G. Branden read and liked Terran's review of Bad Science:

"Ok, I've owed Branden a review on this book for about six months now. Figure that I should finally get around to it. Happy birthday, man. ;-) (Ok, a bit late. What are friends for? ;-)

First off, this is not actually a book about sci...more Ok, I've owed Branden a review on this book for about six months now. Figure that I should finally get around to it. Happy birthday, man. ;-) (Ok, a bit late. What are friends for? ;-)

First off, this is not actually a book about science in general -- it's about medicine. Or, more specifically, it's about the interaction of medicine with society and the kinds of influences that drive the markets for everything from "health foods" to makeup to pharmaceuticals. Basically, everything that would fall under the purview of the FDA in the US, though Goldacre is writing from a UK perspective.

Essentially, Goldacre's agenda here is to take apart many of the myths about health, food, medicine, etc. that are propagated by the media and marketers, to the detriment of the real practice of medicine. He poses it as teaching the reader to think critically about such claims and to recognize failures of scientific method. For example, he discusses notions of controlled experiments, blind and double-blind experiments, the placebo and nocebo effects, and so on. These are all described in the context of prominent methodological failures in various mainstream health/beauty/medicine products.

While his efforts to educate are laudable, however, they're really secondary and a bit superficial. For example, Goldacre claims in the first few pages that (paraphrased), "after reading this book, every reader will know as much about how to do top-quality experiments as a medical researcher", but that blatantly exaggerated claim is given lie by chapter four or five, where he admits that, yes, catching some of the subterfuges in pharmaceutical experiments requires an extremely sophisticated knowledge of the correct application of a given drug, its mechanisms, the correct type of control, etc., and is probably best left up to someone with years of training in the field.

The real point of this book is Goldacre's screed against the marketers and industry that push poorly supported, fraudulent, or outright dangerous claims in the name of health and medicine. Goldacre is a physician and medical researcher himself, and you can feel his fury at these folks radiating off the pages. He attacks modern charlatans and snake oil salesmen with a contemptuous vitriol that would do Mark Twain proud. In the process, he falls prey to some of the claims he levels at his opponents, albeit to a lesser degree. For example, he doesn't provide the concrete data that would allow a careful reader to actaully make specific personal judgments about the merits of particular pharmeceutical companies' claims -- we're just expected to take his word that they have cooked the books on their drugs' performances. (Though he does provide a number of references, so I suppose a truly studious reader would do the legwork.)

But perhaps this is appropriate because this is, after all, a popular work, not a technical one, and his tone and rhetoric are entertaining. The entertainment value probably contributes to readership of both his book and his blog, and does more to promulgate his message than getting all of the technical detail right would have. And, in truth, it is likely that any readers who are truly qualified to make real judgments on such data probably don't need to (or won't care to) read this book.

In spite of the vehemence of his tone and his tendency to skip over the data that would actually make the case that he claims he's making, he does cover a lot of important ground. He takes to task the insane market for "detoxing", points out that expensive skin creams can be made at home for pennies, gives a very interesting analysis of antioxidants (pointing out that their putative health benefits are down to out-of-date studies and simplistic models of their activity; current consensus seems to be that they have either no or negative health benefits), attacks the media's simple-minded buy-in to inflated medical claims and failures to follow through on updated information, and takes to task the pharmaceutical industry for various forms of cooking the books. (Interesting factoid that pharma industry, which is forever claiming that their high prices are down to expensive R&D and restrictive patent laws actually spends quite a bit more on marketing and advertising than on R&D.)

So overall, I would chalk this book down as an interesting read, even if an imperfect exemplar of its own ideals. There is a lot of interesting information in here, even if it is not substantiated as fully as I would like. It's worth reading, if only to bolster one's skepticism about the industry.

Of course, I suspect that Branden doesn't need his skepticism bolstered, so this book may be of less interest to him than he had hoped. ;-)(less) "

G. Branden read and liked John's review of Halley's Bible Handbook with the New International Version:

"I bought this book because it was free in the Kindle store for a spell. I'm glad I didn't pay anything for it.

Overall, my problem with this book is twofold: 1) it takes an unquestioning literalist view of the entire Bible, and 2) it demo...more I bought this book because it was free in the Kindle store for a spell. I'm glad I didn't pay anything for it.

Overall, my problem with this book is twofold: 1) it takes an unquestioning literalist view of the entire Bible, and 2) it demonstrates a severe lack of intellectual curiosity throughout.

I maintain that the result is worse than no study guide whatsoever.

The fact that Christianity is a broad tent, and that the Bible has been read in various ways over the centuries and today, is lost to Halley. I do not mind the presentation of the literalist view if it were combined with other credible viewpoints past and present. But to assert that this is the ONLY way to read the Bible is doing a terrible disservice to a religion, and misrepresents it in a egregious fashion. Christianity has had a brief literalist bubble, and there is much that the thinking Christian can question about such an interpretation, which is perhaps why it is dying off.

Let me provide a few choice quotes.

"Accept the Bible just as it is, for exactly what it claims to be. Don't worry about the theories of the critics. The ingenious efforts of modern criticism to undermine the historical reliability of the Bible will pass..." It is terribly bothersome to me that a purported study guide is encouraging people trying to intellectually engage the Bible to suspend their intellect. For whom shall find Christianity relevant today if we cannot understand it in the context of modern science? Christianity ought not fear science, nor science religion; the two ought to be embraced together, and the religious can learn about the Bible from science.

Regarding the creation story: "How did the writer know what happened before man appeared? No doubt God revealed the remote past, as later the distant future was made known to the prophets." No mention of other viewpoints -- that it has strong parallels to other ancient creation myths, what science and philosophy have to say, etc. Even Wikipedia's Creation_myth page reminds us that the Church was not literalist.

In the introduction, it advances the view that the Bible is "God's own record of His dealings with people in His unfolding revelation of Himself to the human race... Nor do we know just how God directed these authors to write. But we believe and know that God did rect them and that these books therefore must be exactly what God wanted them to be."

That is of course a rather controversial view, though it was perhaps widely held in some circles. But it boggles the mind, and ignores, for one thing, the multiple ancient sources that modern Bible assemblers must attempt to synthesize to make a coherent book.

The only value I see in this book is a glimpse at the viewpoint of an earlier age. At that it may excel. As a guide for someone alive today -- frankly I am surprised that it has garnered such high reviews here.

I have nothing against literalists; I respect them even if I disagree. But to pretend that there isn't even a debate here borders on the dishonest, and certainly sidelines this book out of the "serious and useful scholarly work" bookshelf.(less) "