Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
Penguin Books (2010), Edition: Reprint, 320 pages
Description
In this provocative and headline-making book, Michael Specter confronts the widespread fear of science and its terrible toll on individuals and the planet. In Denialism, New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter reveals that Americans have come to mistrust institutions and especially the institution of science more today than ever before. For centuries, the general view had been that science is neither good nor bad--that it merely supplies information and that new information is always beneficial. Now, science is viewed as a political constituency that isn't always in our best interest. We live in a world where the leaders of African nations prefer to let their citizens starve to death rather than import genetically modified grains. Childhood vaccines have proven to be the most effective public health measure in history, yet people march on Washington to protest their use. In the United States a growing series of studies show that dietary supplements and "natural" cures have almost no value, and often cause harm. We still spend billions of dollars on them. In hundreds of the best universities in the world, laboratories are anonymous, unmarked, and surrounded by platoons of security guards--such is the opposition to any research that includes experiments with animals. And pharmaceutical companies that just forty years ago were perhaps the most visible symbol of our remarkable advance against disease have increasingly been seen as callous corporations propelled solely by avarice and greed. As Michael Specter sees it, this amounts to a war against progress. The issues may be complex but the choices are not: Are we going to continue to embrace new technologies, along with acknowledging their limitations and threats, or are we ready to slink back into an era of magical thinking? In Denialism, Specter makes an argument for a new Enlightenment, the revival of an approach to the physical world that was stunningly effective for hundreds of years: What can be understood and reliably repeated by experiment is what nature regarded as true. Now, at the time of mankind's greatest scientific advances--and our greatest need for them--that deal must be renewed.… (more)
Media reviews
"We can all believe irrational things," the author of Denialism tells NPR's Scott Simon. "The problem is that I think an increasing number of Americans are acting on those beliefs instead of acting on facts that are readily present."
In this hotly argued yet data-filled diatribe, Mr. Specter skips past some of the easiest realms of science baiting (i.e., evolution) to address more current issues, from the ethical questions raised by genome research to the furiously fought debate over the safety of childhood vaccinations.
User reviews
LibraryThing member bragan
Denialism, as author Michael Specter defines it, is "denial writ large -- when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie." He deals with several kinds of denialism in this book, mostly involving medicine in
I've seen some reviews of this book suggesting that Specter is basically preaching to the choir here, and there's probably some truth in that. Certainly if you're a die-hard believer in alternative medicine or the evils of biotechnology, you're not likely to be convinced by his arguments on those subjects, just upset by them. And those who merely tend to lean in that direction are unlikely to pick up a book whose subtitle seems to be calling them irrational and dangerous (something that strikes me as kind of an unfortunate marketing strategy). Probably most of the people reading this book already consider themselves scientifically-minded skeptics, and the last couple of chapters may appeal most to people who are particularly interested in learning about discoveries in the field of genetics and what's likely to come from them. But I do think there's an in-between audience that may find this book both interesting and useful, people who are not anti-science, but who simply don't know quite who to believe on these subjects, because they don't fully trust Big Pharma or agribusinesses or conventional medicine practices. If you feel that way, Specter gets where you're coming from, and he doesn't think you're entirely wrong. While he's extremely positive about science in general, he is anything but an uncritical rah-rah defender of unethical corporations or irresponsible research. In fact, he devotes most of the first chapter of the book to a case study of a pharmaceutical company that lived down to the very worst of public expectations, deliberately refusing to acknowledge the existence of dangerous side effects that almost certainly resulted in lost lives. But he goes on to use this as the starting point for a demonstration of how to separate baby from bathwater, put stories and statistics into a useful risk-vs-benefit perspective, and distinguish evidence from wishful thinking, an approach that he then carries through all the other topics in the book. So if you're feeling a little confused and uncertain, as so many people are, about questions like "Is it really safe to vaccinate my baby?", "How worried should I be about Frankenfoods?" or "Do I really need to take all the herbs and vitamins that this website I found recommends?", you could do a lot worse than this book as a place to start sorting through it all.
Show More
some form or another. The premiere example is the anti-vaccine movement, whose adherents cling firmly to the belief that a heartbreaking medical condition has a simple cause and thus a simple solution that can and will save a generation of children, just as soon as anti-vaccine crusaders win their fight against the bad guys. It's a very compelling thing to believe, especially if it's an issue in which you have a personal stake, but the problem is, it's just not true. Those who engage in denialism, though, are not easily swayed by scientific evidence, and often reject science entirely, especially when it's telling them things they don't want to hear. Science is dismissed as too impersonal, too authoritarian, too much to blame for everything that's wrong in the world. Specter, of course disagrees, arguing that what we need to solve the problems that face us, from disease to world hunger, is more scientific reasoning and scientific progress, not less, although we should always proceed with our eyes open to the dangers that go along with progress.I've seen some reviews of this book suggesting that Specter is basically preaching to the choir here, and there's probably some truth in that. Certainly if you're a die-hard believer in alternative medicine or the evils of biotechnology, you're not likely to be convinced by his arguments on those subjects, just upset by them. And those who merely tend to lean in that direction are unlikely to pick up a book whose subtitle seems to be calling them irrational and dangerous (something that strikes me as kind of an unfortunate marketing strategy). Probably most of the people reading this book already consider themselves scientifically-minded skeptics, and the last couple of chapters may appeal most to people who are particularly interested in learning about discoveries in the field of genetics and what's likely to come from them. But I do think there's an in-between audience that may find this book both interesting and useful, people who are not anti-science, but who simply don't know quite who to believe on these subjects, because they don't fully trust Big Pharma or agribusinesses or conventional medicine practices. If you feel that way, Specter gets where you're coming from, and he doesn't think you're entirely wrong. While he's extremely positive about science in general, he is anything but an uncritical rah-rah defender of unethical corporations or irresponsible research. In fact, he devotes most of the first chapter of the book to a case study of a pharmaceutical company that lived down to the very worst of public expectations, deliberately refusing to acknowledge the existence of dangerous side effects that almost certainly resulted in lost lives. But he goes on to use this as the starting point for a demonstration of how to separate baby from bathwater, put stories and statistics into a useful risk-vs-benefit perspective, and distinguish evidence from wishful thinking, an approach that he then carries through all the other topics in the book. So if you're feeling a little confused and uncertain, as so many people are, about questions like "Is it really safe to vaccinate my baby?", "How worried should I be about Frankenfoods?" or "Do I really need to take all the herbs and vitamins that this website I found recommends?", you could do a lot worse than this book as a place to start sorting through it all.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Atomicmutant
I enjoyed this quite a bit. It starts out as a bit of a cranky "Skeptical" book, the
sort that I seek out, and yet tire of quickly. It refuses to settle into a rant, and
becomes much more by the end.
At the beginning, it's about all of the dangers of alternative
medicine, the anti-vaccination cranks,
types, and it's a quick and interesting overview.
I know people who are not vaccinating their kids and it sends shivers up
my spine to think what could happen if this gets bigger. I know people who
empty their wallets on "natural" and "organic" food and don't think about the
greater implications for world hunger, and certainly have tons of people telling
me to "detoxify" by taking this or that organic supplement.
This is a good book to arm yourself against the stupid.
Beyond that, it ends up with a fascinating
look at the frontiers of genetic science, and for that alone it is worth
reading. Amazing technologies and advancements are just around the
corner, and this is a great primer about what is and what could be.
Easily and professionally written, not too long, and enjoyable science journalism.
sort that I seek out, and yet tire of quickly. It refuses to settle into a rant, and
becomes much more by the end.
At the beginning, it's about all of the dangers of alternative
medicine, the anti-vaccination cranks,
Show More
and anti-genetically engineered foodtypes, and it's a quick and interesting overview.
I know people who are not vaccinating their kids and it sends shivers up
my spine to think what could happen if this gets bigger. I know people who
empty their wallets on "natural" and "organic" food and don't think about the
greater implications for world hunger, and certainly have tons of people telling
me to "detoxify" by taking this or that organic supplement.
This is a good book to arm yourself against the stupid.
Beyond that, it ends up with a fascinating
look at the frontiers of genetic science, and for that alone it is worth
reading. Amazing technologies and advancements are just around the
corner, and this is a great primer about what is and what could be.
Easily and professionally written, not too long, and enjoyable science journalism.
Show Less
LibraryThing member StephenBarkley
Michael Specter is one frustrated and fiery man. He's fed up with people's mistrust of science and affection for homey remedies. Take the latest raw milk craze, for example. Before pasteurization, milk was a major source of food-borne illness in the world. Now people are beginning to mistrust the
His crusade against the anti-vaccination cult is particularly vehement. Humans have short memories. If we knew the terror of unrestrained cholera, tetanus, and even measles, we would think twice before refusing vaccines to our children.
