why science isn't so scientific
353336
A long-lost, terrific insight - from a respected scientist no less - of the ways in which so-called "objective" science really works. Which, I have to point out, doesn't make it any less effective. This is a great way to explore the inner workings of laboratories, science journals, and the worlds of research and academia. Warning: the language is a bit puffed up and can be hard to slog through at times. The guy WAS a scientist, after all, and it was translated from the German.
4622523
The reader may find it depressing to discover that (some) supposed cosmologists are as confused as (some) supposed medical experts and some climate scientists. We suspect politicians, but the uninitiated tend to have faith in science and hence scientists and in the concept of a supposed consensus.  Alas, the author easily makes the case, based on scientific method, that the "experts" who have invested effort, ego, and money (including taxpayer money ) to establish the Big Bang "theory" will continue defending their theory (and dismissing skeptics) even as their egregious position becomes obvious to the lay reader.

The new guys on this block (now mostly old heroes) are the folks who long ago recognized from the empirical data that  the redshift was not applicable to galactic activity (and paid dearly for it) and that gravity plays a lessor role on the galactic scale than electricity and magnetism, and that plasma science holds the answer to the numerous dilemmas introduced by the Big Bang theory.
4288242
I plea to the scientific community to simply read this book with an open mind. DVD of this book is also available. Amazon recommended buys with this book talk from mathematic, anthropological, logical, and biochemical/genetics perspectives.

The book was a shock to me and my father, a mathematician and physicist.
It had no religion or faith based creation arguments one would expect. What it did have was:

1. Deep scientific perspective into each of "evidences" we were all exposed to in schools and believe in.

2. Unbiased facts and quotations from well respected and reliable scientists, including geneticists, mathematicians, anthropologists, biochemists, and others.

3. Latest developments in science of anthropology, molecular biology, and genetics factually pointing against Darwinist origin of species.

4. Unbiased, factual, and truthful statements by Darwinist Evolution claims.

5.  No religion, philosophy, psychology, or feelings based arguments. Pure science and facts.

Most scientists blindly believe in Darwin's evolution due to lack of full latest knowledge. Some might have invested their career, reputation, and titles, betting on Darwin. Others are afraid to speak out to be ridiculed as non-scientific religious freaks.

Human race is on the brinks of the most historic development in it's history. for the first time, not religion or faith, but science begins to point out beyond the reasonable doubt in creation of life on earth by intelligent design, whatever it might have been.

If you are a scientist, ask yourself this question. would you like to go down in history as one of the first to do your part in revealing the true science over Darwinist Religion?  Darwinist theory will not survive the scientific tests and facts in the 21st century.

Discovery Institute may be a great place for you to start.
4319385
A lot of what the media tell us about science, misses the point by a wide margin.  Dr. Numbers investigates deeply, including the original writings of scientific pioneers, and reaches some surprising conclusions!
1406968
The use of the word "superstition" in the title is a mistake, and one that captures the problem with the whole argument.  The book is meant as a rebuttal to E.O. Wilson's book Consilience, which argues for an expansion of the use of the scientific method into the realm of the Humanities.

A superstition is a belief that one holds without any supporting evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.  Some examples would include believing that bad things are more likely to happen on Friday the 13th, that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that water can be located with a bent twig.  The human mind is so susceptible to superstition that people had to devise a method of constantly checking their beliefs against observations.  That's science -- the thing that rescues you from superstition.

I have to believe that anyone who thought seriously about the scientific method would be OK with it.  After all it's just away of keeping oneself honest.  In this book Wendell Berry seems particularly angry about something called "scientism," a silly word meant to criticize those who place undue faith in the scientific method.  Berry's argument is that there are aspects of human existence that are outside the realm of science, and to think otherwise is to engage in superstition.  But he's wrong.  Science is a tool for figuring out how things work, and people use it because it has time and again proven successful in solving mysteries that seemed impenetrable, even deeply spiritual.  In other words people use science to solve problems because centuries of evidence have shown it to be the best way to solve problems.  One might as well use the word "carpentism" to describe the belief that patios can be made out of wood and nails.

