The farming of preconceptions
579789
I do not get it.  The book plods.  I have had the hardest time in finishing it.  And this was a "notable" New York Times book?  I cannot be accused of insensitivity: as a white male I read in a single sitting "the color purple" for example.  And I was quite impacted by it.  But this one rings fake to me.  Yes, the idea of illustrating a not very glorious episode of the Dominican Republic history is good.  Telling the story of the suffering of the cane cutters from Haiti has to be done.  But I live in Venezuela, in a sugar cane growing area, and that book does not ring true to me.  The characters are floating above their condition, not quite connecting to what it all means.  Perhaps this is due to the language.  The author might have overreached in trying to bring to life the language differences between creole speaking Haitians and Upper class Spaniards and Dominicans.  Had the book been written in Spanish or French it might have worked, but in English it sounded more like a native versus tourist scene......
1543311
Richard Dawkin's&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Selfish-Gene/dp/B000J4JWUQ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Selfish Gene</a>&nbsp;and Malcom Galdwell's&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Tipping-Point-How-Little-Things-Can-Make-a-Big-Difference/dp/0316346624/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference</a>&nbsp;compared an idea spreading through a network of people to a virus spreading through a network of people.  The idea's skill at spreading depends on the likelihood of the next person absorbing the idea, the person's level of connectedness to the rest of the network of people, and the person's likelihood of persuading other minds to accept the idea.

Made to Stick seeks to answer a related question: what makes ideas unforgettable?  It points out that urban legends, which lack value and are often easily demonstrated to be false, are very memorable, spread far and wide, and are hard to stamp out.

Made to Stick argues that to be hard to forget an idea must be simple, unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional, and told through a story.  The book dissects a great number of ideas to illustrate each of these elements in greater detail.
1580719
I agree with the grad student whose review recommends reading both this book and The Bell Curve.  Gould does an excellent job shooting down work that claims to find racial differences in intelligence.  However, that is not the same thing as proving that those differences don't exist.  But Gould superbly points out the degree to which preconceptions can influence "science," even subconsciously, and points out the need for a generous dose of skepticism when research purports to divine the intelligence (or cognitive) ability of groups.  This skepticism should be heightened when the researcher goes beyond attempting to identify measurable aspects of intelligence and relate them to groups, and takes the additional step of suggesting social policy.
3406805
This book alerts us to the false paths of either believing in science as gospel, without understanding how it actually operates, or distrusting science generally, again out of ignorance.  It outlines how scientists themselves most responsibly evaluate their work and the work of their peers, conveying a picture of science as representing the best we can know about a particular matter at a particular time.

Most of all, it tells us about those scientists who have betrayed their calling - either by selling out for financial or political gain, by genuine ignorance of a field other than their own specialization, or both. It shows a history of misrepresentation that has impeded our ability to understand and address a variety of significant problems: the ozone layer, the health effects of tobacco, and climate change.  An important book for our times.
860627
Fourat Janabi's passionate and entertaining look at the 3 pressing S's of this universe: Science, Statistics and Skepticism, is,  as the subtitle to this work testifies, an art of differentiation.

In this age of memes and virals on Facebook - which always seem to me to be the blind leading the blind - telling us how bad GMO crops, vaccines and theories of evolution are, Janabi once again pulls up a chair and takes a really hard look at something most people "liking" memes on Facebook don't do - facts from qualified and independent scientists on the subjects that lately have come up as dinner party discussions lately in the modern hemisphere. He even explains why Newton has been proven wrong - and why NASA still uses these wrong equations to send rockets into Space.

Since his last book, which I thoroughly recommend also, Janabi has indeed done it again. Drawing the reader in with his " Bad Science" chapter, using great examples of how data can be changed to look like anything (he shows a chart of how consumption of organic food is related to autism rising over the last five years - an untrue and random comparison showing exactly how false correlation can be) according to the purpose of the study, he explains exactly why the herd mentality of going with he who shouts loudest is not the best way of differentiating fact from myth. When he moves into "Good Science" it is absolutely impossible to fault empirical measures and really shows how the trend towards organic foods and being anti-vaccine, and the idea of creationism, are non-substantiated - not by scientists working for the "corporations" (another word bandied around mainly by those who have never worked in one) but by independent and universal laws of science, such as biological reaction, statistics that work (studies are thrown by not setting their conditions properly) and genes as nature's helpers rather than the devil's work. As usual, the quotes used are spot on, such as this on why it is wrong to oppose GMO crop use,

