Customer Reviews

Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

There are certain qualities and characteristics that make a great writer. One is the ability to write well, of course, but closely related is the ability to convey clear and succinct concepts in a way that communicates with the reader. The best authors all leave me with that "ahah" moment, as they teach me something I didn't know before.

For these reasons and others, Martin Gardner is one of my favorite authors. I've enjoyed his articles over the years, and find his books both refreshing and educational. This book, "Did Adam and Eve have Navels," is consistent with Gardner's reputation as one of the best science and mathematics authors around.

Gardner's book consists of a collection of essays (there are 28), each dealing with some aspect of pseudo science (or, in some cases, I'd call it pseudo logic). The title on the front of the jacket corresponds with the subject matter of the first essay. There is something about simple questions and observations that fascinates me. They tend to be overlooked or ignored, but often lead us to deep insights. In Gardner's first essay, he explores the logic - or lack of it - in the idea of the mythical Adam and Eve and whether they actually had belly buttons. This seems like a whimsical question, and one probably best forgotten by most people. The problem is, as Gardner points out, whether you answer the question "yes," or "no," there are unexpected consequences.

This is pretty much Gardner's style throughout the rest of the book, as he picks off one after the other unsupported idea or myth. Topics include ideas about intelligent design, egg balancing, numerology, Cannibalism as a myth, Freud, and the Star of Bethlehem.

Some of the most interesting stores Gardner tells, and some of the most alarming, are those that deal with pseudo science at the academic level in some of the nations more prestigious universities. There is the example of Courtney Brown (an associate professor of political science at Emory University) who claims to be able to do SRV (scientific remote viewing, which is another word for clairvoyance) and "Yogic flying." His book has received praise from the likes of Harvard psychiatrist John Mack, who believes that aliens from a different dimension are visiting earth, kidnapping its citizens, and doing some really nasty stuff to them.

There are also stories about the influence of political extremism on science, including the following statement from ultra feminist Lucy Irigary:

"Is E=Mc^2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest ..."

In addition to these exposed escapades, I think my favorite chapter was number 14, which describes "Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax." The hoax was a paper that Sokal submitted to the editors of "Social Text," in the Spring/Summer of 1996. Sokal wrote the paper as a hoax to illustrate the foolish things the journal would print, and their failure to engage in any sort of academically meaningful peer review. Sokal began his parody by explaining that there really isn't an objective world out there, that can be studied and understood by the scientific method. As Gardner put it, "the funniest part of Sokal's paper is its conclusion that science must emancipate itself from classical mathematics before it can become a "concrete tool of progressive political praxis."

If these stories didn't portend such dreadful consequences for public policy and science education in America, they'd be so funny you'd hardly be able to stop laughing. Or crying.

About the only complaint I have with Gardner's book is his tendency to laugh off some of the examples of scientific illiteracy. For anyone remotely familiar with science, the laughing off is understandable - as in the case of Lucy Irigary calling the equation E=Mc^2 sexed. The problem is, for those who don't really know much about science (either how it works, or what it says) some of the laughing off might look like pride, or the inability to deal logically with alternative ideas.

To a certain extent, I can understand what Gardner's doing. Some ideas are simply so absurd as to lack any respect at all. [And Gardner would point out that the reason they are absurd has to do with their failure to explain the evidence. So, this is not about pre-conceived perceptions, but about allowing the evidence to lead us to conclusions, instead of following our favorite myths, political convictions, or emotional desires.] Still, there were times I found myself wishing Gardner would say a little more about why some of the ideas in his examples were silly.

Anyway, I really liked this book. I highly recommend it to anyone. It's easy to read, well written, and for anyone concerned about the proliferation of pseudoscience in modern society, it's pretty much required reading.

I read the intelligent design chapter of this book in a bookstore and was interested enough to buy it and read the rest. Based on the marketing of the book (bearing the subtitle "Debunking Pseudoscience"), I expected to read a set of discussions explaining the flaws in the reasoning of purveyors of popular but incorrect science. This was certainly the model for the chapter on intelligent design, which addresses the common arguments for this "theory" and points out their problems.

