't get into a book after the first few pages, you should give it up - because life's too short. If I'd followed this suggestion, I wouldn't have discovered what a brilliant book Sticky is. I'll get back to that, but it's worth saying first why Laurie Winkless's book on what makes things sticky, produces friction and grip - or for that matter lubricates - is so good. Without doubt, Winkless is great at bringing storytelling to her writing. She frames her information well with interviews, visits to places and her personal experiences. But of itself, that isn't enough. The reason, for example, I was captivated by her section on the remarkable (though oddly, given the book's title, entirely non-sticky) adhesive qualities of the gecko's foot was really about the way that Winkless takes us through the different viewpoints on how the foot's adhesion works. We get plenty of science and also

The Car That Knew Too Much - Jean-François Bonnefon ****

This slim book is unusual in taking us through the story of a single scientific study - and it's very informative in the way that it does it. The book makes slightly strange reading, as I was one of the participants in the study - but that's not surprising. According to Jean-François Bonnefon, by the time the book was published, around 100 million people worldwide had taken part in the Moral Machine experiment. The idea behind the study was to see how the public felt self-driving cars should make what are effectively moral decisions. Specifically, in a dilemma where there was a choice to be made between, say, killing one or other person or groups of people, how should the car decide? As a concept, Bonnefon makes it clear this is a descendent of the classic 'trolley' problem where participants are asked to decide, for example, whether or not to switch the points so a tram that is currently going to kill five people will be switched to a track where it will kill one perso

Laurie Winkless - Four Way Interview

Laurie Winkless ( @laurie_winkless ) is an Irish physicist and author. After a physics degree and a masters in space science, she joined the UK’s National Physical Laboratory as a research scientist, specialising in functional materials. Now based in New Zealand, Laurie has been communicating science to the public for 15 years. Since leaving the lab, she has worked with scientific institutes, engineering companies, universities, and astronauts, amongst others. Her writing has featured in outlets including Forbes, Wired, and Esquire, and she appeared in The Times magazine as a leading light in STEM. Laurie’s first book was Science and the City , and her new title is Sticky , also published by Bloomsbury. Why science? I was a very curious kid: always asking questions about how things worked. I suspect I drove my parents mad, but they never showed it. Instead, they encouraged me to explore those questions. From taking me to the library every week, to teaching me how to use different tools