Customer Reviews

Yes, We Have No Neutrons: An Eye-Opening Tour through the Twists and Turns of Bad Science

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

 

 

The clever title refers to the cold fusion delusion of 1989. Dewdney also takes apart the Biosphere 2 experiment in Arizona in 1991 where the roaches prospered while the people lost a lot of weight and would never have made it without some artificial help from a CO2 "scrubber." Freud, SETI, The Bell Curve believers and neural nets also come under attack as unscientific.

Well, Freud shouldn't even be suspected of being "scientific." In France Freud is read as literature, as is only right. And to attack SETI! Sure it's a long shot, probably a VERY long shot, but what else do we have to do that could possibly reveal anything near as interesting should it succeed? Shame on you, Dewdney. Otherwise, I tend to agree with him, especially about Biosphere 2 which ought to be done again with people who have something close to a clue as to the sort of Herculean dedication and commitment necessary. And bravo for going after the not-too-bright proponents of the antiquated notion of IQ, who think they can define "intelligence," but haven't the foggiest understanding of the real question, "Intelligence for what?" even if they could define it.

In other words, this is a fun book if your ox is not being gored.

This book takes a look at a number of famous and sometimes influential examples of bad scientific thinking. This book actually made me slightly more sympathetic towards Pons and Fleischmann, as it turns out that their precipitous announcement of cold fusion wasn't entirely driven by their impatience; their university bosses were guilty of pushing pretty hard, too; the book takes you through the whole tale quickly, yet comprehensively. The book also covers the Biosphere 2 story (in all its wackiness) very well in a minimum number of pages. Dewdney explains how these projects deviated from good scientific practice to lead them into disaster.

Some other reviewers complain that Dewdney was unfair to the SETI folks; I think he simply was trying to explain that their project--searching for extraterrestial signals--is not really scientific in that it can never be proven wrong. If you don't find any, you just keep searching, using different methods. He might have compared it to exploration rather than to science, since SETI researchers are "exploring" the universe by way of looking for patterns in electromagnetic energy (rather than by spaceship).

Dewdney also takes apart the silliness that is Freud and the concept of IQ, both of which, unfortunately, took hold with vast numbers of people to this day. Dewdney talks about how the IQ might be a measure of SOMETHING, but if we can't define "intelligence" consistently to begin with, it is at the very least a misnamed measurement that has been widely abused. Dewdney adds that IQ is a good example of the situation where many mathematical equations are often recruited to the cause of bad science; apparently, some researchers think that the more equations you publish in a paper, the more likely the concept will be accepted!

Overall, this is a fast read that will give the reader a few good examples of how science can go off the rails.

Dewdney begins with a lively high-school level explanation of the scientific method, and characterizes bumbling scientists as akin to Mickey Mouse as the sorcerer's apprentice in Disney's Fantasia (while good scientists are contrasted as true sorcerers). This unfortunate metaphor persists throughout the book. He lambasts bad physics (cold fusion), bad social science (IQ testing, Freudian psychology, and "The Bell Curve"), and bad environmental science (Biosphere 2 -- or was this only bad public relations completely lacking in scientific credentials?). There also is a chapter on bad information theory (neural networks), but I lost interest before finishing it. The well-deserved criticisms of IQ and Freud were especially worthwhile, since both get far too little of it. I was unhappy with his inclusion of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Dewdney seems to miss the point that some science, like the work of the great 19th century naturalists, is purely descriptive and is not hypothesis-driven. His objections to SETI are based in his own funding priorities rather than scientific criticism. A worthwhile recreational read, also appropriate for young readers (e.g., as an introduction to scientific method), but awfully slim for the price.

I'm happy to see that other reviewers noted Dewdney's excesses regarding the validity of the SETI efforts. Whether or not you think you know what SETI will find, his analysis of SETI's objectives and methodology seems completely inconsistent with his stated theme and has all the appearances of a personal prejeudice. In contrast, he goes out of his way to be fair in his coverage of the cold fusion debacle. I generally enjoy Dewdney's work-- just watch out for his indiosyncrasies here.