I found myself agreeing with most of Specter's. I fully agree, for example, that most of the natural homeopathic "remedies" that clutter health food stores and farmers markets across the Country are little more than 21st century snake-oil.
With all that said, even though I agreed with most of the book, I didn't trust him. His passion comes off as arrogance all too often. Here's an analogy. I'm a preacher. 99% of the people in front of my every Sunday morning are believers. I could rant and rave about the importance of being "born again", but it would do not good to have every head nodding—I'd only be preaching to the choir (so to speak). Specter's preaching to the choir. He's given scientific-minded people fodder to help them feel superior to the brainless masses of humanity—but this sort of zealotry will do nothing to persuade those who desperately need to heed his message.
Show More
wisdom of pasteurization, longing for the good old days when their milk came unsullied from the cow. There is no evidence of people being harmed my the pasteurization process, but there's plenty of evidence about the dangers of raw milk. That's just one example he uses to make his case: denying scientific progress harms the human race as a whole.His crusade against the anti-vaccination cult is particularly vehement. Humans have short memories. If we knew the terror of unrestrained cholera, tetanus, and even measles, we would think twice before refusing vaccines to our children.
I found myself agreeing with most of Specter's. I fully agree, for example, that most of the natural homeopathic "remedies" that clutter health food stores and farmers markets across the Country are little more than 21st century snake-oil.
With all that said, even though I agreed with most of the book, I didn't trust him. His passion comes off as arrogance all too often. Here's an analogy. I'm a preacher. 99% of the people in front of my every Sunday morning are believers. I could rant and rave about the importance of being "born again", but it would do not good to have every head nodding—I'd only be preaching to the choir (so to speak). Specter's preaching to the choir. He's given scientific-minded people fodder to help them feel superior to the brainless masses of humanity—but this sort of zealotry will do nothing to persuade those who desperately need to heed his message.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Devil_llama
Overall, not a bad introduction to the problem on non-scientific and anti-scientific thinking. The author attempts to show the ways in which our current society, both left and right, is engaged in denying science based on personal preference or ideology, and how it is dangerous to do that. He
Show More
addresses only a few issues, apparently deciding global warming and evolution have enough treatment in other works that they don't need comprehensive coverage here, and he's right. I don't have many complaints, except for one that is almost always a problem in books like this: the denialism evinced by the author about simple biology. He takes a lot of time to talk to scientists, but few biologists, and no ecologists (for some reason, everyone thinks they can talk about ecology without ever talking to any ecologists, and he is no exception). As a result, he sets up some straw men, particularly in the area of organic food, and manages to nicely demolish them, but makes a very poorly reasoned argument in the bigger picture because he ignores the branch of science most equipped to deal with the topic. And in matters of genetic engineering, he does a very nice job of substituting physics for biology, which is...incomprehensible. Physics is not biology, and if you are talking about biology, you should consider talking to biologists, and not just the geneticists who work for the big labs. In the end, some of his chapters end up sounding a great deal like the 19th century utopians and the 1950s home of the future folks, who got some things right, and a lot of things spectacularly wrong. Overall, a decent introduction to the topic, but a bit incomplete. Show Less
LibraryThing member waynet_az
The book started off well, giving some excellent examples of denialism in action and then quickly descended into just a book about genetic science advancement with no more "denialism" examples after the first half of the book or so. That, combined with sweeping statements about how we have
Show More
destroyed the atmosphere (I believe in global warming and also that recent warming is man-caused, but this was sensationalist rhetoric from someone writing about people denying science) left a bad taste. I had VERY high hopes for this book and they were dashed at the midpoint. Show Less
LibraryThing member gopfolk
With this book I'm torn. I find that the author took great care in picking out his topics but in many circumstances failed to deliver the final message.
Case in point is Vioxx...so was the company the denier or was it those that tarred and feathered the company the deniers? Was it pure greed on the
There is also the political context here that seems to be out of alignment. Through out the book the author seems to imply that it is the conservatives that are the deniers (praising Obama numerous times in the book) even going so far as to call out "Orin Hatch, the Utah Republican" but ignoring the word "Democrat" when calling out Tom Harkin instead using "populist liberal" as a political tag. The book is full of the deniers being Democrats but not once does the author take up that as an issue.
