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

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

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more