Disappointing Science Books

[canadarocks]

I had a chance to visit my local book shop and was looking through the collection of new science books. I had read several of the selections offered and saw several that caught my attention. One book was a thin, basic stuff-type book (probably written for the non-scientist) by Tom Bethell called Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. I found it somewhat puzzling when a caption on the jacket cover said something like "Taking science back from the Liberals". What has science got to do with political view-points? I briefly looked through the chapter titles and was very disappointed in the content, the nature of the arguements put forth, etc. For example, there was a chapter about a "Myth" that evolution is supported by several lines of evidence. Instead of going through the evidence in the chapter, the author just dismisses it out of hand (again I was skimming, but I didn't see any data!). Also, he references Behe as a scientist who has comprehensively looked at and dismissed the arguements concerning evolution. This book was apparently written for the masses by a non-scientist, which disturbs me. Several reviews on Amazon about the book were positive (??), although there were some negative reviews (which included details of the books' shortcomings). I wanted to know if anyone has 1) read this book and has an opinion, 2) encountered similar disappointing science books, and 3) rationalized the idea that the public at large gets a very disfunctional view of science.

Thanks
Canadarocks!

 

[ReFLeX]

This might do better in science, even if there is an argument for the book falling under "literature."

 

[canadarocks]

I debated about which one to post under. If the Mod thinks it's appropriate, please move the thread.

Thanks

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Make a poll, I vote for literature.

 

[ReFLeX]

Where it belongs, or where you might actually get a response?

 

[Kopji]

Csicop tears into it pretty good.
This might be better over in Science or even Skepticism. No wait, politics. Or maybe Religion. I think Bethell's got us on this one, it is wrong in so many ways.

Initially, the question of whether or not to even write this column gave me pause. In criticizing Tom Bethell--author of the conservative Regnery Press's Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, which misrepresents the state of scientific knowledge on issues ranging from global warming to the vulnerability of endangered species to evolution--I wondered whether I would simply wind up bestowing upon its author more attention than he ultimately deserves.

It was a serious fear, but I decided to overcome it, for two reasons. First, Bethell's book is already getting plenty of attention. It's selling well, and one prominent conservative outlet, the Heritage Foundation, has even sponsored an event to promote it. And second, precisely because of its misleading content, the publication of Bethell's book represents a highly significant development that's well worth remarking upon. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science takes what is already a well-documented war on scientific knowledge from the political right in this country to a new level of intensity. In the process, it flushes out into the open the anti-science sentiments that are unfortunately nourished by all too many conservative Republicans today (although rarely by the party's moderates).

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/bethell/