  "If our society will not be able to "de-demonize" transgenic technology soon, history will hold it responsible for [the] death and suffering of millions: people in the poor world, not in overfed and privileged Europe, the home of the anti - GMO hysteria" Ingo Potrykus (Plant Scientist)

The most amusing chapter is about homeopathy. Another unfashionable subject to baulk at, but Janabi's  in the grain explanations are hilariously accurate and quite stunning. Did you know that a bottle of so-called homeopathic remedy has nothing of the substance in it, because it would have to contain more water than is present on Earth in the bottle to contain one atom of substance?

Fourat Janabi, I am sure, will soon be noticed as a challenging and talented Humanist speaker on Truth - the trouble is, of course, that it's not fashionable to be in the possession of the scientific truth when it comes to these touchy subjects. But I for one wish him all the luck with this fascinating and must-read book.
3664045
This book covers a wide variety of cases in which many people ignore experts and reality and accept truly stupid ideas that support what they prefer to believe.  It explores such concepts as cognitive bias, groupthink, "somebody else's problem, and other abuses of logical thought.  The books light touch makes it enjoyable reading and provides interesting insights.
2306027
If you are looking to this one book alone to be your answer on how to leave the corporate grind and make a prosperous living in the country, you will be disappointed.  If you are the type who read a lot and glean a little bit here and there - then this book is worth the read as it's full of a number of different ideas.

Booker presents this thesis that the future of farming is not with "get big or get out", but instead "stay small, get focused, go direct to the customer".  His main theme is the creation of a "members only" farm co-op, where the people come to you (transportation), they pick the produce (labor, sorting, grading), and pay at check out (pricing).  It's pick-your-own, but a members-only pick-your-own with an annual fee.

Once Booker lays out his thesis and support of why it would work, the rest of the book are stories from other farmers who are using similar methods that fit to support Booker's idea. While it's impossible for one farm to be all of these at the same time, there are a number of ideas presented here to at least get the brain thinking creatively with regards to farming and business that is different than simply large scale mono cropping and the assumed debt.
1877497
"For the young, food is from Venus, farming is from Mars," says Louv. But the not-so-young, that is, the parents of our present young, are often just as alienated from reality. Food comes from the refrigerator-- well, okay, it really comes from the grocery or convenience store-- but then it ultimately comes from truckers and the Oscar Meyer factory, or General Mills maybe. No? It comes from Papa John's Pizza, delivered by driver to our doors, ready to eat. What more is worth knowing? Western culture, certainly US culture, accelerates in this noetic disconnection from its natural sustenance. However, this is but a sub-thesis for Louv, one quickly passed.

Where the topic is a personal knowledge of nature, the word `nature' is itself problematic. Within current theory, all material we can experience-- whether a polyethylene terephthalate water bottle or an oak tree-- is reducible to quarks and gluons, and is thus "natural." The reader must bare in mind what the author means by `nature': something like, those aspects of the geophysical and biological world somehow minimally altered by man (or something like that). Not that I have a more economical definition for Louv's purposes, but often his usage of `nature' is ambiguous. Avoiding this seems difficult.

Louv's book contains many important discussions, but it's repetitive and generally seems unfocused. He repeatedly introduces ideas (generally by citing/quoting various individuals) as if having more validity than they do, often then admitting that he might not assent to much of the citation he has just introduced. This dilutes and blurs the discourse; material is included that should not have been.

One of Louv's theses instructs that efforts to restrict public access to stressed and sensitive ecosystems are counterproductive. He believes that it is more important that these exact lands or waters be easily accessible, putatively so that those using the areas will become knowers and appreciators of these places and defenders of them. It is not difficult to see his point, but it strikes me as using a hammer to clean one's spectacles.

Over and against its flaws, the book makes many excellent points and I frequently  identified closely with the author's observations. It's a thesis of critical consequence, and while I cautiously recommend the book, it's less than it might have been.
610613
Thomas Sowell sees people's world views as coming from some conceptual constructs which are often based on faulty premises and faulty thinking. He not only smashes lots of common notions, but tries to expose the ideas which lead people to accept those false ideas.

He does this in a fair and to a large part objective manner. So, for example, if he is looking at how discrimination factors into earnings differences between men and women, or blacks and whites he will examine many factors which contribute to those differences. Reasoning that if we can identify 3 or 4 other causes of earnings differences, and those factors account for some of the difference, then discrimination and other unidentified factors could only account for what is left.

He also exposes factors which make some the the statistics we normally see misleading. So, for example, if the average age of one group of people is 30 and another is 35 and a third is 43, then we would expect that their incomes would also be different, with the older groups making more money. This is what we see with Blacks (30), all Americans (35) and Japanese Americans (43). So at least some of the income differences are explained by age.

The book examines:
- Urban Facts and Fallacies where interesting facts about city planning come to light
- Male-Female Facts and Fallacies
- Academic
- Income
- Race
- Third World poverty

The book is jam packed with information, and insights. You are bound to have ideas you held to be true shown clearly to have overlooked important variables.

After reading this book, you will have a better understanding of the reality of these topics and the statistics used to support various views.
2793061
Agriculture of annual crops without the intermittent grazing by herd animals has led to the wholesale destruction of soil in locations all over the world, including the midwestern United States. In this richly detailed and fascinating account, Judith Schwartz shows how brittle grasslands- those which do not produce year round- require herds of cattle or bison or other range animals to break up hardpan soil, nibble at grass to stimulate its growth, and to enrich the soil with its manure and urine.  The trick is that the herd must move on every few days. A few cows in a confined area for a long time will degrade the soil faster than a herd of fifty that is kept moving. Cattle, sheep, antelope, bison, elephants and other pack animals evolved to move rapidly to avoid predators.  In elephant reserves where predators have been excluded, they tend to become sedentary, hanging out at the most prolific pool while grassland around them deteriorates.  Alan Savoy found that running cattle herds through the reserve allowed the restoration of the grassland along with a growth of diversity of plants and animals.  His publicized pasture techniques are slowly being adopted by ranchers and Schwartz interviews them on the pros and cons of the technique.  Native perennial grasses full of seed heads can be grazed in lieu of planted annuals.  Fertilizer is not necessary.

What with all the talk of cows and methane, we lose sight of the fact that healthy soil causes carbon fixation- in other words the soil is a carbon sink which can lower greenhouse gasses.  Appropriately pastured cows are the net carbon fixers because of their effect on living soil.  This runs counter to the standard ecological vegetarian argument but appropriately pastured cows increase  water (via plant to air exchange), increase humus, do not require expensive grain trucked across the country, and produce less gross methane.

Fungicides kill off the mycelium that allows soil to stay moist and productive.  (A tablespoon of good soil will contain a mile of thin mycelial strands but dies off with chemicals.)  Healthier plants require less fertilizer (provided by the cows) and less pesticide use. The only real losers are the Big Ag purveyors of chemicals, herbicides and fungicides who strip the earth of its vitality and productivity and are responsible for the foodlike produce we find in conventional grocery stores. Well written, well documented and a paradigm changer!
4151661
This book upholds the illusion that the academic world is characterised by critical thought, but I claim that the opposite is the case and that the very data presented in the book supports my view. The authors faithfully repeat the standard view:

"Research is based on an open system of thought ... Continual testing, review and criticism for its own sake by researchers of each other's work is an important way on which thinking develops. Conventional wisdom and accepted doctrine are not spared this examination" (p. 47, 2nd ed.). "Research requires actively challenging old explanations and finding new ones if necessary" (p. 39). Etc.

This fancy ideal has nothing to do with reality. The authors come closer to capturing the truly doctrinal essence of the PhD in another passage:

"People think it would be a nice idea to do a PhD, they come with views of what they want to do and ... say: 'Please can I have a PhD for it?' And the answer is often 'No'. PhDs are given for a particular form of research activity ... and if you do not wish to carry out this form of work then you effectively do not want to do a PhD." (p. 33).

Suppose someone wanted to do a PhD in biology in Nazi Germany and that holding various racial dogmas were part of the requirements. Of course it would make no sense to tell students who refused that "you effectively do not want to do a PhD." They could still want to do a PhD in sense of the the standard view parroted above. The passage continues:

"To obtain a PhD ... you need a degree of single-mindedness, and willingness to discover what is realistically required, and a determination to carry it out. This is the sense in which you must want a PhD. ... You cannot expect with an activity as demanding as doing a PhD that the intrinsic satisfaction (such as the interest of doing the research, the enjoyment of discussing your subject with other like-minded researchers) will be sufficient on its own to carry you through." (p. 33).

All this is because there is an obvious conflict between reality and the above illusion of the academic world as a place of open and critical inquiry. It is obvious that some people would find this ideal pursuit worthwhile and satisfying. The fact asserted by our authors that no one finds academic work satisfying in its own right therefore proves that this pursuit does not exist. What the authors are saying is very true: you must want to be indoctrinated. Which is why it makes good sense to select for subordination, to admit as graduate students the most gullible people you can find, which is in fact what is being done, as we can see from the following characterisation of beginning graduate students.

"New postgraduates ... come into the university or college knowing precisely who they are: successful and intelligent holders of well-earned qualifications. It is not long before they lose their initial confidence and begin to question their own self-image. This is the result of contacts ... with academic discourse. ... These challenge the assumptions and conceptions that the young graduates had accepted as inviolable." (p. 3). "Often, new research students have the idea that people who possess a PhD degree are outstandingly brilliant. ... Similarly, if they actually read any completed theses ... they often emerge convinced that they would never be able to write anything even remotely resembling such a document" (p. 10).

Why do graduate programmes select these students? Because professors like to surround themselves with students who think that they could never "even remotely" aspire to the "outstanding brilliance" of the professors themselves. They want student who "accept as inviolable" anything they are taught. In other words: they want gullible students susceptible to indoctrination. This proves again that the notion of the academic world as defined by open and critical debate is obviously a joke.
2145760
I'm heavily involved with our small town food co-op, and though I'm a retired city person living out my lifelong rural fantasy now, making friends with farmers, eating fresh farm food, happily free from commuting and shopping in supermarkets, I am very tuned in to all the arguments about eating local foods as a way to be kind to humans, animals, and the environment. This book educates me about the impossibility of untangling the interwoven factors that a person would want to understand in order to make ethical decisions. I like uncertainties that make strong opinions impossible, so even though I can't know if my food choices are ethically justified, I and hoards of others enjoy the fantasy of thinking we can save the world through better shopping,

I probably wouldn't pick a book about ethics off the shelf, but when it's about food my attention is alive, especially when it makes me into a skeptic about my own good intentions.
.
2392473
This book reveals a sophisticated understanding of how scientists come up with formal explanations and definitions. Inevitably, as the technologies and observations progress, yesterday's concepts become outmoded and, eventually, restrictive. Evelyn Fox Keller explains how this progression occurred (and still takes place) in our understanding of biological inheritance. She displays a fine sense of the motivations behind pre-DNA theoretical postulates that no longer make sense in light of modern sequence data. Altogether, a splendid account of the gene theory, its problems, and indications of where new concepts are likely to arise.
4493318
Ruth DeFries, the author of The Big Ratchet, brings us primarily a history of innovations in agriculture that have made it possible for our planet to support seven billion people.

The history starts with the switch from hunting and gathering to farming, which then made gains in productivity through the introduction of the plow, crop rotation, fertilization, selective breeding, the replacement of human energy with that of animals and mechanization.  All of this has brought us a world in which an ever larger population can enjoy an adequate diet through the efforts of a smaller percentage of the population.  The age of exploration has also brought the introduction of plant species from other continents.  How many French-fry fans realize that potatoes originated in South America?

However, as the author points out, all the progress that we have made is not without its downside.  By not recycling nitrogen and phosphorous, we are polluting our lakes, streams and water supplies.  The easy conversion of corn into sugar has created an obese population.  The use of fossil fuels and fertilizers for farming, and beef production has added to the pollution of our atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

Finally, DeFries acknowledges that there will continue to be ups and downs, ratchets and hatchets, and that the result of our technical achievement is in doubt, but expresses a confidence that our ingenuity will continue.

The book is well researched with over fifty pages of references at the end of the book.  The writing style makes for easy reading. I found the history to be fascinating.  Whether you think that we will ultimately solve our problems or think that we are doomed, anyone with an interest in food should find this book to be a good read.
1571073
For those of us already used to the dishonesty of those who adhere to a literal interpretation of the Genesis, Of Pandas and People contains no surprises. It's nevertheless always intriguing why people in this group seem to have an irresistible drive to attempt to establish their beliefs on a scientific footing. This gives an idea of what their human and religious statures are, for two reasons: First, they think nothing of lying, in order to push their agenda (as clearly illustrated in this book, as pointed out by other reviewers), and second, their faith seems to be so flimsy that they desperately crave for the confirmation of science. Instead of focusing their energies in propagating falsehoods, maybe they should ask themselves about the reasons that underpin the weakness of their faith.
526530
A wonderful book espousing the passage of knowledge from pre-history through to historic Greek, Roman, Pacific Island, Native American, African and Asian myths.  The authors are more than likely correct in their assertion that "ancients" were viewing the cosmos and recording what they saw in stories or myths.  What I have found relevant is the myth of Zeus's (ch. 19) or (Ovid) Jupiter's son, taking his father's chariot which holds the sun and running rampant through the heavens and almost crashing into the earth.  The resulting chaos on earth becomes boiling oceans, oceans turning into deserts, tropics becoming ice and vice-versa.  Along with that a new "pole star" and the milky way along with the constellations have moved in the night sky.  It seems that in this myth all of the cardinal points shift in their relationship to the heavens and what is above seems to have reoriented itself in relation to observers back on earth.
  In reading other later sources from the publish date of Hamlet's Mill I've found the theory of crust displacement, where the crust or skin of the earth, like the skin of an orange becomes loose and slips abruptly, (days, weeks, or months).  Not to be confused with plate tectonics which takes millions and millions of years.  This theory would account for drastic overnight changes in the orientation of the stars, planets and the "backward" movement of the sun through the sky as viewed from earth.  Antarctica was once a tropical island and there is the Piri Reis map which evidently shows Antarctica to be ice free.  There are other anomalies across the globe which point to a sudden change in temperature and orientation of places on the earth and Hamlet's Mill's myths to reflect these changes would be accurate and true as far as the new orientation of the cosmos, but not the reason for the change.  Good sources are "Fingerprint of the Gods"- Graham Hancock and "When the  Sky Fell: A search for Atlantis" - Rand Flem-Ath.  Unfortunate titles but a fantastic books that references these same myths but to prove a different theory.  When applying crust displacement to the chaos in the skies myths, it makes much more sense.
1986392
Andre Leu's extensive research led to this incredibly detailed book about  pesticides and how we can be better informed when making decisions about what we should eat and feed our families.

Some of the things he expounds on are:

- Myth:  Pesticides are essential to farming;
- Myth:  Most pesticide formulations sold on the market are rigorously tested;
- Myth:  The very small amount;
- Myth:  The breakdown myth; and
- Myth:  The reliable regulatory myth.

One of the things I learned is that once a chemical degrades, it is not harmless.  Research has shown than many of the metabolites from agricultural poisons can cause heath and reproductive problems.  Some pesticides such as diazinon, malathion, chlorpyrifos and dimethoate become even more toxic when they break down.

We often think that, when we wash our food we are removing all of the pesticides.  Dimethoate (widely used as a fruit fly treatment) is a systemic pesticide because it is absorbed into all the tissues of the plant, including the edible portions such as the flesh of the fruit.  Washing our food will not remove the bulk of the poison, which is inside the food.  It breaks down into an even more toxic metabolite called omethoate.

Complete with charts, graphs and illustrations, this book makes this complicated subject more easily understood by the layman.  It's quite a vigorous read but the book is divided into the five main "myth" sections which makes it easier to absorb.

The author's final word:

The lack of rigorous testing and the blatant disregard of the current science by regulators means that, until these data gaps are filled, the most logical option is to avoid food from farming systems that use these toxic compounds."

Simply put, there are no safe pesticides in any amount.  You may want to read the author's newest guide:  "Poisoning Our Children: The Parent's Guide to the Myths of Safe Pesticides".