Skip to main content

The Science of Weird Shit - Chris French ****

This is a highly engaging topic, but before diving into the content of the book I ought to mention two issues with its title. The first is that in this age of algorithmic censorship, the final word of the title can cause problems - the publisher had an issue with publicity emails being caught by spam filters, and I'm nervous enough about the contents of this review being pulled that I won't use it in the text.

The other, more subtle problem is that it's only partially what the book is about - as the subtitle makes clear. Most of it doesn't concern the science of weird stuff, but rather the science of why many of us believe weird stuff. Those aren't the same things. Such is the joy of titles - often hard to get right.

But what about the book itself? Considering it's covering what can be quite a showy field, it takes a measured approach (in fact, I'd say occasionally it's a bit too academic in feel, focused on relating facts with limited storytelling). However, there is enough narrative to keep the interest going. Chris French begins by clarifying what's meant both by paranormal phenomena and his wider field of anomalistic psychology, which takes in things like ghosts and alien abduction which don't fit into the main paranormal buckets of ESP, telekinesis and communication with the dead.

One thing this does do is bring in topics like sleep paralysis, which definitely exist, but have traditionally been given supernatural explanations, where we now know that there are good scientific reasons for what is experienced. As well as the topics mentioned above, French does a good job of taking us through near-death experiences, the counterintuitive nature of probability that lead to coincidences being more likely than we realise, dreams that are supposed to predict the future and the limits of scepticism. It's common for true believers to argue that sceptics are just out to prove them wrong, but (despite the subtitle) French does plausibly seem to take an objective viewpoint and feels as if he would be very pleased if something real could be discovered.

Any book covering psychology these days ought to bring up the replication crisis early on and to make clear if any studies referenced have small sample sizes, or gave the potential for p-hacking and other statistical misdemeanours - which means the research needs to be treated with significant scepticism itself. French does go into this at some length, especially since evidence for phenomena that appear to contradict the known laws of nature needs to be very strong. However, this comes at the end of the book. This feels a bit like the way that newspaper articles often make a bold scientific claim for which there isn't good evidence, but only point out the limitations right at the end of the article. A fairer approach would be to put the concerns about psychology studies up front, and to make clear which of the studies referenced in the book have been replicated and are good quality.

Overall, I didn't find this book as much fun as I'd hoped, though I understand why it is written the way it is. Even so, French does an excellent job in making the reader more aware of anomalistic psychology, and giving us a picture of the current state of the field.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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

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