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

The Infinite Alphabet - Cesar Hidalgo ****

Although taking a very new approach, this book by a physicist working in economics made me nostalgic for the business books of the 1980s. More on why in a moment, but Cesar Hidalgo sets out to explain how it is knowledge - how it is developed, how it is managed and forgotten - that makes the difference between success and failure. When I worked for a corporate in the 1980s I was very taken with Tom Peters' business books such of In Search of Excellence (with Robert Waterman), which described what made it possible for some companies to thrive and become huge while others failed. (It's interesting to look back to see a balance amongst the companies Peters thought were excellent, with successes such as Walmart and Intel, and failures such as Wang and Kodak.) In a similar way, Hidalgo uses case studies of successes and failures for both businesses and countries in making effective use of knowledge to drive economic success. When I read a Tom Peters book I was inspired and fired up...

God: the Science, the Evidence - Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies ***

This is, to say the least, an oddity, but a fascinating one. A translation of a French bestseller, it aims to put forward an examination of the scientific evidence for the existence of a deity… and various other things, as this is a very oddly structured book (more on that in a moment). In The God Delusion , Richard Dawkins suggested that we should treat the existence of God as a scientific claim, which is exactly what the authors do reasonably well in the main part of the book. They argue that three pieces of scientific evidence in particular are supportive of the existence of a (generic) creator of the universe. These are that the universe had a beginning, the fine tuning of natural constants and the unlikeliness of life.  To support their evidence, Bolloré and Bonnassies give a reasonable introduction to thermodynamics and cosmology. They suggest that the expected heat death of the universe implies a beginning (for good thermodynamic reasons), and rightly give the impression tha...

The War on Science - Lawrence Krauss (Ed.) ****

At first glance this might appear to be yet another book on how to deal with climate change deniers and the like, such as How to Talk to a Science Denier.   It is, however, a much more significant book because it addresses the way that universities, government and pressure groups have attempted to undermine the scientific process. Conceptually I would give it five stars, but it's quite heavy going because it's a collection of around 18 essays by different academics, with many going over the same ground, so there is a lot of repetition. Even so, it's an important book. There are a few well-known names here - editor Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker - but also a range of scientists (with a few philosophers) explaining how science is being damaged in academia by unscientific ideas. Many of the issues apply to other disciplines as well, but this is specifically about the impact on science, and particularly important there because of the damage it has been doing...