Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives by Michael Specter

Nov 30, 2009 Emily rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

I really wanted to like this book, especially since I agree with the author's premise that some segments of our society have developed a knee-jerk distrust of all things scientific which is endangering lives, wasting money and distracting us from making scientific progress. In Mr. Specter's words, "Denialism 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."

Mr. Specter opens Denialism...more I really wanted to like this book, especially since I agree with the author's premise that some segments of our society have developed a knee-jerk distrust of all things scientific which is endangering lives, wasting money and distracting us from making scientific progress. In Mr. Specter's words, "Denialism 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."

Mr. Specter opens Denialism by describing in thorough detail the Vioxx case (an arthritis wonder-drug that was pulled from the market in 2004 after an increased risk of heart attack and stroke was found to be linked to its usage). He uses Merck's shortsighted and selfish mishandling of the drug’s shortcomings as a powerful example of why so many people are distrustful of scientists and large corporations. The next chapter outlines the anti-vaccine movement - his disdain for Jenny McCarthy, in particular, is palpable. Fear of genetically engineered foods is next along with society's "organic fetish" that is not supported by scientific data and is, in some cases, preventing starving people from receiving food. Then vitamin and herbal supplements are up - again, Mr. Specter's disgust with Dr. Andrew Weil was dripping off the page. Genetic variations between races follows, with Mr. Specter lamenting the "political correctness" that refuses to acknowledge any difference based on race and leads to inappropriate or ineffective medical treatments. The final chapter talks about synthetic biology and some not-so-distant possibilities for sticky ethical applications.

While Mr. Specter has obviously done his homework, each of these topics has been covered individually and more thoroughly in full-length books of their own. It’s interesting to have them assembled in one place, the better to make his argument that society is trending toward distrust of science. But it was also incredibly frustrating that he didn't offer much in the way of solutions, particularly since he starts out with such a clear example (Vioxx) of why people don't trust science, the government or Big Pharma anymore. He also mentions the Tuskegee experiments, Ford's Pinto, SARS and Chernobyl, to name a few. Information is withheld, bureaucracies move far too slowly or have too little actual authority, self-interested companies stonewall and spin their PR machines. So what is the wo/man in the street supposed to do about it? What sources should we trust for scientific information? How do you see through the spin?

I admit to having little patience with those who ignore all scientific evidence in favor of the anecdotes and non-peer-reviewed information available at the "University of Google", especially when their ignorance puts others at risk. Mr. Specter seems both angry and defensive throughout this book - which he certainly has a right to be. I just wish more of that energy was directed towards helping the average person figure out how to know what to trust rather than railing against the ignorant and the charlatans.(less)

like 7 likes · see review

Jan 27, 2011 Lena rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: medical, non-fiction

Over the last few years, I've become increasingly interested in the gap between scientific and technological developments and the public perception of those developments. In Denialism, journalist Michael Specter dives straight into this gap and makes a compelling argument that this problem is among the most dangerous we currently face.

Specter does decent job of outlining where the gap between scientific data and popular myth comes from and why it seems to be growing. In the middle part of the ce...more Over the last few years, I've become increasingly interested in the gap between scientific and technological developments and the public perception of those developments. In Denialism, journalist Michael Specter dives straight into this gap and makes a compelling argument that this problem is among the most dangerous we currently face.

Specter does decent job of outlining where the gap between scientific data and popular myth comes from and why it seems to be growing. In the middle part of the century, the authority of science, and our faith in its ability to cure our ills and improve our lives, was much stronger. But as the population as a whole became less inclined to accept authority on its face, and people witnessed gross scientific missteps such as the Challenger explosion and the Vioxx disaster, public trust began to erode.

Specter opens his book with a detailed discussion of the Vioxx tragedy and the very reasonable fears it left in its wake. He does not shy away from discussing the real limits of our scientific feats, but focuses his energy on those places where irrational overreaction to these events has taken over to great detrimental effect.

Among the topics he covers are the tremendous setbacks in public health brought on by the anti-vaccination movement, the elitist push towards organics and against GMO's, the billions of dollars spent on supplements in absence of evidence that they work, the resistance of people to acknowledging that race is a factor in the development of disease, and the implications of biotechnology on all areas of our lives.

Throughout each of these chapters, Specter makes clear that all advances in science and technology come with some sort of risk. But he makes a strong argument that those who demand our technology should be 100% risk free before it is unleashed on the world have seriously misplaced their fears. He points out that we have taken what he calls a "Hollywood approach" to risk - failing to think twice about getting inside a car, which actually IS quite dangerous to our well-being, while expending great effort to avoid even the tiniest amount of theoretical risk in, say, eating a conventionally grown banana.

