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

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more