Customer Reviews

Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Discourses on Reflexology, Numerology, Urine Therapy, and Other Dubious Subjects

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I found this the chewiest of the four Martin Gardner collections that I have read. Once again the venerable champion of common sense assumes his role as the sorcerer's apprentice trying to sweep back the tide of pseudoscience. And once again he provides insight into just how overwhelming that task really is.

There are 28 essays in this collection, all but one from Gardner's column in the Skeptical Inquirer. They range over such matters as UFOs, religion, social science, astronomy, evolution versus creationism, etc. There is a chapter on "Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax." ( I too thought it was pretty hilarious. See my review of The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy (2000).) There is one on cannibalism in which I found Gardner's skepticism understandable, especially as he points out that it is always the other culture that makes the accusation; however his essay finally suggests that the debate may be more over the extent than in any doubt about its occurrence. The Adam and Eve question is of course a joke, but the kind of joke that has been taken seriously by some for hundreds of years. For me it's similar to the question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. More germane is the chapter, "Freud's Flawed Theory of Dreams" followed by "Post-Freudian Dream Theory" in which it is demonstrated once again that Freud was, shall we say, mistaken.

The chapter on Carlos Castaneda is illuminating in what it reveals about the gullibility of some anthropologists, while the essay on the ill-fated Heaven's Gate "Bo and Peep" cult is sad. Gardner has some fun with Jean Houston, channeling master and New Age guru to Hillary Rodman Clinton. Apparently Houston's spin on channeling is that it is a kind of trance experience that allows one to come into contact with Jung's "collective unconscious" (p. 125). Notable is Gardner's accusation that Temple University "has become a center for the promulgation of some of the wildest aspects of pseudoscience" (p. 221). (Can Harvard be next?) I was amused to find that the "urine therapy" that Gardner takes apart really is predicated upon the use of human urine. I had seen the name before but naively thought it was "Your-reen therapy" after somebody's surname! The final chapter, "Science and the Unknowable" is a fine essay on the philosophy of science.

One of the very best reasons for reading Gardner is to appreciate how clear his expression is, and how readable he makes just about any subject (including the philosophy of science!). He has a gift for making the abstract concrete and the obtuse transparent. May his tribe increase.

Martin Gardner chronicles human folly in his magazine columns and this book is a collection of his recent work. Each chapter is freestanding, representing a recent column, with the author's updated thinking on the subject at the end of the chapter. The columns are grouped by general subject matter. In each chapter, Gardner lampoons some error in human thinking, effectively revealing the errors during the column and then moving on to another foible in the next segment.

This is pleasant, entertaining reading and will revive the skeptic in each reader. Fortunately for Gardner, the list of human intellectual errors is a long one, allowing Gardner the comfort of endless material from which to select for future subject matter.

In short, a very entertaining book.

Why does Gardner think of himself as a debunker of pseudoscience if he never debunks anything? He takes the attitude that it is beneath him to actually explain why these ufologists, New Age therapists, et al, are nuts. Consequently: (1) The layman will learn very little practical science (other than an interesting chapter about dreams); and (2) this book will appeal only to those who are already inclined to agree with him--and maybe not even them, as I found him to be self-righteous and not terribly instructive.

Compare Gardner's work to the infinitely superior work of Carl Sagan, esp. The Demon-Haunted World. Sagan fights stupidity with FACTS and SCIENCE, not simply labeling people as kooky. (We KNOW they're kooky already--explain WHY!) I give this book 3 stars because I don't want to suggest it's bad, as much as it is a missed opportunity.

With the demise of Carl Sagan, Martin Gardner perhaps gains the crown of America's leading scientific skeptic. In this collection of essays (all but one from the Skeptical Inquirer), he neatly skewers numerous examples of pseudoscience, from those listed in the subtitle to other, more legitimate topics like Freudian psychotherapy and UFOs. He also has chapters on Isaac Newton, who, it is found, is not so much the first scientist as the last alchemist, and religion as addressed by Stephen Jay Gould and Charles Darwin.

As usual, skeptics will be entertained and believers will be outraged. As a skeptic myself, I found it entertaining if mostly lightweight reading, with the sections less involved with pseudoscience (like the ones mentioned above) the more interesting.