However, upon reading the rest of the book I was dismayed to find that the majority of the chapters spend precious little time debunking flawed science, and mainly give an exhausting list of the instances of a particular misconception. For example, the chapter on urine therapy spends vastly more time on various incarnations of this technique than on medical evidence showing that urine has no therapeutic benefit. Gardner addresses this point briefly in one chapter, in which he states that he wouldn't waste print space trying to have an intelligent argument over whether a certain topic is right or wrong. The implication being that it is beneath his intelligence to do so. And to be fair, this thinking is true for a great many of the topics in the book, including remote viewing, second coming prophecies, and UFO cults.

I therefore feel somewhat mislead that a book subtitled "Debunking Pseudoscience" focuses less on the inaccuracies of scientific misconceptions and more on completely and obviously ridiculous crackpot ideas. Expanding on Gardner's comment, this is not "pseudoscience", "science" doesn't belong anywhere near the label of many of these subjects. Also problematic is that some of the more science-oriented chapters, such as the discussion of the existence of cannibalism, also don't debunk but instead present arguments over what is apparently a valid, ongoing scientific debate.

In summary, the book does contain a number of interesting discussions of misguided ideologies, but its appeal is from a historical perspective. Anyone expecting in depth scientific analysis should look elsewhere.

Martin Gardner's fifth collection of essays on fringe topics masquerading as science ranges from the historical to the contemporary, from the dubious to the outright fraudulent.

Like his previous anthologies, this one aims its weapons at a number of very easy targets, and--for the most part--Gardner is preaching to the choir. He's at his best when he's discussing historical subjects, such as Thomas Edison's flirtations with the occult, Isaac Newton's passion for alchemy, H. G. Well's predictions for the twentieth century, or the scriptural and literary foundations for the legend of the Wandering Jew. Also interesting are his essays on more obscure topics, especially when he provides detailed technical background and biographical information: Farrakhan's bizarre fascination with the number "19," Harold Puthoff's sham research on zero-point energy, and the hilarious egg-balancing hoax peddled by Donna Henes and other charlatans to a gullible media.

Gardner has little new to say in his essays on newsworthy topics from recent years--creationism, Freudian theory, the Alan Sokal hoax, Heaven's Gate, and Jean Houston (the channeler briefly consulted by Hillary Clinton)--although Gardner does say it with his trademark scorn and humor. Two exceptions are the essay on the late Senator Claiborne Pell's support for paranormal research (New Age pork I bet most of his constituents didn't know about) and the eye-opening chapter about Temple University's "Center for Frontier Sciences," an "academic" department that should embarrass students, faculty, and alumni alike.

Not a few readers have complained that, in some cases, Gardner doesn't provide enough science to disprove the topic at hand, or that he's too busy ridiculing rather than rebutting. There is some truth to this accusation: these articles were originally written for readers of "The Skeptical Inquirer," and Gardner doesn't revise them for a more general audience. Some subjects, however, are so far out there that it's futile even to attempt a "scientific" refutation: where does one even begin, for example, to attempt to discredit the farcical "anthropology" taught by the disciples of Carlos Castaneda? The type of person to believe this type of hokum certainly won't be persuaded by a more systematic debunking--and probably couldn't be convinced to read this book in the first place. Gardner settles for reporting on these movements rather than engaging with them, to the delight of skeptics everywhere.

I picked up this book because I had read Martin Gardner's colossal book of mathematics, an interesting look at all kinds of mathematical puzzles that was mentally stimulating for a mild geek such as myself; I would still give that book my highest recommendation. However, this book turned out to be the complete opposite.

Gardner certainly still has his heart in the right place: he chronicles a list of about 20 absurd beliefs, ranging from the effectiveness of urine therapy to abductions by UFOs. So far, nothing special: Gardner is just pointing out people who believe things that range between silly and fatally wrong.

But that's all he does. His book is, in effect, just a list of things that are blatantly false, as well as a tearing down of certain otherwise-admired figures (such as Isaac Newton) who held some such beliefs (Newton's crimes were an apparent obsession with alchemy as well as a belief in biblical literacy, such as creation in 6 days and the like). Gardner analyzes no contentious scientific issues, such as the effectiveness of certain vitamins or actual medical therapies, or the theoretical possibility of extraterrestrial life. He sticks to safe, easy targets, so much that his book is the literary equivalent of a group of friends ganging up to make fun of the village idiot.

Obviously, there are some people who believe this silliness, otherwise there would be no book. But these people are not in his target audience: if you use your astrological sign as anything but a conversation starter, this isn't the book for you. People looking for a rigorous scientific book should keep looking and, while they're looking, spend the time with one of Gardner's mathematics books instead.

At the age of 89, Martin Gardner is still debunking pseudoscience. The essays I found most enjoyable and enlightening are the two on Freudianism and the one on Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax. Perpretrated on the scientific ignoramuses of an indecipherable academic journal, physicist Sokal's hoax claimed, among many other absurdities, that "the axiom that two sets are identical if they have the same elements is a product of 'nineteenth-century liberalism.'"

Although it's hard to agree with Gardner on everything--I, most certainly, do not--I find it hard to imagine a thinking person who would not respect him and his work. He seems to have something interesting to say about almost everything. He may be a member of a vanishing breed, but I sincerely hope not.

The book is a collection of articles published previously by Gardner in different magazines. The length of each article and the press-like style makes it an easy reading for anyone. Definitely it is not the Gardner of "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener" but it constitutes a good illustration of how far we still are from achieving a society that thinks rationaly and scientifically even in the layer of highly educated people.

Gardner recognises that in the variety of topics and outrageus ideas covered in the book not all are of the same category. I would like to see Gardner describe his opinion on which are the criteria that should be met by highly speculative theories in different fields of knowledge that would allow them to be considered scientific speculation and not pseudo-science. How can we provide an open environment that will not kill creativity and at the same time maintain a rigorous scientific approach?

For european readers, either from catholic or lutheran backgrounds, it continues to be surprising to observe how widely spread the creationist mentality is still present in North America.

The references that Gardner makes to many of his readings constitutes a great source of information for further investigation.

If you liked Gardner in "The Whys" you will not find much value in reading this book. However you may want to give it as a gift in your campaign against irrationality, superstition and manipulation.

He talked about mad cow disease being caused by a "virus." It's not caused by a virus, it's caused by prions. If he had bothered to do any research whatsoever he would have learned this.

I was very disappointed in this book. He was supposed to be "debunking pseudoscience" but instead he just sort of laughed off some of the subjects. That is not "debunking" it is "mocking." Making fun of something is not the same as debunking. If he had put in a little more effort into researching the book and writing out why something is not factual instead of just scoffing, it might have actually delivered what the cover promised. Why not just call it, "Cocky Smart Guy Makes Fun of Unscientific Things?"

Yep, there are alot of inane and archaic beliefs out there. And they sure could use debunking, but you won't find that debunking here. I'm two thirds through this book and the author hasn't even attempted a head on debunking of any of the foolish misconceptions ... NOT ONE.

This book is clearly a reissue of a previous one by the author. At the end of each chapter he offers an "addendum" to update things since his last writing. But in neither the chapters themselves, nor the addendums, does he actually take on and refute the misconceptions and bizarre, patently absurd beliefs that he describes in repetitive droning detail.

Instead, he continually, almost obsessively, references other books and past articles from the preceding three or four decades which one presumes refute the misconceptions in detail; but never once does he himself infact define the actual scientific objections, or provide any evidence in refutation. AND THATS WHAT I BOUGHT THE BOOK FOR!!! I didn't buy it as a bibliography of sources for refutation.

I found this book tiresome, not particularly amusing, of little entertainment value, and largely uninformative. Frankly, it comes across as a cheap attempt at an extra payday by just republishing his prior writings with an add-on update.

Save your $3 - $4 plus shipping. If you want to be bored, I'd let you have my copy for free for $2.00 postage.

I wanted to like this book, as I tire of hearing and reading about people all around me expressing interest in literally incredible (not credible) stories and beliefs. I must say up front that it's been over a year since I read it, so I cannot go into detail. But my one clear memory is that I felt Mr. Gardner spent too much time expounding on each absurd or flimsy belief, rather than on taking that belief apart and explaining *why* it's absurd or flimsy. It was worth reading, but left me wanting more.

If you want a book that contains some great writing debunking psuedo-science then this is it. A great collection of writings on psuedo-science and some overlooked true science. This book is a truly great read and I would recommend it to anyone and everyone.