On the plus side, this book includes some well-written summaries of major scientific fraud events over the last couple of decades. But even taken collectively along with an assumed much greater amount of undetected fraud, it's hard to argue that these "undermine the search for truth." The author does not provide any support for the proposition that fraud has more than a negligible impact on the overall progress of science.
The bulk of the book discusses other issues such as replication failures, errors, statistical malpractice, gaming and bad incentives. My biggest gripe is that the author does not even mention, let alone reply to, people who disagree with him. You'd think a guy who spends 352 pages lecturing everyone else on honest reporting of results in all their messy reality would take his own medicine. There is a huge literature on the questions the author discusses, much of it opposing his analysis, but no dissenting voices are mentioned in the text or cited in the notes.
Another issue is the discussion applies to a small sliver of science, but is presented as having broad application. In most fields, Ernest Rutherford's attributed dictum applies, “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Published results either do not depend on statistics at all, or significance values too low to worry about. In most fields that can only produce results of marginal statistical significance, investigators only test hypotheses for which there is strong theory and prior evidence to believe true.
The author's discussion applies mainly to fields like nutrition where there is little prior reason to think factors like "eating more potatoes" are either good or bad for you, and there are so many confounding factors and so much measurement uncertainty that the sample sizes required for meaningful answers are impractical. I would argue that testing essentially random hypothesis on inadequate data really isn't experimental science in the first place. I would call it an exploratory initial effort to understand things well enough that useful experiments can be run. Just as hard cases make bad law, fields in which meaningful experiments are hard to run in the first place are not the right examples to think about problems and solutions for all of science.
One example of this unmentioned assumption is the author's insistence, without discussion, that null results should be published with the same attention as positive results. So if Kepler had published Epitome Astronomiae in a journal, using Tycho Brache's exceptionally accurate measurements to establish heliocentric astronomy, the journal should have also published articles by hundreds of traditional astronomers asserting that their (inferior) data could not reject the Ptolemaic system.
The author's implicit assumption is that the only difference between a positive and null result is random statistical noise. But good scientists get positive results by carefully considering which hypotheses to test and using rigorous methodology to minimize noise. Many null results come from less careful workers.
Of course, a negative result should be published. That is, if one investigator finds strong evidence for a hypothesis, another investigation finding strong evidence, or even moderate evidence, against the hypothesis should merit publication. But a null finding, an experiment that is consistent both with the hypothesis and its alternative, is generally of little value. A confirming result is of some value, of course, but mainly if it adds something to the original. For example, if the original had marginal statistical significance, more data supporting the same result is useful. Or if the new result changes some of the original paper's conditions--perhaps is done on different kinds of subjects--it adds to the credibility. But an exact replication of a study that was already well done and did not rely on statistics or had extreme significance, is only useful as a check against fraud.
My final objection is the author lets his political opinions creep into the book, which is inappropriate when "bias" is one of his declared enemies. He cheerfully and without comment inverts his principles for climate change and police shootings, and he dismisses without discussion positions considered anti-scientific like objections to GMOs or combination single-strain vaccines.
I'm not taking the opposite side of these issues from the author, but I do think he should apply the same standards to all questions, or explain the differences. My guess is that the author thinks there are some topics that should be off-limits to lay public discussion because the damage from people taking the wrong position outweighs his general preference for openness and rational discussion. But this position is not stated nor defended.
Overall, I can't recommend this book to anyone. If you're well-read in this field, you won't find enough new to be worth the effort. If you're not well-read in this field, the one-sided and narrow account is a poor introduction. I will say that there's nothing false in the book, and it's reasonably pleasant to read. You will learn some things and, if you keep in mind that there's another side to the case, you might find the book useful.
Enjoy fast, FREE delivery, exclusive deals and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| $7.95 with discounted Audible membership | |
Great on Kindle
Great Experience. Great Value.
Putting our best book forward
Each Great on Kindle book offers a great reading experience, at a better value than print to keep your wallet happy.
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Get the free Kindle app: 
Enjoy a great reading experience when you buy the Kindle edition of this book.
Learn more about Great on Kindle, available in select categories.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together
$25.50
Get it as soon as Saturday, Aug 5
In Stock.
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
What do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Reviews with images
Submit a report
A few common reasons customers report reviews:
- Harassment, profanity
- Spam, advertisement, promotions
- Given in exchange for cash, discounts
When we get your report, we'll check if the review meets our Community guidelines. If it doesn't, we'll remove it.
Top reviews from other countries
Cory Vernon Davis
How to cure some of science's ills
Reviewed in Canada 🇨🇦 on December 8, 2020