Another priceless installment of the essays of Martin Gardner, collected from his "Skeptical Inquirer" column "notes of a fringe watcher." Like all of his writings on pseudoscience and new age junk thinking, 'Adam and Eve' is a mix of insightful observations and penetrating analysis. Gardner has such a grasp of history and literature that it is hard to imagine anyone have the breadth of knowledge he brings to a topic. I invariably finish reading one of his essays nodding my head and thinking, "I wish I'd said that." Gardner has a way of capturing the essence of an argument that makes me feel like he's giving word to my own thoughts.

The title essay focuses on the dilemma of fundamentalists who would insist on a young earth in spite of the crushing weight of scientific evidence to the contrary. God, they claim, simply created everything with the "appearance of age." Thus the question, did Adam and Eve have navels, is relevant. If they didn't, then they were not perfect human beings, as Genesis says and theology demands. If they did, than God added the navels to preserve the appearance of parentage, adding a deceptive element to the creation of the first humans. Gardner's essay traces the history of the argument, which he shows is not new at all, throughout history and literature.

Gardner's other essays include topics as diverse as egg balancing on the equinox, quantum mechanics and the supernatural beliefs and writings of Isaac Newton.

I've written elsewhere that Martin Gardner is one of the few people I can personally point to as a intellectual mentor. His books illustrate a clarity of thinking and writing that is rare enough these days. Gardner is a breath of fresh air in a world of pseudoscientific smog.

Martin Gardner is the ultimate advocate of common sense. He wields Occam's razor as a deadly weapon (quite possibly it is not my metaphor, I might have read it on the dustjacket of one of his books; but it's very appropriate anyway). All sorts of quacks and cranks are mercilessly analyzed and dethroned in his numerous books. This collection is one in a series of many similar attacks on fringe and crank science - or, rather, on cranks and wackos posing as scientists, sometimes with some success.

The necessity, indeed the very existence of books such as this, is a lamentable fact. Gardner himself deplores it, inviting the reader to compare the size of a New Age section with the Science section in any bookshop. If we move eastwards, to Russia, for example, the contrast would be even more striking. Sorcerers and gnomes are given ample air time on radio and TV, run sindicated columns in newspapers, attract audiences of thousands and brainwash people with irresponsible and unintelligible jargon. And "intellectuals" are often the first to fall for these traps.

There is a curious pattern here, which Gardner, in my opinion, fails to stress enough. Quite often the most powerful crazy ideas emerge from the minds of real, reputable scientists - but these ideas have little or nothing to do with the field where they excel. It is natural for an inquisitive mind to probe other areas of knowledge. But if you lack the training and the set of mind necessary for a totally different domain - well, it's your responsibility. Such prophets are among the most harmful, because - hey, look, the guy's got a Ph.D.! Surely he must know what he's talking about!

Should Gardner be aware of the Russian pseudo-science scene, he would have certainly included in his collection an essay on Nikolai Fomenko, a mathematician of the highest rank (and an interesting graphical artist). Years ago, Fomenko developed an unhealthy interest in history and decided that all existing chronology was rubbish. Not a new idea; it has long been thought by conspiracy buffs that the whole classical civilization was an invention of the Renaissance. But coupled with astronomical calculations and the "discovery" of mysterious cycles in world history, and endorsed by Fomenko's otherwise good reputation in his own field, it exploded. Gullible humanities students could not verify Fomenko's maths, and had to take his word for it. Budding science students could not see any major flaws in his calculations, and believed the impossible abracadabra he wrote about history. His stretches of imagination were so far-fetched that even to expose them would seem ridiculous. Just one example: "pharaoh" and "Frenchman" are the same word, denoting the same object, don't you see - F-R. It would have been very nice, in case the ancient Egyptians used Latin (or Cyrillic, for that matter) alphabet. They didn't.

Books - whole books! - were published, defending history from Fomenko's killing spree. Mathematicians and astronomers pointed out evident, freshman mistakes in his calculations. The tide seems to have abated somewhat, but there are other examples. One particular (late) ethnographer is extremely popular in the circles of technical intelligentsia and among scientits - because they fail to see his wild conjectures. His initial idea, that the landscape forms the mindset of a nation, is sound enough, if not quite original; but everything that follows is an extravaganza of twisted facts and non-facts.

What I am trying to say is that any Gardners out there are vastly outnumbered by believers in alien abductions and Freudian analysis. (It was a relief for me to learn that serious psychologists in the West have long stopped seeing Freud as a scientist. I am not trying to say that he was not a genius.) Being a science jounalist is unpopular and unglamourous. (Unless you are Gardner, with his impressive list of books on every possible subject.) That's a shame.

In this collection, Gardner sometimes fails to make his point. When he describes two opposing theories, it is often unclear which one he favors. Some of the articles seem more like advertising for dubious practices (such as urine therapy), because they discuss them at length, give relevant names, addresses and websites, and very little to oppose it. Some others seem like pieces of narration ripped out of context. But it's the big picture that matters: sharp mind and common sense can and should fight the bizarre, the crazy and the misguided.

Martin Gardner surprises us again with his new work about scientific fraud. Together with Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan, Gardner shows us the real way of science. This book is a rich in surprising information an clear writing.

The major problem most people have with science is that assumption that it is just a replacement for religion. It is not a replacement of religion. It is a way of finding out things about the universe we live in. Martin Gardner tries to explain this with every essay he writes. He then contrasts the scientific approach with the religious approach to questions: basically accepting everything your teacher's tell you as totally true based only on faith. Religious belief does not really allow for the concept that the people who tell you these things might very well be - in any way, wrong. Science openly says, "This might be wrong" as an underlying assumption to all inquiry. This makes the scientific method, in the long run, inherently self-correcting.

The title of the book addresses the question: did Adam and Eve have navels? This is one of the big questions the inquiry into which religious followers have dealt... wasting a lot of time and thought on something that really doesn't allow for questioning in the first place. There is no real way to collect evidence on the question. It forces the questioner to almost make up an answer and then attempt to justify it one way or another... especially when you consider that many "believers" won't accept that the answer might be "I don't know".

He then goes on to examine other new religions, like the UFO cultists, quack medicine, and various fringe quasi-scientific and religious beliefs from a multitude of places around the world. All of them have the same basic response to those who question them: you have to have faith for you to see the righteous of our belief... while at the same time maintaining that their beliefs are entirely logical supported by externally verifiable evidence. How they can say both these things at the same time and not understand they are contradicting themselves requires fits of mental gymnastics worthy only of those suffering under heavy self-delusion.

Gardner explores lots of these belief systems and responds to them in a truly logical way. He doesn't always reach a conclusion, because sometimes the evidence does not allow for one, and Gardner doesn't then just decide to make one up.

Religion wants clear and succinct answers to all questions, where as the scientific method does not require them. Which is the appeal of the new fringe quasi-scientific religious cultists. It is also they're weakness... as the answers they offer are really nothing more than mind candy to those of low intellectual ability.

This book was awesome. It is basically a collection of essays that Gardener has written for the Skeptical Inquirier. These essays are really informative and sometimes down right hilarious. He is basically pointing out how silly lots of fringe science is. Things like ufology, urine therapy (that is a gross one), and other paranormal ideas. After reading this book you realize just how many fruitcakes are wandering around the world. Some of these fruitcakes are well educated, some are run of the mill crazy people, and sadly I think that many of them are fakes who prey unsuspecting people. This book should be required reading, so many people get sucked in by these fruitcakes and end up buying super magnet chairs or signing up for a $3000 workshop about remote viewing. You can't under estimate how much influence these fringe groups have. I mean there are even psychics for dogs. If your a skeptic (or just an ordinary person who thinks about things) and want a good laugh get the book. If your thinking about the validity of some lunatic fringe idea, then read the book and you will realize just how big of a mistake you were about to make. If your a psychic, dog energy channeler, or a practitioner of reflexology read the book, you may see the error in your ways and rejoin the real world. Actually, if your heavy into one of these silly practices you'll just get ..., which is fine. Afterall, you can't expect to steal people's money and not get a little heat for it.

If you are looking for anything having to do with common sense, "tried and true" unbiased scientific thought and method, helpful material, undisputable evidence in favor of evolution, you will not find it within the pages of this book. While the material is cliché, it still does not warrant the cost of the book, for any purpose other than something to prop a door open.

A good rule of thumb, if there are several authors on the back cover of the book that are known room temperature IQ types that are singing its praises, it isn't worth the trouble of reading it.