I'm in two minds about this one really. It was educational, informative and vey entertaining all at the same time, so a Good Read as the BBC would have it.
I was truly appalled and shocked by some of the stories he had to tell and if I had ever had a mind to give credence to health scare stories in the Daily Mail (which I hadn't) I think this book would have put paid to that fair and square.
It is I think slightly mistitled since it is actually about bad science (and mainly medical) journalism, but I suppose Bad Science Reporting isn't quite as eye catching as a title. I gather it's also the title of the column Goldacre has or had in The Guardian so it ties in with that.
On the downside, I think his dismissal of the 'liberal arts graduates' some of whom disseminate this stuff as lazy, because they can't be bothered to understand the real science behind the research, and as people who sneer at science as being somehow beneath them, really misses the mark. I have been sneered at countless times by scientists because my studies, which have over the years covered language, history and literature, are 'useless' and which can be done by 'anyone in their spare time'. Also, science IS difficult for some of us to understand, and whether that is because we were badly taught, or our brains can't cope or a mixture of the two, it does mean we are in need of an intermediary to explain things to us. (Just as, I might venture, a scientist attending a conference in Japan for example, might well need an intermediary from the 'useless' discipline of Japanese Studies to help him not make a prat of himself/ badly offend his hosts by his behaviour at it.) And in addition to all that, statistics is a minefield of a subject, and only someone well versed in sophisticated statistical techniques can be expected to understand the statistical import of some research studies.
Also, for someone who is keen to encourage readers not to take things on trust and to test things for themselves ,(known incidentally in his despised humanities subjects as Critical Analysis, and something which undergraduates are expected to master at an early stage) he makes an awful lot of sweeping assertions of his own which he presumably expects the reader to go along with. That strikes me as somewhat ironic.
Despite the caveats though the verdict on Bad Science is - A Hit.
I really enjoyed it too, but with your same caveats!
ReplyDelete