Lynn and I share a taste for ‘freak’ books, so titled because of both their content and the contribution to the field by the work of the aptly named Timothy Freake. It is difficult to define a freak book – like pornography, I know them when I see them. Lynn’s definition is a little clearer – freak books discuss worlds far different from those in which we live: alternative history, conspiracy theory, fringe science, occult… the key is that the arguments are often really plausible until the twist: “you had me until the lizard people.”
Aiming to be an anti-freak book this collection of essays , subtitled Debunking Pseudoscience, from Gardner’s regular column for the “Skeptical Inquirer” spans a range of topics (grouped under evolution vs creationism, astronomy, physics, social science, ufology, religion and others) and a number of years (though there is no mention of when each was originally published); many have addendum, with updates since publication of the original essay, and responses to mail generated at the time.
Gardner is a prominent figure in the science world – the late Stephen Jay Gould described his as: the single brightest beacon defending rationality and good science against the mysticism and anti-intellectualism that surrounds us.
Which is why I was so singularly disappointed by much of the writing here. Many of the topics addressed explore important issues – the worrying resurgence of creationism and ‘intelligent design’ in particular, but also false physics (“Zero Point Energy and Harold Puthoff”), willingness of ‘reputable’ journals to publish bunk (“Alan Sokal’s Hilarious Hoax”), and the disturbing issues that arise from having prominent politicians believe ridiculous things (“Claiborne Pell: Senator From Outer Space”). But these are combined with essays that aren’t relevant to the book’s stated theme: SF writers predicting the Internet (“The Internet: A World Brain?”), the odder notions of Issac Newton (“Issac Newton: Alchemist and Fundamentalist”), and the myth that a man who spurred on a cross-laden, labouring Jesus on now roams the planet awaiting Christ’s return (“The Wandering Jew”).
The essays often lack a strong central theme – on many occasions I was left wondering what the point of the paper was. In the case of the Newton essay Gardner does say that he wonders what brilliance the world missed out on because of Newton’s preoccupation with alchemy, but fails to consider that at the time (prior to the awareness of the periodic table, proving that an element, like gold, cannot in any way be created from another element, like lead) alchemy was considered a legitimate science. Gardner seems to put Newton’s notoriously antisocial and reclusive personality down to repressed homosexuality and/or his fundamentalist beliefs, though it is equally possible he had autism (and was highly functioning) and may not have made his discoveries otherwise. But there was no clear argument that Newton’s physics was impaired, that his beliefs or behaviour made him less credible, and there isn’t anything ‘debunked’.
I have a lot of sympathy for Gardner’s position – I agree that the world seems to be increasingly mired in spurious science, from the scare tactics of current affairs television through the creation of health care policy based on flawed statics to the frightening increase in mumbo-jumbo touted as scientific fact.
It is unfortunate that Gardner’s writing demonstrates so many freakish aspects itself. The book is disconcertingly self-referential, with a multitude of “see my chapter on X in publication Y” and “I discussed this in [another book]”. On a number of occasions he denounces the use of jargon, but all fields have technical terms, and often the papers who decries as jargonistic are from publications within the discipline. And there are entirely too many unnecessary exclamation marks for my taste – “You’ll never guess what native state harbours the most Baha’is. It is not California but South Carolina!” or “For an hour or two every night we go harmlessly insane!” etc. Which brings me to another (and final) criticism – there is no attempt to examine any of these topics with an open mind. I’m not defending any of the practices or beliefs that Gardner attacks, but a more neutral coverage would have generated a better read. Does South Carolina need to be ‘harboring’ Bajha’is? - Alex
No comments:
Post a Comment