Bad Science

[sawyl]

I've been helped through the bad days of late Christmas by Ben Goldacre's excellent Bad Science, which my sister had the taste and decency to give me as a present.

Although the book covers much of the same ground as the Guardian columns — Brain Gyn, homeopathy, wacky science (gleet's cracker equation gets a passing mention on p.210!), the general abuse of statistics and the great MMR hoax — each topic benefits from being treated in greater detail. Particularly interesting is the way that the additional length allows Goldacre to explain why he feels the need to challenge certain areas of pseudo-scientific nonsense.

In some areas, the reasons for challenge are clear and straighforward: the nonsense about the memory of water, as peddled by homeopaths, is far less interesting than the social and cultural phenomenon that is the placebo effect. But in others, the challenge depends on a particular model of the media establishment: that most journalists are humanities graduates who believe that science consists of arbitrary and groundless pronouncements from authority figures. If this model is true, then apparently harmless wacky science stories reinforce the view of science as trivial, irrelevant and relative, making it easier for general (i.e. non-science journalists) to re-frame scientific discussions as arbitrary spats between authority figured, much as they do with politics.

Whether or not Goldacre's hypothesis about journalists holds — and I rather suspect it does — his chapters on statistics, the need for science and why smart people believe stupid things, are truly excellent.