Customer Reviews

Silencing Science

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Any rational and freedom-loving person will agree with the thrust
of this book. That said, I got three unpleasant surprises when
it arrived.
1) It's only 66 pages. More of a pamphlet than a book.
2) It does not go into detail on most of the past controversies
in which science was (allegedly) silenced. You're left to try to
research them yourself (mostly without even any references).
3) The sarcastic tone in which it is written (as an alleged
manual for "how to silence science") completely omits to address
the question of whether any of the villains it names actually had
the motive of wanting to silence science (as opposed to, for
instance, legitimate reasons for doubting the validity of that
science). It seems to me that any book that makes such a nasty
accusation, and does so on the ground that "science deserves to
be heard" at that, should at least make some serious attempt to
prove that accusation. This has not been done.
Summary: This book is worth having if only to begin discussion
of an important topic. But buy it used (it's not worth the new
price) and don't treat it as the last word on anything.

This book should be required reading by all thinking persons--not because the authors get it right or because they support my pet notions (I certainly disagree with some of their positions) but because they challenge a number of cherished ideas, particularly those of the environmentalist camp. What good is an idea if it's too fragile to examine honestly? The authors' tongue-in-cheek style make this an easy book to read, but the overall message, whether you agree with their conclusions or not, is an important one: don't just accept what you're told as fact, go out and discover the truth!

Being a Pre-med student majoring in Microbiology at a major university known for being liberal, one would expect that I would hate this book. One would be wrong. What I hate is the use of "junk science" by environmentalists and policy makers. Not only does this prevent real scientific progress, but it can actually cause real harm to society. This book calls for a separation of politics and science, for they make strange and dangerous bedfellows. It's a must read for anyone intersted in preserving real science.

Lays out numerous examples of science being swept uo under the rug because it didn't produce the desired answer. Funny too. The book should be required reading in highschool science classes.

I am a skeptical professional scientist looking for alternate views on how science should be conducted. This book is a joke, and a short one with big margins, that isn't funny. It may be valuable if you are considering writing a book and want to feel encouraged by how bad you can be and still get published. The authors get close to some significant worries about the misuse of science, but come nowhere near capturing our interest, preoccupied as they are with getting the 59 pages written. It took me an hour to read; it can't have taken them more than a weekend to write. We'd love to silence bad science, but would settle for silencing charlatans like these two.

The authors try to smear everyone they disagree with, while at the same claimng that "their side" is being smeared. Overall, leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. If you are interested in a well researched look at politicians interference in science read Todd Wilkinson's Science nder Siege.

I'll be honest--this book does speak to my libertarian notions, but in truth, the science in it holds up better than the "science" of the kind it attacks (generally, the "science" cited by environmentalists).

The suggestion that a negative reviewer makes below for "Science Under Seige" as being "unbiased" is ridiculous. That work is in the camp of the Gore/Ehrlich alarmist liars. If this book is biased, then that one is 100x moreso.

Furthermore, I'd say that this book definitely holds up better on logical merits than most books which sell the opposite viewpoints.

I am a skeptical professional scientist looking for alternate views on how science should be conducted. This book is a joke, and a short one with big margins, that isn't funny. It may be valuable if you are considering writing a book and want to feel encouraged by how bad you can be and still get published. The authors get close to some significant worries about the misuse of science, but come nowhere near capturing our interest, preoccupied as they are with getting the 59 pages written. It took me an hour to read; it can't have taken them more than a weekend to write. We'd love to silence bad science, but would settle for silencing charlatans like these two.

The authors are hypocritical. This is a bad example of critical analysis of scientific work. It is more political trash than a serious attempt to address problems with scientific research. Don't even bother reading it.

The only reason I even read his completely biased books is to see if he mentions the energy, pharmaceutical or pesticide corporations that fund his think tank operations. Guess what, he never once mentions any of them. He doesn't want you to know that his writings are purchased, processed and proliferated by multi billion dollar corporations to reduce public disgust of big industry's poisons and pollution.

Steven's method to discredit real scientists is very similar to the way a time share salesman would convince you that buying a timeshare is actually saving you money. He basically takes a bunch of statistical numbers and twists them around in a way that would be virtually impossible dispute, similar to the way the timeshare salesman attempts to convince you that the price of the timeshare and maintenance fee would be less than just going out and renting a hotel every time you vacation. It sounds valid when you hear the argument but as time goes on you realize it was total BS.

But that is exactly what Chevron, Dow Chemical, General Motors, Lorillard Tobacco, National Pest Control Association, Philip Morris Companies, Procter & Gamble, asbestos and pesticide manufacturers (just to name a few) pay him to do. He is paid big bucks to label legitimate scientists and make it appear that they are the ones being paid to come up with anti industry scientific conclusions.

Steven is a lawyer not a scientist. He attacks real scientists research the same way a trial lawyer would attack his adversary in court, with words. He doesn't use the objective "scientific method", he just looks for loopholes in the research that runs counter to big business interests. If he wanted to he could create a powerful argument that the law of gravity is just your imagination. And you could feel like you're superior because you are privy to "inside" information. This is essentially why people believe his perversions of reality. He doesn't use the scientific method; he uses the method of labeling you a liberal loser if you don't agree with his ranting.

Steven Milloy is funded by billion dollar corporations to convince you that their polluting ways are not harmful to your health or the environment. So if you actually believe that mercury, global warming, PCBs, second hand smoke, chemicals coming from coal burning corporations, etc. are actually hazardous to you or the environment, then you're just a bleeding heart liberal. That's the objective of his writings.

If you think I'm just making all of this up, do a google search on Steven Milloy with any one of the corporations I have mentioned and you can see all of the legitimate web sites that expose his true agenda. Look up his name at disinfopedia.com and you can read a full explanation of his history as a lobbyist and what "think tank" affiliations he has.

A couple of good books I would recommend that expose this kind of adulterated scientific propaganda are, Toxic Sludge Is Good for You!: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry and Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future, both by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton.