Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk

Organization: The chapters did not flow in any reasonable sense as it pertained to the topic of the book. There were sections in the center where he attacks Bjorn Lambourg, the Postmodernists, as well as includes a history of scientific thinking. While these were enjoyable, all except the attacks on the postmodernists didn't exactly fit the progression that the author was making. The last two chapters should have been pushed up considerably as the expert problem and checklist of what makes a science should have come shortly after the introduction.Writing: Massimo is a master of concise prose and uses analogies that advance the point at hand. His mastery of what others have said gives him access to wonderful ways to summarize ideas and distill important points quickly; other authors could wind up using twice as many words to say the same thing without adding anything.Notes: Some of the footnotes were both funny and illuminating. I very much wish they'd been the bottom-of-the-page kind rather than the all-lumped-at-the-end kind.Topics: The selection of targets was well done and got at issues that other books seemed to skip like how to gauge expertise and how Bayesianism and Prospectivism can be used to both support the efficacy of science and recognize the problem of qualia.

The author does a wonderful job with the subject, but his predilection for dense and voluminous detail renders the writing impenetrable at times. It's strange and scintillating how accurate this 2005 work is, in light of the events of 2016-2020, but I fear few will be able to profit from Pigliucci's prophesies because this work is so ... hard to read. So, I give it only 4 stars. A lighter touch might have been profitable!

I agree with the other readers who complain about this book's (dis)organization and the lack of coherent argument. For example, he discusses the history of the philosophy in one place, doesn't draw any real conclusions, then leaps ahead a chunk of pages and he explains Bayes' theorem, saying Bayesianism (as a metaphor) has implications for the philosophy of silence but leaving those up to the imagination.On the other hand, there are ideas here that I haven't read elsewhere (which makes sense, since I haven't read anything by a philosopher of science). For instance, the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. (The former is used in science so your investigation can get anywhere, and the latter is a belief about the way the world really is. Or something.) Still, he uses this to accuse activist atheists of "scientism," even though he clearly believes that many religious claims can be debunked by science (he devotes a long discussion to creationism). He fails to discuss here something that I think is necessary--the definition of "supernatural". Because clearly many phenomena that are thought of as supernatural--be they telekinesis, the efficacy of prayers, or the origins of life--leave empirically observable traces. To claim, as he does, that "the God hypothesis" isn't really a hypothesis (or empirical claim) restricts the definition of God/the supernatural artificially. I haven't read the books he's critiquing here, though, so I'm sure the authors do overstep the reaches of science in places--but he isn't explicit about exactly what he's critiquing.Equally unclear are the obscure (but I'm sure philosophically critical) questions he talks about but fails to make accessible to a reader like me--the problem of induction, why the lack of any clear mechanism for a spiritual world to affect the physical world is a serious blow to dualism (to me it seems like most conceptions of a spiritual world deny that cause and effect works the way it does in the physical world anyway), and probably others that I can't think of right now.He discusses the works of several thinkers from many disciplines, some that I hadn't heard of--notably, Richard Posner's work on the "decline of public intellectuals." Following Posner, Pigliucci rightfully criticizes intellectual "solidarity"--in Pigliucci's metaphor, the tendency of people to cheer on ideologically obstinate "white knights" who champion their own beliefs. Since I've seen too much of this (and participated in it) in the skeptic community, I was glad to see this here.Overall, the book is very bloggerly and made me think. I'm glad I read it, but it was difficult to review, since I have so many mixed feelings.Oh, and on a sidenote, the reviewer who accused Pigliucci of dismissing the contributions of medieval Islamic scholarship to the history of science is somewhat misleading. Pigliucci doesn't see anyone between Aristotle and the beginning of the Renaissance as worthy of discussion, and his outlook on Roman contributions to science and philosophy is similar to his evaluation of those of Islam. Still, he's definitely not a fan of Mulsim culture, past or present, and he's definitely far more interested in the West.

In spite of the title and cover of this book which give the impression of a popular look at the issue of science and society, this book actually takes a fairly scientific (and philosophical) approach to the topic. Concern about the public's take on scientific issues has recently fueled the output of many books on this topic, but while a lot of them are either popular views of the issue written by journalists, focusing on many anecdotes and news items or more narrow takes based on one particular scientific topic, this one attempts to be a more systematic look at the issue of science itself from the viewpoint of a scientist and philosopher.The book is divided into a number of different sections starting with the whole issue of how to decide what is science, soft science and pseudoscience moving through a number of case studies and finally ending up with both a coverage of the history of thought on what constitutes science (and scientific methodology) and what constitutes scientific expertise. A number of famous and influential thinkers are quoted and considered from Plato on up to Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.While some casual readers might find the book to be a bit dense and difficult to follow in some sections, anyone who is genuinely interested in some of the hot-button scientific issues of the day such as evolution, global warming or even unified field theories, will find this book thought provoking at the very least. The most salient point about the book for me is that in the end, the author concludes that while some things are definitely science and others are definitely pseudoscience, there is no black and white border between the two, no absolute certainty in the realm of science and no perfect criteria for determining expertise or who is right. In the end, he encourages his readers to be discerning and to be able to apply a number of different outlooks and strategies in order to arrive at a reasonable perspective on the validity of scientific claims and claims of expertise while always maintaining a healthy and rational sense of skepticism.Finally, there seems to be a warning running through the book not to allow what the author calls postmodern or relativist outlooks erode the barrier between good science and pseudoscience. In a nutshell, this means that the idea that all science is tied to the cultural, social and personal heritage of the scientist in question should not lead us to put pseudoscience on the same level as science.I don't think the author of this book intended this to be a comprehensive textbook on the history of the status of science in human societies but rather a good overall introduction for popular audiences based on some sketches from the history of thought on the topic as well as current issues that arise.

There seems to be a pattern in the last twenty non-fiction books that I've read in that they all have to be somewhere between 200 and 400 pages long. While there's probably a good reason for this, I'd like to see writers producing alternate, shorter versions of their books, so that people, like myself, who just want to read their most important points, can do so. This book is no exception.This book is also, not suitable for everybody. From statistical evidence, it's obvious that most people have never read a book on critical thinking before, and so, for those people I'd recommend starting with something for beginners, like  Software for the Brain  which is also available in a digital format. From there I'd suggest that they use their new skills to critically examine their own beliefs. Once that is done, they can continue to read this book.The subtitle, "How to Tell Science from Bunk," gave me hope that after reading the book I'd be able to tell (1) whether or not global warming is largely influenced by human activity, (2) whether or not Dr. Burzynski is a quack, and (3) have a general idea as to how I can answer future questions on the topic, and be able to give advice. It started as quite an enjoyable read, but as it got into history, I felt that there were many pages that could have been summarized or left out, and I would be just as wise about what I expected to learn from the book.So, regarding my first criteria, on the topic of global warming, Massimo gives evidence to show that human activity probably does affect global warming, but is also a bit confusing. He implies that Al Gore was mistaken in some areas, but largely right. I would argue that Al Gore's prediction of sea level rise was spectacularly misleading by a factor of about 2000%. Perhaps Massimo was talking about some other predictions of Al's, but I consider this to be nowhere near largely correct, because it could have influenced many people to sell their seaside homes, or even move to other countries that were not going to be swallowed by the ocean.Regarding my second point, there is a small section about medicine in the book. The discussion included HIV, and various authority figures like Prince Charles and the South African minister of health and their crazy beliefs. I found that section quite interesting. Before reading this book I was about 85% sure that Dr Burzynski was full of nonsense, but thinking about it now, I would raise that to about 98%.In general, I found the most important section to be the last few pages, in which Massimo shares a list of five pieces of evidence, suggested by someone else, which could be used to test whether or not someone is really an expert. He gives a couple of examples of how this test can be done.To summarize my thoughts on the book:- Those who have not read a book on critical thinking should start with something targeted at them.- Beginning of the book was very interesting, including the bit on SETI, as well as the last few pages.- Loads & loads of info.- I learned that cold fusion is nonsense (I had not even considered that).- I would have preferred a shorter book.- I have a better understanding of how science works.- The only thing I disagree'd with was that I consider Al Gore to be more wrong than he seems to think.Stephen OberauerAuthor of  The Mischievous Nerd's Guide to World Domination P.S. If Massimo, or any other expert reads this review, feel free to comment. If I come up with any ideas to improve this review, I will adjust it accordingly. Software for the BrainThe Mischievous Nerd's Guide to World Domination

Airy fads and pernicious fallacies in the name of God, religious nincompoops who deny Darwin and all science, nitwits who can hardly spell but who know in their hearts that climate change is a Commie plot (!): all these morons and peddlers of pseudo-scientific bulls*** are precisely revealed for the not-very-bright mental sluggards they really are. An invaluable book to gift to students attending religious high schools. Not an easy read but well worth the trouble, "Nonsense on Stilts" is a breath of the clear air of reason in a world that seems to be retreating to the mumbled hypocrisies of organized religions.