Specter provides a good amount of supporting evidence in favor of his arguments, addressing concerns in enough detail that I learned some new things both about topics I was already familiar with, as well as those I had not yet considered. The chapter on genomics and the value of having your personal genome sequences was of particular interest to me, as I was unaware that the technology has advanced so rapidly that, contrary to earlier arguments, it actually can offer individuals information that will allow them to take definitive action to address their particular genetic health risks.

Overall, I would say this book is a valuable primer on places in crucial areas of public health where irrationality has trumped science, and it is particularly useful as a myth-debunking tool. The fact that the book focuses mainly on health could also be considered a flaw - when discussing the dismissal of scientific evidence in favor of personal ideology and fear, it seems odd that he mentions climate change and evolution denial only in passing. In addition, while he is compassionate in his discussion of aspects of human nature that make us so susceptible to the kind of denialism he describes, I didn't come away from the book with much of a sense of what could actually be done to change things. Yes, people need to be educated and learn to rely on data rather than the opinions of friends, education which this book does a decent job of providing. But aside from the suggestion of having an open conference to address the risks of the rapidly developing field of biotechnology, there were fewer practical ideas for how to change public perceptions than I had hoped there might be.

In the chapter on parents who are afraid to vaccinate, Specter provides a moving quote from Benjamin Franklin - afraid of the potential risks of the smallpox inoculation, he refused to let his son receive it. After his son contracted the disease and died at the age of four, he spoke out to urge other parents not to make his same mistake. Mr. Franklin painfully demonstrates that we are capable of overcoming our irrationality and learning to appreciate those places where the value of science outweighs its risks, but the fact that we are still having the same debate over 200 years later points to the fact that this is a lesson we are probably going to have to keep learning over and over again.(less)

like 17 likes · see review

Aug 09, 2011 David rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book is a polemic, railing against counter-culture anxiety toward technological progress and scientific illiteracy, as expressed in the anti-vaccination movement, organic ideology, GMO hysteria, etc. I’ve read several valid criticisms of the book, although most readers see at least some value in the message. One thoughtful review noted that the author failed to distinguish between science and technology (e.g., nuclear physics is science, nuclear weaponry is technology). The author is freque...more This book is a polemic, railing against counter-culture anxiety toward technological progress and scientific illiteracy, as expressed in the anti-vaccination movement, organic ideology, GMO hysteria, etc. I’ve read several valid criticisms of the book, although most readers see at least some value in the message. One thoughtful review noted that the author failed to distinguish between science and technology (e.g., nuclear physics is science, nuclear weaponry is technology). The author is frequently excoriated for his harsh treatment of “denialists.” One Amazon review received almost 200 affirmative responses—to a single 2-stars review. This is the first time I’ve seen the number of responses to a single review exceed the number of reviews. The reviewer observed that the author is too harsh in his condemnation and essentially preaches to the choir. The criticism is not without merit, but while I prefer to hear more dispassionate argumentation, that method is not universally effective. I’d like to think that if all the evidence is placed before people, they will make rational choices. As it turns out, this often just doesn’t happen. As someone once said, “People who haven’t been reasoned into a position can’t be reasoned out of it.” The Specter book doesn’t attempt that impossibility. It is, after all, a polemic. I think Specter’s target audience are those people waffling on the fence and the crowd who haven’t repudiated the tenets of denialism, not so much out of ignorance than from an absence of conviction.

Specter doesn’t contribute to discovery nor does he offer explanations and antidotes for wrongheaded thinking. Instead, he plays the role of public prosecutor. Prosecutors don’t create evidence; they assemble it and present it with rhetorical flourish to persuade an undecided jury, a jury that may resemble naïve consumers more than rational deliberators. Denialists, like others in the arena of political extremism, are invigorated by fire-breathers. Sometimes fighting-fire-with-fire is a regrettable but necessary response. The risk of that strategy is that the responder himself becomes a fire-breather, sometimes indistinguishable from his adversary. This same dilemma is playing out in our political discourse. Some would say that if you repeat a lie long enough and there is no immediate and strong repudiation, the lie takes on an aura of credibility. In today’s environment, speaking softly, regardless of how big your stick, is viewed as a sign of weakness and a tacit acknowledgement that your adversary’s position is legitimate. Subtle nuance and active open-minded thinking is dwarfed by supreme confidence and bombast. People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Michael Specter may be necessary gatekeepers willing to take on the ugly task of rigorously enforcing intellectual accountability. Thus, while I can’t bring myself to adopt Specter’s prosecutorial style and I don’t want it to become the dominant response, I see a place for it. As Lincoln said of General Grant, “I can’t spare this man; he fights!”
(less)

like 2 likes · see review

May 23, 2011 Darrell rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: reviewed

"Farm animals take up the vast majority of agricultural land and eat one-third of the world's grain. In the rich nations we consume three times the meat and four times the milk per capita of people in poorer countries. [...] Livestock already consume 80 percent of the world's soybeans and more than half the corn. Cattle require staggering amounts of fresh, potable water. It takes thirteen hundred gallons of water to produce a single hamburger; a steak requires double that amount. [...] To make a...more "Farm animals take up the vast majority of agricultural land and eat one-third of the world's grain. In the rich nations we consume three times the meat and four times the milk per capita of people in poorer countries. [...] Livestock already consume 80 percent of the world's soybeans and more than half the corn. Cattle require staggering amounts of fresh, potable water. It takes thirteen hundred gallons of water to produce a single hamburger; a steak requires double that amount. [...] To make a pound of beef requires nearly a gallon of fuel. [...] If we all skipped meat and dairy just one day each week it would do more to lower our collective carbon footprint than if the entire population of the United States ate locally produced food every day of the year."

When most people hear the word denialism, the first things that often come to mind are global warming denial, evolution denial, holocaust denial and other conservative objections to science. In his book, Denialism, however, Michael Specter takes aim at liberal forms of denial such as the anti-vacine movement, opposition to genetically modified food, and belief in alternative medicine. It's good to be reminded that liberals can be just as opposed to science as conservatives.

With companies knowingly putting unsafe products on the market such as Merck's drug Vioxx and Ford's Pinto, it's no wonder that people think big corporations put profit before human lives. Although it's rare, companies are occasionally willing to risk wrongful death lawsuits in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Distrust of authority makes sense when seen in this context.

It's also natural that people want to be in control of their own bodies. The more technology becomes a part of our lives, the more we have to rely on other people: the farmer that grows our food, the pilot who flys our airplanes, the doctor who prescribes our medications, and the nuclear technician who provides our electricity. Occasionally, the people we rely on make mistakes. We never think about all the times they do their jobs perfectly, because that's expected, but when mistakes happen it's frightening. Nevertheless, short of moving to a secluded cabin in the woods like the Unabomber, we all have to learn to live with that risk.

Denialism is understandable, but that doesn't make it right. Just because doctors sometimes make mistakes, that doesn't mean that the entire medical establishment is wrong. There is a current movement of people lead by former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy who are opposed to vaccines because they think they cause autism. Countless studies have been done that prove vaccines don't cause autism, but for some people no amount of evidence will be enough. They'll always be in denial. Diseases such as measles which were nearly eradicated are starting to come back because of people refusing to vaccinate their children. While, it's true that in rare cases, some people have an adverse reaction to taking a vaccine, the evidence overwhelming proves that taking vaccines is safer than not taking them.

Genetically modified food, like all new innovations, can lead to disaster since it is always possible mistakes will be made, although none have happened so far. However, it's incorrect to think that organic food is healthier, as deaths due to salmonella poisoning and drinking unpasteurized milk prove. Organic is not synonymous with healthy. After all, arsenic and mercury are organic. With the world's population spiraling out of control, genetically modified food may be the only way to feed the world's hungry. Insisting on organic only is actually a death sentence for many in Africa because traditionally grown food isn't enough to feed them. Besides, organic food is itself genetically modified, just because it's been modified over generations instead of over a couple years doesn't make it any more natural.

Vitamins, while healthy when consumed in food form, have not proven to be beneficial when taken in pill form for the majority of Americans. Unless you suffer from a particular vitamin deficiency, chances are you get enough nutrition from eating regular food. Many vitamins taken in pill form don't get absorbed by the body and just end up passing right through the digestive system. This is why vitamin pills are sometimes referred to as "expensive pee". There are even some studies which indicate that certain vitamin supplements can do harm. It's natural for people to want to be healthier, but the evidence shows that vitamin supplements and other forms of alternative medicine just don't work.

I disagree with Specter that denialism is more rampant now than any other period in human history or that it's more rampant in America than anywhere else in the world. I also disagree with him that Whole Foods is far more expensive than other supermarkets, since on a recent trip, I found their prices were comparable for most products.

For some reason, Specter devotes the final two chapters of his book to wild speculations about the future of genetics and synthetic biology. These chapters are tangentially related to denialism, I suppose, since there will certainly always be people opposed to every new form of technology, however by attempting to predict the future, Specter is engaging in non-critical thinking. A couple of the people he interviews claim that huge technological breakthroughs are right around the corner, given enough funding. How many times have we been promised new technology that never materializes? The fact of the matter is, we simply can't predict what technology will be like in the future. People living in the 1950's predicted we'd have flying cars by the year 2000, but they never saw the Internet coming. Likewise, today's predictions will most likely appear foolish fifty years from now. The book, which was written in 2009, actually makes the prediction that creating new species using synthetic biology will be a 7th grade science experiment in 3 years. Really?

