- Paperback: 110 pages
- Publisher: Wadsworth Pub Co (March 1, 1982)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0534011535
- ISBN-13: 978-0534011536
- Product Dimensions: 0.5 x 6.8 x 9.5 inches
- Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces
- Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,773,013 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Science and Unreason Paperback – March 1, 1982
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Top Customer Reviews
The book begins with the opening chapter where it discusses the fringe of science. The chapter is divided into 7 subjects: Flat Earth, Ancient Astronauts, Biorhythm, Creationism, Immanuel Velikovsky, The Bicameral Mind, and Parapsychology. Most of the subjects contain references from other scientific books and the views of writers. In one of the subjects, Radner briefly explains the beliefs and history of a flat-earther and even previews an instruction on how to get a subscription of Flat Earth News and a membership card containing the inscription of proof that the world is flat. In the section of Creationism, it explains the theory of evolution and creation and discusses both sides to avoid a biased view. The chapter itself defines uncommon words in order for the reader to proceed with comprehension of the subject, and uses quotes from other books to get a point across. The section of The Bicameral Mind was relatively easy to understand and interesting. It starts off by explaining how a specific procedure of severing the corpus callosum, the connection between the two hemispheres of the brain, work independently.Read more ›
What are we to do, once we have a paradigm? The Radners are emphatic: “The only useful collection of mushrooms is a sorted collection. Likewise, you will never build up a scientifically useful collection of data unless you are willing to do some sorting and leave some of your ‘facts’ behind.” This is the unconvincing part. Just because systematic fact gathering is better than unsystematic fact gathering doesn’t mean that the facts obtained unsystematically are invalid. The unclear part is deciding what facts to get rid of. Should we discard facts that contradict the paradigm? If we do, we’ll never abandon an established paradigm. (The Radners never mention paradigm shifts. You aren’t getting full value from a study of scientific revolutions if you leave out scientific revolutions.) Should we discard them because the paradigm tells us that they’re irrelevant?Read more ›