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

Who Invented the Computer? – Ian Watson

Ian Watson is the author of  The Universal Machine  and featured in a recent  Four Way Interview . Saturday June 23 2012 was the centenary of the birth of Alan Turing, the troubled genius who invented the modern computer. Why though do so few people recognize his name and his great achievements? In 1936 English mathematician Alan Turing, published a paper,  On Computable Numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem . This became the foundation of computing. In it Turing presented a theoretical machine that could solve any problem that could be described by instructions encoded on a paper tape. A Turing Machine could calculate square roots, whilst another might solve Sudoku puzzles. Turing demonstrated you could construct a single  Universal Machine  that could simulate any Turing Machine. One machine solving any problem for which a program could be written – sound familiar? He’d invented the computer. Then,  computers  were peop...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Star Book – Peter Grego ****

This attractive landscape format book combines an excellent introduction to the stars and basic astronomy with a set of star maps, plus in depth looks at some of the stars featured, with a  bonus section on the solar system. Amazon says it’s a hardback, but in fact it’s a paperback with a rather ingenious cover – you can’t tell from the photo, but the words ‘The Star Book’ are punched through as a series of holes that show the white paper of the next page beneath. Like many astronomy/space books, the cover lacks shelf appeal because it is mostly black, but at least there is some original thought here. Unlike many books in this format which tend to concentrate on the pictures, there is a good deal of excellent text by Peter Grego, so there was no feeling that you were only getting the star maps and star ‘biographies’, something these days much more suited to an iPad or smartphone app. Instead, the opening 30 or so pages give a very good introduction that would be valuable to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ignorance: How it drives science – Stuart Firestein *****

This is a delightful little book that really gets you thinking. I stress the ‘little’ part not as a negative, but as a good thing. There is nothing worse than fat, bloated popular science books where the author feels they have to get 120,000 words to be taken seriously. This is the sort of book that can be read in a couple of hours – but you will get so much more out of it than one of those tedious doorstops. The premise underlying the book is in once sense extremely simple, yet is fundamental to an understanding of what science is and what scientists do. And it is an understanding that is totally at odds with the typical way science is portrayed both in university lectures and popular science books. As Stuart Firestein points out, what is important is not the facts, but rather the area of ignorance. The interesting part and the fundamental heart of science is not about what we know, but about what we don’t know and where we want to look next. Take this lovely quote: ‘Working ...
Post a Comment
Read more