Beyond carping about what can be studied, Berry really wants to limit the things that should be studied.  I have to say I find this kind of creepy.  He talks a lot about his sense of wonder at the beauty of his Kentucky farm, but what about people who derive a sense of wonder from the mathematical structure of music or the brain circuitry that gives rise to religious experience?  I can think of no objective reason why farms are more beautiful than equations, or poetry more beautiful than synapses.  And suppose our knowledge of synapses could improve people's lives.  Suppose we could use a rigorous understanding of the biological basis of thoughts and emotions to treat schizophrenia (one of the world's leading causes of human misery).  I know of no other way to investigate the way the brain works, and no reason why such suffering is not worth alleviating.

The book also complains a great deal about the abuses of science by politicians and corporations.  As several other reviewers have pointed out, his legitimate beef here is with the government, not science.  Governments were abusing their subjects long before there was any such thing as science, and they will continue to do so as long as their corruption is unchecked.  The U.S. is (for the moment) a democracy that is responsive to the will of the people, and the laws regulating industry can be changed far more easily than the laws of physics.
2508253
When I first started this book, I considered it nothing more than a bunch of fun anecdotes about medical discoveries.  About two-thirds of the way through I realized that Meyers is making a serious point about how science really progresses.  Huge projects are much less likely to make breathrough discoveries than scientists piddling around with whatever interests them.  Some relatively minor changes in the way science is funded and organized could make a big difference in the return on research dollars.  My own experience as a chemist in the pharmaceutical industry and as a patent attorney tends to support Meyers.

I am not so sure that Meyers has hit the nail on the head when it comes to science education.  I agree that science is presently taught very poorly.  However, I think part of the problem is the numerous educational reforms that have been put in place over the years, with little or no evidence that they work.  The result is that many bright kids today leave school not only uninspired, but without a solid understanding of the subject.  I would like to see more research on the actual education received by noted scientists--also better quality of educational research in general.
4454251
Knocking on Heaven's Door is a great book for people interested in science but who are not scientists themselves.  It explains in clear terms for ordinary people the excitement of the world of particle physics and why research into this realm is so important.  Lisa Randall explains clearly why larger and larger machines are required to probe to ever smaller scales.  Best of all is the idea that she pointed out time and again of the "effective theory", that science is all about theories that match observed phenomena and that theories must be changed and adapted as new evidence comes to light.
4797568
Popularizing scientific research is always a dicey game. Gladwell does it better than many, especially in the complicated arena of cognitive science. He oversimplifies things, but he has a knack for looking at the human/social consequences of whatever it is he's discussing.

BLINK promotes some pop-psych stereotypes I wish he'd dealt with more cogently. That applies in particular to his imprecise use of terms relating to the distinction between what we are aware of and what goes on in that 80+% of our brains that we don't have explicit ('conscious') access to. I guess I would have liked some more neural science here. But keep I remind myself that it is a book intended for a mostly non-scientific audience; and maybe one has to tone down the science-speak these days, for the sake of broadening the spectrum of those buying the book, who would otherwise not have bothered.

All in all an excellent and worthwhile piece of popular science, tackling what is a difficult subject and showing clearly that, as with all things, the powers of our minds always hold as much promise as danger.

Till Noever, owlglass.com, Author: KEAEN, CONTINUITY SLIP, SELADIENNE
241419
A leading theologian points out and descries the "faith" many scientists place in statistics as scientific explanation.  Mr. Sproul points out what should be, but apparently is not, obvious:  Statistics describe, but cannot, by definition, explain.
He takes to task those scientists, beginning mainly with Niels Bohr, who seek to substitute probability, or chance, for real scientific explanation.
Sproul cannot, as a serious theologian, accept the proposition that the universe is governed by chance.  He points out that scientists cannot and should not, as scientists, do so either.
I have yet to hear of an adequate reply ever being made to this particular argument.
Erudite, well written.  Compelling reading.
1378293
As a biologist who is always interested in exploring other areas of science, I find books on the development of physics quite fascinating.  For one thing physics and chemistry are basic to biology (I had to minor in both as an undergraduate) and for another the history of the ideas is helpful in understanding applications of the scientific method as practiced by the best minds in the field.

This book would have been much more interesting had it not started with meetings between Einstein, Russell, Gdel and Pauli which were never documented.  This artificial means of introducing a subject that has been covered by numerous authors detracted very much from the book as a whole.  Katherine Williams took an unfinished manuscript by Burton Feldman and tried to edit and complete it.  It would have been much better if there had been more editing and in fact if the artifice of the "meetings" had not been used at all.

Still, "112 Mercer Street: Einstein, Russell, Gdel, Pauli, and the End of Innocence in Science" has some good points.  I found it most interesting in the overview of the work at Los Alamos and in the epilogue.  The closing quote from Bertrand Russell highlights the state of science today- we may in some areas of research have come to a brick wall in being able to test theory empirically!  The "truth" is either so complicated that our brains may not be capable of coming up with empirical tests to falsify it, or it may be simple in such a way that we can't see it!  It is too early to declare an end to physics (as was rather wrongly done in the 1890s).  Still we should be aware that the difficulties are mounting, rather than lessening. Not the least of these difficulties is the ever increasing expense for the experimental equipment to further test physical realities!

Unfortunately I cannot recommend this book as the best to read on the subject.  There are many better books on Einstein and on the development of atomic theory.
1574787
One person's pseudoscience is another's insight into genuine reality. One researcher's probability is another's filtered-out assumption.

Explanatory Filtering is an easily misunderstood concept that can be oversimplified, as this book does. Actually, Probability is an interdependent category which may be estimated as a discrete but integral part of the possible causation of events. Probability is never stand-alone or calculated in a vacuum. That is a given whether ID or non-ID. Some authors and reviewers don't seem to grant this.

Evolutionary biology is a naturalistic form of science that postulates its own causal narrative for Origins as a substitute or alternative to Creationary biology, the supernaturalistic approach with just as much historical evidence for support. Both sides look at the same data. Just using different spectacles with various shadings and polarized lensing to arrive at their vision of things.

ID looks not only at the appearance of the present state of structures, but the present appearance of their past state (fossil record) and finds Abrupt Appearance, not gradual evolution, nor transitional forms (half-dog/half-cat, i.e. cog or dat).

Paley's watchmaker argument retains inherent validity that remains to be categorically disproved, logically or observationally. No one has ever had timepieces in their possession in evolutionary stages of mutation or natural selection by necessity or chance. Watches have always been watches, not half-watch/half-compass or second handed but not minute or hour-handed, or having a dial/watchface but no springs or inner mechanism, or vice-versa. Human ID made the concept of 'watch' and there have of course been micro-adjustments by the IntelSelection Process of designers. But no spontaneous macro-mutation of 'watchmaking'. Partial watches of course anywhere along the continuum would be no watches at all and in no one's pocket let alone in any jeweler's inventory.

Often the argument is made by naturalistic, atheistic,anti-ID camp that their side uses logic and genuine science while their opponents are masters of illogic and quasi-science. This makes it sound as if anti-ID is unbiased, using strictly rational arguments not based on assumptions, assertions or presuppositions. Of course, this is patently facetious and falsifiable as well as ironically illogical.

Finally, this book self-implodes just from the title and premises: UNintelligent Design. It acknowledges appearance tantamount to Design, equivalent to Design, intelligible as Design and labeled Design, but of course not the dictionary definition of Design. It's all a metaphor. A more accurate term for the theory would be Spontaneous Generation in Vacuo.

At least ID not only recognizes Design, but the obvious Intelligence behind it, non-metaphorically since we don't live in Metaphoria, but the Real Experienced Observable Historically Documented Universe.

All that can be asked of anti-IDers is to be more consistent and dispense with the metaphoring. If UNintelligence is what you want, time to jettison any notion or allusion or reference to Design. If apparent Design is not in fact Design, what is the proper term for it? If the watch was not designed, what was it? If one can believe a watch evolved UNintelligently, designlessly, then you can take by the same leap of faith UNintelligent nondesign of Artificial Intelligence of its own accord without Higher Agency of Causality.

UNintelligent Design is the ultimate Oxymoron of the 21st Century. What hath nonGod wrought?
677577
Thomas Kuhn's basic idea is not a bad one, and probably not an entirely untrue one.  Science progresses with the addition of ideas; nobody would argue with that.  People whose experiments are expressly intended to shake the fabric of current science are not welcomed in the scientific community; this, too, has been brilliantly demonstrated, and is a simple result of that monstrously complex thing called human nature.  Since scientific research is best conducted within the auspices of the scientific community, with its shelter, money, and so on, the most productive questions are those which are merely clarifications or better demonstrations of a recurring theme.  However, occasionally an experiment will be within the realm of the establishment and will at the same time contradict it.  Since the purpose of science is to approach rather than to reach the truth, no scientific theory is perfect, so such contradictions will always arise.  Eventually, accomodations of these contradictions themselves contradict, and when this happens, a whole new theory is needed and will, albeit with much resistance, be adopted.  This is what Kuhn refers to as a paradigm shift, and the course of his essay is intended to grapple with the implications of his theory.  All of this is true.
  But I came up with a reasonable summary of his book in a single paragraph.  Even taking into account the exploration of the subtle nuances of the theory and evidence supporting it, there is no reason why it needed to be such ridiculous size.  And the reason for the uncalled-for length was that this book spent most of its time making some simple ideas seem complicated, using unnecessarily obscure words to describe certain ideas, and putting together sentences and paragraphs with similarly baffling complexity.  In fact, this is such an unnecessarily difficult read, that it is almost made to seem as if appropriate object of study is the book itself instead of the idea of chains of normal science linked together by paradigm shifts, as evidenced by the outside world.  It seems as if the purpose of this book is to obscure the issue rather than to illuminate it, and perhaps in the process achieve self-aggrandizement.  It may just be that Kuhn was a scholar, lost in his own little world, and too detached to make a connection with the rest of us.  I realize that many people have understood and enjoyed Kuhn, so I do not deny that such a reaction is possible.  However, I have a great deal of admiration for men of the stamina and courage necessary have this reaction (of course I don't mean this seriously).  Because I believe that the pursuit of knowledge is primarily a quest of personal fulfillment and enjoyment, I have no respect for people like Kuhn who make easy things difficult and fun things grueling, nor for the academic community which nourishes Kuhn's attitude.
2964760
Joseph's book mixes hard scientific evidence (though much of it unannotated in the bibliography, in the copy i received) with speculative flights.  Based upon current neurological findings, of which Joseph is surely eminently qualified, he speculates upon the origin of manking and the God and Lord God mentioned in Summarian and Hebrew myths of creation.  While it does not weaken his arguments about the presence of neuro anatomical regions that are activated during religious, sexual or aggressive behaviors, it places it upon a pseudo-scientific basis.  The great divergence of ideas regarding the "true meaning" of mythologies of creation (from Jungian, extraterrestial, orthodox religious views) lends not too easily to Joseph's thesis.  It seems that his empirical evidence and research is not convincing enough that he goes extrapolating from myths that cannot be scientifically proven.  Perhaps it is his way of blending the mythopoetic with empirical thought, while calling for an open minded approach to "the transmitter to God."  Many religious adherents of the Semitic traditions may find parts of the book offensive to their beliefs, yet he dpes present information and ideas in a manner that seeks to do scientific justice to how it is that these prophets allude to and claim communications from "God." His inclusion of abberant cults, such as Jamestown, Davidians, and Heavens Gate do not necessarily support his thesis, but tend to dilute it, unless we believe that Judaism, Christianity and Islam can be truly likened to the founders of these other groups. Definately thought provoking and an invaluable bibliography (though incomplete). His purpose seems to speculate on how it is that the brain, particularly the limbic system, is indeed a "transmitter" of spiritual and extra-mundane realities.
2717280
The book is not very scientific. I was a professional engineer, but my training was in physics. I worked as an engineer until I retired.
1881378
This is a book of skeptical refutation of various bits of dementia that one comes across masquerading as science (and worse, coming out of the mouths of politicians).

It works best when discussing stuff that "everyone knows" that ain't so - like the fact that meteorites do not start fires if they make it to the ground intact, or why we did so go to the moon and all your arguments that we didn't are dumb because [science].

It sometimes fails on the skeptic's Achilles' Heel: an annoying tone of stridency.

The style is sometimes at odds with the message, and some of the refutations are less rigorous than one might hope.

Subjects range from why you *can't* see stars in daytime from inside a well and why the sky is blue to UFOs, astrology and creationism.

Entertaining, but I found myself skipping forward in the text sometimes.

Worth four stars.
607997
In considering the interaction of science and public welfare, there is a spectrum
of opinions as to the optimum degree of government intercession.  Not
surprisingly, individuals who support extensive government intercessions in
other areas tend to support maximal intercessions in health related areas where
the validity of the intercession derives largely from scientific arguments.
Naturally, the arguments themselves become part of the debate.  In their
tendentious book, Oreskes and Conway argue for intercession in a number of
areas.  They discuss scientists, with their chief villains Fred Seitz and Fred Singer,
and special heroine, Rachel Carson.  And they address science, where they
discuss acid rain, the ozone hole, second hand smoke, global warming, and DDT.
To this long-time scientist their discussions primarily illustrate their ignorance of
science and scientists.
 While I find serious errors in most of their categories, I will discuss here
only their wildly erroneous diatribe against the conclusion that second hand
smoke (or ETS) must be nearly harmless.  A never-smoker myself, whose parents
both died from their smoking, I need no lessons on the dangers of smoking
tobacco to the smoker.  However the extension of those concerns to non-smokers
is not well-founded.
 As with government agencies in 1983, in their demonization of ETS
Oreskes and Conway seem to rely primarily on a brief, two-page, report of the
conclusions of a 1981 Japanese study that purported to show that wives of
smokers had a much larger incidence of lung cancer than the wives of non
smokers.  However simple calculations as well as measurements show that
inhaling ETS smoke in a smoky environment seldom adds up to as much as
smoking 10 cigarettes a year.  And we knew that smoking that little leads to no
great debility.  Like too much too-careless epidemiology, the Japanese results
were simply wrong.  Later, in 2003, a very careful American epidemiological
study (Enstrom and Kabat) was published -- with details included -- that showed
that spouses of smokers incurred almost no added risk.  Of course, Oreskes and
Conway do not mention that more definitive work.
 It is in this chapter that Oreskes and Conway show that they do not
understand much of the science they try to use when, on page 160 they try to
teach the reader that the Paracelsus adage, "The dose makes the poison!" is
nonsense.  Why? Because it is 500 years old!  The discussion of "confidence level"
on page 156 is as inept; a 95% confidence level generally refers only to the
statistical part of the data and does not address the systematic flaws which are
usually more important.
 In summary, this book is a political document supporting positions of
varying validity, some probably correct, some certainly incorrect, and must be
read -- or not read -- on that basis.
3501203
I really enjoyed this book although I must admit that some of the scientific evidence was a little, well a lot over my head!