The book contains good information overall. I was interested to learn that some doctors refuse to take a patient's race into consideration when diagnosing illness out of a strange sense of political correctness even though genetics plays a major role in the treatment of many ailments. I just think Specter should be more skeptical when it comes to predictions about what technology we're going to have in the future.(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Apr 04, 2011 Mark rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

An OK survey of 'deniers' of modern science such as the anti-vaccine or alternative healing crowds. On one level it's a well written and well researched polemic--I certainly learned quite a bit about various movements, something about the science of different areas, and got quite worked up in places.

On another level, though, it's sort of oddly unsatisfying. By the end I got the feeling that Specter was primarily an optimist who just likes scientists as people and gets annoyed with idiotic conspi...more

like 3 likes · see review

Jan 15, 2011 Paul rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: why-people-are-batshit-crazy

Very, very interesting book to read. Changed my thinking about a lot of things.

The author's basic premise is that some people, for whatever reason, want to believe whatever lunacy they've chosen to believe over hard, scientific fact. Normally that's not a problem. It's when people like this band together and start making noise that others, possibly suffering from the same issues, jump on the bandwagon.

I'd originally heard the author speak on NPR, and was interested in getting the book, mainly...more Very, very interesting book to read. Changed my thinking about a lot of things.

The author's basic premise is that some people, for whatever reason, want to believe whatever lunacy they've chosen to believe over hard, scientific fact. Normally that's not a problem. It's when people like this band together and start making noise that others, possibly suffering from the same issues, jump on the bandwagon.

I'd originally heard the author speak on NPR, and was interested in getting the book, mainly because they were talking about the vaccine issue (which totally irritates me, how some parents think they're smarter than doctors who've been in school for 12+ years - as if doctors WANTED to fuck their kids up).

The first chapter on Vioxx sort of set the stage, framing it all in the perspective of greed, trust (and losing it), and the mania that results afterwards, He makes very good points regarding the statistics and chances and the rational part of my brain wasn't surprised when he said he'd still recommend the drug. The author is as candid and open about these things, and I give him some points (in my book) for admitting to uncertainties or to the fact that the calculus might have people hurt, but overall more people benefit in the end (a pharmaceutical version of realpolitik?).

The vaccine chapter got my attention, and concerned me greatly not only for the attention its gotten in the media, but also for the shrillness (and total ignorance) of one of its "leaders", Jenny McCarthy, and due to the fact that I work in education. Honestly, if I know a kid has not been vaccinated for certain things, I don't want him in my class as he or she poses as much a threat to the health of everyone else (including myself). I have a right to make that choice.

What astounded me though was the body of scientific evidence (even now, they just denounced the initial study as a fraud), yet people still cling to this idea, when any number of things might be the cause for autism, such as the environment, the food, media (how many parents leave their kids watching TV?), and so on. Or maybe it's like the Joker's Smilex poison, where the individual components aren't dangerous but combined somehow they trigger autism? Point is, NO ONE KNOWS 100%, yet we have people acting as if they do.

I could go on, but the main point is this: the book does a good job of looking at issues that people are getting all hyped up or bent about, and tries to treat them rationally and scientifically. That's the only way we can know more about them in a way that allows us to possibly control and direct how such things will affect and benefit us later, or at least mitigate their deleterious effects. Getting hysterical does no one any good, and its the first step to things like mass panic, mob mentality, and other crazy shit.

The author is, again, refreshingly frank and open when it comes to admitting the shortcomings and faults and drawbacks of the scientific approach, the gaps in knowledge, and the lack of information in some areas, but that's not so much because he's a good person (though I think he is somewhat for trying to bring this issue to light) - it's because that is how science works. If you don't know something in science, then you are allowed to say that you don't know. In this age of instant gratification and online research, so many people are used to getting answers, and the honest truth is that while we are capable of amazing things, we still are mere mortals.

What really frightened me in the book are how people are wholly willing to shut down the rational part of their brains in order to focus on the thing (a fetish, if you will, in the traditional sense of the word) that is fucking up their lives, and make it the source and cause of their pain, so that if they can either attack it or find a cure for it, they can have some control over their issue and feel better about themselves. Sorry, but the truth is that this world can be an ugly, random place to be, and nature doesn't choose sides.

I'd recommend this book to anyone who wants a clearer perspective on these issues, or, alternately, to anyone who buys into any of the topics presented in the book (I was a supplement user for a while), and wants an honest, critical look at them. The truth doesn't choose sides, it just is, and how we receive and interpret it is really what matters.

(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Aug 15, 2010 Sarah rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: social-discourse, nonfiction

This book is an excellent source of information and proof that our self-inflicted ignorance is limiting progress on a massive scale. Specter cites vaccine misinformation, myths of the organic food movement, and the overarching misunderstanding of biotechnology and its potential as a few examples of this terrifying “denialism”.

I consider myself to be a fairly inquisitive and knowledgeable person when it comes to the things that I endorse. Specter brought up many arguments in this particular book...more

like 2 likes · see review

May 31, 2010 Susan rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I read about two thirds of this book. The point that it generally makes is good: that it's good to embrace scientific progress and be logical. However, I find in a number of his arguments he is rather simplistic, assuming that the situations are strictly black and white. Notably, in the section on organic food: he points out how companies noticed that transferring genes from a brazil nut to another plant, caused an allergic reactions to it that had not happened before (and the company stopped th...more

like 6 likes · see review

Mar 27, 2010 David rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: science, left-unfinished

I'm sure there's some good stuff in this book - possibly enough to raise the review to two stars. However, Specter's starting point is so horribly flawed that I can't continue reading this, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

Denialists piss me off. Climate change deniailists, the anti-vaccine movement, etc. The thing we must be cautious about, however, is that because denialists have a completely warped view of reality, and ignore evidence and science, if you call someone a denialist you w...more I'm sure there's some good stuff in this book - possibly enough to raise the review to two stars. However, Specter's starting point is so horribly flawed that I can't continue reading this, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

Denialists piss me off. Climate change deniailists, the anti-vaccine movement, etc. The thing we must be cautious about, however, is that because denialists have a completely warped view of reality, and ignore evidence and science, if you call someone a denialist you will subsequently ignore any argument they make. Instead of carefully building up his arguments first, Specter just leaps in and throws about the denialist epithet.

I also object because Specter does not understand the distinction between science and technology. A surprisingly large number of people don't, but I can't imagine how someone who didn't undertook to write this book. He's not a scientist, but journalists are still perfectly capable of understanding the distinction, if they take the time to figure it out. Science is a method of understanding how the world works. Technology is the practical application of that knowledge to solve specific problems. Nuclear physics is science. Nuclear weapons are technology. It is possible to wholeheartedly support science without supporting every technological application.

Specter also hates people who are anti-GMO and pro-organic, because they are all denialists (by which he says he means people who don't support science). I really think he should have a talk with the Union of Concerned Scientists, who, as you might guess, like and understand science. But they're still concerned about harmful agricultural practices. UCS started as a group of scientists against nuclear weapons - another example of pro-science, anti-specific-technological-application.

Specter also thinks the "two cultures" of C.P. Snow's The Two Cultures are no longer distinct. Which is pretty insane. Especially for someone who you'd think would be well aware of both, given that he's a science journalist.
(less)

like 7 likes · see review

Mar 03, 2010 Blake Nelson rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: science

I have noticed more and more lately that there is a strong anti-science, anti-expert sentiment going around. I've never really understood it - if an important decision needs to be made, then I want the most qualified people involved in making that decision. Why is it that in some circles, advertising how much you don't know seems to be a qualification for high positions or power? A particular pet peeve of mine - why do people trust politicians or other lay people about climate change more than t...more

like 1 like · see review

Feb 22, 2010 Jill rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: didn-t-finish

Specter did a great job of challenging my beliefs about several things. He goes about this in such a way that he's both disagreeing and agreeing with the reader. First, he starts by saying something that at the outset raised my hackles. I felt this way through most of the introduction. Then, he tells you all the reasons why you SHOULD feel this way about a topic, why you should disagree with him, which was effective in mollifying my disagreement. Then he explains that while you're justified in f...more

like · see review

Dec 20, 2009 Donna rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: general-nonfiction

What I expected from this book was a neurological explanation of the propensity we all have for denialism--from the psychologically protective mechanisms involved in absorbing tragedy in stages to the obstinate refusal of sometimes educated or influential people--from Samuel Shenton (founder of the Flat Earth Society) to Sarah Palin--to acknowledge scientific fact. I still think that would be a very good book, and someone ought to write it.

As it turns out, Denialism is more about the scientific...more

like 1 like · see review

Jan 26, 2011 Nenia Campbell rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: left-right-confusion, shrinky-and-the-brain, true-story-bro, reviewed, x-2009s, weird-science

This book could easily have been titled People Whose Views Differ from Mine and Why That Makes Them Stupid. Specter delivers scathing criticisms of modern society's war against science and chilling reversion to the primitive in the face of all these scary scientific advances. Specter did bring up a lot of good points, it was just hard to agree with them because he didn't come across as very likable. Intelligent, yes. Witty, yes. Nice, no.

The chapter where he almost lost me was the one with his l...more This book could easily have been titled People Whose Views Differ from Mine and Why That Makes Them Stupid. Specter delivers scathing criticisms of modern society's war against science and chilling reversion to the primitive in the face of all these scary scientific advances. Specter did bring up a lot of good points, it was just hard to agree with them because he didn't come across as very likable. Intelligent, yes. Witty, yes. Nice, no.

The chapter where he almost lost me was the one with his lengthy diatribe against the benefit of organic foods. Granted, eating ill-prepared organic food can be worse than the modified alternative, but I really don't think the best way to go is to engineer produce. Especially since Specter actually said that no ill effects have been found as a direct result of people consumed genetically modified foods. And this is where I'm going to get on my soap box, and argue that Michael Specter is engaging in a bit of denialism of his own. I am actually allergic to Bt corn. Bt corn has proteins from a strain of bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis) that effectively causes the corn to produce its own pesticide. It makes the stomachs of the bugs that eat it explode. Unfortunately, a small but significant portion of people are sensitive to modified corn, including myself. It doesn't make our stomachs explode, but causes mild to severe intestinal problems. Organic corn does not cause this problem. And who knows how many other people have similar problems with these engineered products? Our bodies weren't designed to deal with these altered sources of food, and they have been in the food supply for too little a period of time for us to really understand the effects. I understand that there are many benefits to science, and genetically modified foods, but I also think that just because we have the ability to do something doesn't necessarily mean we should do it.

And that brings me to my main criticism of Denialism. Specter condemns people who shrug off the wise advice of physicians and scientists, but doesn't really look at the corollary to that belief: that physicians and scientists are also capable of being wrong. To err is human, after all. Having a PhD does not mean one is infallible: in fact, there may be an even greater tendency to lapse into denialism, because an intelligent person has more to lose in the way of their reputation from failure. Just look at the Vioxx incident. There might be many reasons to trust science, but I'd say that there are just as many reasons to be wary of it, as well.(less)

like 3 likes · see review

Jul 07, 2011 Tucker added it · review of another edition

Shelves: finished

What Michael Specter calls "denialism" -- that is, denial of scientific process and findings -- derives more from fear of technology than from anti-intellectualism, politics, or religion. (p. 12) Denialism relies on conspiracy theories about scientists and often the government. It is a coping strategy for our decreasing understanding of how our increasingly technological world works. (p. 47) Additionally, he explains, "Confusing popularity with authority is one of the hallmarks of denialism." (p...more What Michael Specter calls "denialism" -- that is, denial of scientific process and findings -- derives more from fear of technology than from anti-intellectualism, politics, or religion. (p. 12) Denialism relies on conspiracy theories about scientists and often the government. It is a coping strategy for our decreasing understanding of how our increasingly technological world works. (p. 47) Additionally, he explains, "Confusing popularity with authority is one of the hallmarks of denialism." (p. 177) He makes it clear that "it isn't ignorance that makes people run from the past or shun the future. It's fear." (p. 82)

"When people decide that science can't solve their problems, they reject its principles. Denying the truth becomes a habit." (p. 127) He derides people who are wishy-washy on whether they support the scientific method as the determinant of approaches to health care: "Either you believe evidence that can be tested, verified, and repeated will lead to a better understanding of reality or you don't. There is nothing in between but the abyss." (p. 165-166)

His chapter on the limitations of organic food did not resonate with me. His claim that no deaths have ever been attributed to the long-term consumption of food grown with pesticides, while many deaths have been attributed to bacterially contaminated "natural" food, seems to be an apples/oranges comparison of chronic and acute illness. His claim that organic farms are too small and expensive to feed the world's billions of hungry people may well be correct, but in the same way that cleaning my own plate doesn't feed starving children across the world, putting more pesticides in my own diet doesn't feed them, either.

His argument in favor of vaccination was more compelling. He mentions that vaccination isn't solely a personal lifestyle choice, because when the number of vaccinated people falls below a supermajority then the immunity of the entire population is compromised and diseases may make a resurgence. A formerly nearly-eradicated disease could infect those who never had a choice to be vaccinated because of their age or health and who thus relied on others to vaccinate themselves to keep the disease from taking hold in the population again.

I was intrigued by a quote from Specter's conversation with scientist Drew Endy: "Preventing disease is obviously more desirable than treating it. My guess is that our ultimate solution to the crisis of health care costs will be to redesign ourselves so that we don't have so many problems to deal with. But note, you can't possibly begin to do something like this if you don't have a value system in place that allows you to map concepts of ethics, beauty, and aesthetics onto our existence." (p. 247-248)

It would be interesting to pair this book with some other book that examines the religious angle, that is, people who believe that prayer cures disease or who have other religious objections to scientific study.(less)

like · see review

Apr 12, 2010 Austin rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

While I agree with the sentiment, the problem with writing a book to call out zealots and denialists is that to do it convincingly and passionately the author comes across as a zealot. It's an unfortunate paradox. As an example from another arena: I explain my political views as "the opposite of Rush Limbaugh" ... as I define it, that's not Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann, but NPR. Sometimes fighting fire with fire is not the way to go.

Denialism, written by a science writer for the New Yorker,...more

like 1 like · see review

Nov 23, 2010 Amanda rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to Amanda by: lifehacker, i think

Shelves: non-fiction

Not a good book. For the most part, it read like an extended blog post, with some case studies on cool technologies, but without a lot of discussion on why people tend towards being anti-science, or even about how culture discourages science literacy! It was just some guy saying hey! These people are stupid for taking person X's word for granted, and not taking scientist Y's word for granted, but they should totally take MY word for granted, even though I am also picking what experts and quotes...more

like 1 like · see review

Jan 26, 2010 Danielle rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I put this book on my too-read list after seeing the author on The Daily Show and my in-laws bought it for me for Christmas. It was an okay read. It was fairly interesting, but I don't think I completely bought everything the author had to say and definitely felt he was stretching in the last couple of chapters. I also felt he often did not stay focused on what the book was actually supposed to be about based on its title. He focuses on a different area in each chapter to talk about how often fe...more

like 1 like · see review

Oct 28, 2010 Ula rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

It's not that I don't agree with the premise; I am firmly on the side of science. But for a journalist, this is a terribly written book. If I had turned this in to my college professors, I would've gotten maybe a C and a "organize your thoughts in a cohesive manner!!" in big red letters. He's all over the place and unduly simplifies issues while demonizing the opposition. It comes off as so condescending that it is hard to accept, even as someone who generally agrees with him. His chapter on rac...more

like · see review

Mar 13, 2011 Audiaa rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2011, non-fiction

I believe the point of this book is that a lot of people base their beliefs on things other than scientific evidence. That's not really news. The main topics discussed in this book were autism and vaccinations, organic and genetically engineered foods, dietary supplements, and genomic racial profiling. I'm not sure who the intended audience for this book is. I have already heard and understood most of the arguments discussed in this book, and I believe someone that didn't believe or understand t...more

like · see review

Nov 06, 2011 Byron Miller rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

It wasn't anything I hadn't already heard. The book was simple to read and straight to the point. I only wish the author would have understood some of the other middle road issues of the points he raises. It was as if denialism polarity was the only answer, You either support the sciences or your in denialism. I admire GMO in many ways, but I don't like farmers being sued for patented crops in their fields and I'm not big on non renewable seeds plants, after all, I can't be for renewable energy...more

like · see review

Nov 01, 2009 Trish rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction, politics, science

Sometimes one just wants to give up on people. Maybe give them what they want, doubled, in a place they will notice its presence. Who knows if the science is right or wrong. It's the best attempt of a blind man to determine the extent of an elephant. If we put aside our greed and made a good faith effort not to blow the planet to smithereens, I think we could claim the joy the Buddhists tell us is our birthright.

In this book Specter voices his frustration at the illogic, misinformation, and dow...more

like 1 like · see review

Apr 24, 2011 John Anderson rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book is excellent for what it is: a general overview of several examples which illustrate "denialism".

No, it doesn't offer much in the way of solutions to the issues it addresses: I didn't expect it to. Of course it would have been nice, but I'm against the idea that people should not promote awareness without also providing a solution (except for when it's used as a political tactic to avoid actual discussion of solutions).

Yes, it bypasses issues such as global warming and creationism in f...more

like · see review

Jan 14, 2010 Clara rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2010, dc-public-library, read-it-in-dc

Specter embraces and astutely describes the complexities inherent to the social ramifications of technological innovations. He demonstrates how and why oversimplifications are damaging, and doesn't shy away from complex issues. Denialism's biggest risk is that of preaching to the choir: would someone who doesn't promote rational, evidence-based science (and more importantly, public policy based on that science) want to read this book? On the other hand, I can imagine a lot of precautionary princ...more

like · see review

Mar 26, 2011 Josephine rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If you were presented with absolute proof that something you once believed to be true is actually a lie, what would you do?

In some ways, Michael Specter’s “Denialism” is about all the people out there who are presented with proof and facts but who choose to ignore them, “turning away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie.” (p.3)

This goes back to what he talked about in that TED video I posted, but I think it’s worth repeating:
“…we will have to recognize denialism when we see it. As a...more If you were presented with absolute proof that something you once believed to be true is actually a lie, what would you do?

In some ways, Michael Specter’s “Denialism” is about all the people out there who are presented with proof and facts but who choose to ignore them, “turning away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie.” (p.3)

This goes back to what he talked about in that TED video I posted, but I think it’s worth repeating:
“…we will have to recognize denialism when we see it. As a society and as individuals, that means asking tough, skeptical questions, then demanding answers supported by compelling evidence. When the government, a company, or any other group makes a claim, we need to scrutinize that claim with care but without passion. Most importantly, we must learn to accept data that has been properly judged and verified — no matter what it says, or how much we might have wished that it pointed in another direction.” (p.21)

The book is broken up into several interesting chapters.

In the book, he writes, “Confusing popularity with authority is one of the hallmarks of denialism. People take comfort in becoming part of a crowd. The sense that complex issues can be resolved by a kind of majority vote, as if it were an election…” (p.177)

And, that, I think is ultimately part of a bigger problem — people naively and blithely believing things after a quick search on the Internet or listening to what a friend tells them instead of really taking the time to thoroughly investigate the issue.

I mean, I think we should all feel afraid when we read about someone as insane as Jenny McCarthy saying she was educated at the “University of Google” — but really, how are a lot of us any different (or, for that matter, any less dumb?) when we’re doing the exact same thing?

All in all, I think “Denialism” is a book everyone should read — as in, go to the library, pick it up or buy it off of Amazon or download it onto your e-readers…this is the type of thing you should be reading, not the crap that you can quickly skim off of the Internet.
(less)

like · see review

Mar 03, 2010 Loralee rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A well-researched, well-written, and scary book about schools of thought that deny scientific evidence. The author tears apart the purported connection between vaccines and autism, and takes on the organic food movement and other causes. I fear he may have been too dismissive in some of his positions (all those PCC-quoted studies about increased nutrition of organic food have to come from somewhere, and the more-trustworthy Michael Pollack also makes a good case for eating organic food), but by...more

like · see review

Jul 20, 2010 Stephen rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This is a useful book. Then why did I only give it three stars? The author starts out using fear to denounce people who are skeptical of man made global warming, or opposition to abortion. Denialists as the author points out use fear to marginalize opponents. So when the author of a book on denialism and irrational thinking is someone who practices denialism himself he loses credibility with me. If you can get past the introduction there is much to look forward to.
One thing I took from reading...more

like · see review

Nov 22, 2011 Matt rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

An interesting read and Specter makes a lot of good points about the irrationality of people when it comes to new technologies/foreign capabilities. That said, the writing style was not my favorite and Specter can come off as an ivory tower douche at times, though not as much as is possible with a book like this (which I guess is an achievement).

There were some issues I had with Specter's reasoning. I thought his talk about vaccines was spot on, but when he spoke about Monsanto he framed it as p...more

like · see review

Feb 06, 2010 Nomi rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction

I found the chapter on race most interesting-Specter argues that we have become so busy arguing that their is no such thing as racial difference that we are ignoring the possibility of developing medications to treat diseases that do have not just environmental/life style components but also have racial (genetic) origins. The chapter on synthetic biology is also very interesting-scientists can potentially map the DNA of extinct creatures (they've already done this with viruses 1918 influenza and...more

like · see review

Mar 04, 2011 J rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

this guy is a raging arrogant. i imagine him to be one of those people who likes to point out every inaccuracy in someone else's arguments, but fails to see the illogicality of his own. it's called mote-beam sickness, and boy does this guy have it in spades. yes, he does make some valid points, but it's really difficult to look past his condemnation to his actual objectives. he'll make concessions for the other side, but then override them with his own 'superior' arguments. and i certainly don't...more

like · see review

Apr 28, 2010 Nanette Bulebosh rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Most interesting chapter so far is the one on vaccines. "University of Google" student Jenny McCarthy has managed to persuade a lot of otherwise savvy parents to avoid vaccinations for their children, despite the fact that not a single study has conclusively proven a relation to vaccines (with or without Mercury) and autism. Guest appearances on Oprah and Larry King certainly helped her cause. As Spector points out, such anecdotal-based reasoning is dangerous because any large population of un-v...more

like · see review

title link	preview: Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives
avg rating	preview: Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives Goodreads rating: 3.63 (777 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8821791-denialism?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1355833883l/8821791.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8821791-denialism?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives by Michael Specter[/url]

Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (8)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Michael Specter

Books by Michael Specter

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Denialism: How Ir...