This book covers a lot of ground, so it doesn't go into exhaustive detail, but that's probably what makes it so easy to read. The author gives you the background and debunking of several instances of sloppy science, some of which are still with us today (N-Rays have come and gone, but you may be surprised by the chapter on intelligence testing). I highly recommend this book as a vaccination against fad science.

This book might have been an interesting debunking of bad science, but Mr. Dewdney conducts his examination in the true spirit of the Inquisition: he is less interested in finding the truth than he is in watching the accused burn. The result is singularly unsatisfying, as the reader wades through pages of Mr. Dewdnet not debunking bad science, but simply deriding it and righteously thumbing his nose at it. The experience is rather like watching someone shoot fish in a barrel--except that he's armed only with a squirt gun. Readers looking for an intellectually careful exploration of the issues here will be disappointed

Mr. Dewdney confuses diffeent catagories of scientific theory. He in on the mark when he talks about N-rays and cold fusion as examples of bad science. But with IQ tests, psychoanlaysis and SETI the situation is much murkier. These fields are still controverial and it is questionable as to what degree they are "bad science" if at all.

In regard to SETI (The search for extraterrestrial intelligence) he says that it is a non-falsifieable hypothesis that there is "extraterrestrial intelligence" and as such is (I presume according to Popper) not science. This is wrong on two counts: 1) The SETI scientists do not assert that there is extraterrestrial intelligence, only that there may be. Since there may be, or may not be, it may be valid to search for it, and 2) Even if they asserted that there was extraterrestrial intelligence, it is not non-falsifiable. To assert that there is extraterrestrial intelligence is to assert that it is not the case that there is not extraterrestrial intelligence. Actually receiving an intelligent signal from space would falsify that hypothesis.

Dewdney's book is very popular in its tone, and deserves four stars in terms of entertainment value. Dewdney comes across as overzealous in denouncing any project that does not rigorously follow the scientific method, however, and seems to view technology (and its relationship to science) with disdain. In discussing the SETI program and Biosphere 2, for example, the author seems to write off certain questions (Are there other civilizations trying to communicate with us? Can man build a self-sustaining, self enclosed ecosystem that will support human life indefinitely?) as meaningless because they are not "scientific." Similarly, Dewdney's presentation of the IQ debate is very one-sided. Nowhere in the book is it acknowledged that some non-falsifiable hypothesis or purely technological questions are still worth thought and investigation. Yes, We Have No Neutrons is an enjoyable read, but readers should be aware of the author's bias and resist the temptation to condemn the researchers and projects in question without thought.

Bravo! Dewdney has done a marvelous job of explaining the pitfalls behind the fatal flaws in a fascinating selection of "scientific developments" of dubious or no merit. In my opinion, the role of subjective influences in the pursuit of science is generally under appreciated. This point was explicitly discussed and illustrated in another excellent investigative report on bad science, William Broad and Nicholas Wade's "Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science". It boggles my mind that Broad and Wade's opus is out of print at a time when much concern is being voiced for bringing the issue of ethics to the attention of our students. As one who has witnessed bad science, both of the intentional and "honest mistake" variety, I can attest to the importance of opening the eyes of our students and the general public to the constant threat of human frailties to scientific progress. Dewdney illustrates with one example after another, how subjective factors - such as the desire not to be scooped, the desire to obtain funding, the desire to have one's ideas accepted - can derail the objective "pursuit of truth". I just ordered ten copies of the book for the edification of my graduate students in the Department of Chemistry at Case Western Reserve University. I highly recommend "Yes, We Have No Neutrons: An Eye-Opening Tour Through the Twists and Turns of Bad Science". It is interesting, informative, and very readable.

This book approaches many topics of "bad science", however the author is extremely biased on a few of the topics. It is an interesting textbook.