Skip to main content

On the Fringe - Michael Gordin *****

This little book is a pleasant surprise. That word 'little', by the way, is not intended as an insult, but a compliment. Kudos to OUP for realising that a book doesn't have to be three inches thick to be interesting. It's just 101 pages before you get to the notes - and that's plenty.

The topic is fringe science or pseudoscience: it could be heavy going in a condensed form, but in fact Michael Gordin keeps the tone light and readable. In some ways, the most interesting bit is when Gordin plunges into just what pseudoscience actually is. As he points out, there are elements of subjectivity to this. For example, some would say that string theory is pseudoscience, even though many real scientists have dedicated their careers to it. Gordin also points out that, outside of denial (more on this a moment), many supporters of what most of us label pseudoscience do use the scientific method and see themselves as doing actual science.

Gordin breaks pseudoscience down into a number of types (though these can overlap), an analysis that is very revealing. Some he describes as vestigial science - people clinging onto a theory after the scientific consensus has moved away from it. (Pointing out that occasionally the pendulum can swing back.) Others he describes as 'hyperpoliticized sciences' - the Nazi's 'German' science, for example, or the Soviet Union's suppression of genetics under Stalin. In other cases, the driver is 'fighting establishment science' - here the pseudoscience is supported by conventional means such as journals and conferences, but set up in opposition to what is seen as restrictive establishment view. (He also gives over a chapter to mental science, including ESP, though this seems the weakest content of the book, as it isn't really an equivalent category.)

What was also interesting was Gordin's relatively brief coverage of denial, which despite being brief handles the topic much better here than McIntyre's complete book on it, How to Talk to a Science Denier. Denial, as Gordin points out, is not what is involved with something like Flat Earth 'science' or 'creation science'. Supporters of these concepts believe they are presenting the scientific truth. It is rather when an anti-science viewpoint is deliberately pushed to support a different agenda - whether it's over the impact of cigarette smoking or climate change. The technique here is not an attempt to be scientific, but a deliberate move to cast doubt on the science, always suggesting there needs to be more evidence.

I appreciate this book is quite a niche interest, but for me it was fascinating. It might feel as if it's a bit of a cop-out that Gordin effectively says there aren't really solutions to this - the only way to get rid of pseudoscience (as opposed to denial) is to get rid of science, but I suspect he is right. Either way it's a very effective and readable analysis.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on...