These topics are near and dear to my me since science is close to my heart and I hate seeing it bastardized by those that "once heard something" or that "read it online" rather than allowing science to run its due course.
Case in point is Vioxx...so was the company the denier or was it those that tarred and feathered the company the deniers? Was it pure greed on the
Show More
pharmaceutical side or was it the tiny fraction of incidents that is the concern?There is also the political context here that seems to be out of alignment. Through out the book the author seems to imply that it is the conservatives that are the deniers (praising Obama numerous times in the book) even going so far as to call out "Orin Hatch, the Utah Republican" but ignoring the word "Democrat" when calling out Tom Harkin instead using "populist liberal" as a political tag. The book is full of the deniers being Democrats but not once does the author take up that as an issue.
These topics are near and dear to my me since science is close to my heart and I hate seeing it bastardized by those that "once heard something" or that "read it online" rather than allowing science to run its due course.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Razinha
Good survey of a few faddish denials, if temporal....written in 2009, Specter hits a couple of topics of the day and a few more bigger issues. Big pharma (not in favor), anti-vaccines (Jenny McCarthy, et al), organics and anti-oxidants - he skewers one of my favorite (and I admit a very
Show More
unscientific bias in my term) quacks Dr. Andrew Weil - and genetics...climate science wasn't on the radar three years ago. Doesn't explain why...just that there are things pele deny and why they shouldn't. Still a good read though. Show Less
LibraryThing member SwitchKnitter
There are a lot of people who need to read this book. It's a great book of facts about a lot of issues some people have problems with, like vaccines and genetically modified food. The writing is solid, and I like how it ends with hope for the future of science.
LibraryThing member smbass
Meh. Nothing very new or interesting here
LibraryThing member dcunning11235
This book was well worth the read. Having read it from the library, I've just bought a copy to lend to a few acquaintances with whom I've had past discussions touching on topics here. I feel I've never been able to really convey what the problems with 'Denialism' are in our discussions/arguments
Here's hoping...
I knocked one star off because I wish the book had kept focused on things that are right now, that we know about; the last few 10's of pages range off into future biotech. That is all important, true, but it distracts from the discussion about current issues. I think, for some people, it will interfere with considering the facts we know now. E.g. we *know* that vaccines are safe, for any real-world meaning of that word, and we know that have immense benefits *right now*. Following that (and other) arguments with a few chapters about future developments in genetic engineering or synthetic biology weakens all that; people who don't already support the positions in the book will be left with their uncertainties about future directions and outcomes of research, rather than with strong arguments about the certainties around current issues.
I could possibly knock off one more star because the book does cover things *so* rapidly, at a high level of detail. It could also have been written a bit more dispassionately. But, in this case anyway, those are just my own my tastes; this is an argumentative/persuasive pop-sci book, not a book written for scientists, policy wonks, etc. Hopefully this can get a few people thinking.
Show More
(and, of course, I didn't have 280 pages to do it in.) I hope that an easily accessible book like this will help, in part, because it covers a range of issues: amongst my circle, at least, no one is all of anti-vaxxer/pill-popper/anti-GMO/anti-pesticide/etc. By addressing these side by side perhaps the parallels between what a reader might consider bunk and what the same reader might believe will be visible, helping them to reflect on their own beliefs.Here's hoping...
I knocked one star off because I wish the book had kept focused on things that are right now, that we know about; the last few 10's of pages range off into future biotech. That is all important, true, but it distracts from the discussion about current issues. I think, for some people, it will interfere with considering the facts we know now. E.g. we *know* that vaccines are safe, for any real-world meaning of that word, and we know that have immense benefits *right now*. Following that (and other) arguments with a few chapters about future developments in genetic engineering or synthetic biology weakens all that; people who don't already support the positions in the book will be left with their uncertainties about future directions and outcomes of research, rather than with strong arguments about the certainties around current issues.
I could possibly knock off one more star because the book does cover things *so* rapidly, at a high level of detail. It could also have been written a bit more dispassionately. But, in this case anyway, those are just my own my tastes; this is an argumentative/persuasive pop-sci book, not a book written for scientists, policy wonks, etc. Hopefully this can get a few people thinking.
Show Less
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2009
Physical description
320 p.; 5.3 inches
ISBN
0143118315 / 9780143118312
Similar in this library
- Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer
- The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer