Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality

John Grant's Science

by John Grant

Is global warming just scaremongering by climatologists conspiring to protect their jobs? Is evolution "just a theory"? Is autism caused by vaccinations? The answer to all of these questions is, of course, no. The scientific evidence is now in, and it's conclusive, on these and many more issues that are fundamental to our knowledge and wellbeing. But you'd never know this if all of your information came from the popular media or your upbringing and immediate circle of influence didn't include critical thinking and basic scientific literacy.As this witty book with a very serious message shows, our culture has in recent decades been characterized by a widespread antagonism toward science and the not-always-welcome messages it brings. Large sections of the supposedly sophisticated populations in the developed nations are in an active state of denial. Not only do they deny scientific evidence but they also call into question the very competence of science as a descriptor of reality. In short, they deny reality. The author surveys the gamut of clearly unscientific ideas concerning the food we eat, the medicines and potions we are either afraid of or advised to take, our sex preferences, and a host of other issues that are raised by various panics, urban legends, and a general climate of misinformation. He also examines how special interests, from agribusiness to pharmaceutical companies to creationists, actively work to distort or suppress scientific findings. While the tendency may be to laugh at some of the ridiculous notions catalogued in the author's overview of bogus ideas, the overall picture he creates is anything but funny. This book reminds the reader that the future of free, increasingly complex societies depends on an educated citizenry that is able to think clearly and critically based on reliable information.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Politics

374 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

John Grant is author of over eighty books, of which about twenty-five are fiction, including novels like The World, The Hundredfold Problem, The Far-Enough Window and most recently The Dragons of Manhattan and Leaving Fortusa. His “book-length fiction” Dragonhenge, illustrated by Bob Eggleton, was shortlisted for a Hugo Award in 2003; its successor was The Stardragons. His first story collection, Take No Prisoners, appeared in 2004. He is editor of the anthology New Writings in the Fantastic, which was shortlisted for a British Fantasy Award. His novellas The City in These Pages and The Lonely Hunter have appeared from PS Publishing.

His latest fiction book is Tell No Lies , his second story collection; it's published by Alchemy Press. His most recent nonfiction is A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Film Noir . Earlier, he coedited with John Clute The Encyclopedia of Fantasy and wrote in their entirety all three editions of The Encyclopedia of Walt Disney’s Animated Characters; both encyclopedias are standard reference works in their field. Among other recent nonfictions have been Discarded Science, Corrupted Science (a USA Today Book of the Year), Bogus Science and Denying Science.

As John Grant he has to date received two Hugo Awards, the World Fantasy Award, the Locus Award, and a number of other international literary awards. He has written books under other names, even including his real one: as Paul Barnett, he has written a few books (like the space operas Strider’s Galaxy and Strider’s Universe) and for a number of years ran the world-famous fantasy-artbook imprint Paper Tiger, for this work earning a Chesley Award and a nomination for the World Fantasy Award.

Reviews

[Trekscribbler · Rating 4 out of 5]

DENYING SCIENCE: The New Status Quo?

I’m very comfortable admitting that science has always been an area that I’ve personally struggled with. It was never a ‘strong suit’ of mine in school, and I think that’s because science – by its very nature – requires a very specific kind of ‘perceiving’ the world. It requires the amassing of tremendous evidence before the scientist can postulate a hypothesis that turns into a theory before the theory itself can be established as fact … or, at least, that’s always been my understanding. Maintaining a brain of such voluminous facts was always beyond my reach; but, as I’ve grown much more attached to reading non-fiction in the last decade (or so), I’ve always tried to read a handful of science-related books each year. I’ve actively sought out recommendations from friends and family about which authors to read, and one name that’s come up again and again in certain circles has been John Grant. DENYING SCIENCE was my first experience with the author’s learned perspective, and, for better or worse, I wanted to convey my humble impressions on the book.

To the completely uniformed, Grant may at first appear to have a massive chip on his shoulder. Pick your target. Pseudoscientists. Politicians. Clergy. Moral extremists. No one escapes the wrath of his prolific ire. (Thankfully, I had been given a bit of a ‘heads up’ as to what to expect.) But, reading between the lines, I think the discerning mind can understand and appreciate the man’s obvious frustration with a world that seems to have turned its back on not only science but also clear, logical thinking.

Topics such as evolution and medicines and global warming aren’t the kinds of subjects that can be communicated and absorbed quickly. The underlying science is given short shrift in much of the mainstream, ten-second-sound-bite media. As a consequence, much of the intellectual pursuits that goes hand-in-hand with establishing sound judgment gets convenient lip service if any exploration whatsoever in most popular publications of the day. Either that, or the real scientific back-up is ignored completely in favor of contradicting pseudo-science or featuring ‘prominent experts’ who have no legitimate background in their supposed area of expertise.

As the book’s subtitle suggests, these media tactics provide the foundation for misinformed “conspiracy theories” which get more exposure because they might appease a certain political persuasion or they might – dare I say? – be even more sensational than what documented evidence supports. Reality is no longer the accepted end product of news or information that’s bought and sold on behalf of the distorter’s bottom line profitability or marketplace reputation. Science has become a commodity, bought and sold to the highest bidder, and the consequence is that our world may be going to hell in a hand-basket but no one will notice until solutions are, simply, just too late to do any good.

That’s what I take away from a book like DENYING SCIENCE. Sure, the author can throw down ‘snark’ like nobody’s business, but the far more meaningful conclusion here for me is that money corrupts, it corrupts absolutely, and who is left to look out for the uninformed masses when the last bastion of sanity – the world of science – has given way to commercial, theological, and political influence? Scientists are supposed to be scientists, not economists speaking on behalf of their own personal interest in meteorology; not representatives and senators with law degrees deciding they know more about cardiology than does a cardiologist; not lobbyists representing the needs of their corporations in matters best left to the best-trained, best-disciplined climatologists.

Does Grant go overboard in his criticisms of the media? Well, sure, there are those of us who do strive for some kind of balance in our influences, but balance isn’t a desire necessarily sought by any singular political or ideological position. Of course, I’m not talking about “let’s balance bad science with good science.” Actually, I’m referring to the last significant section of DENYING SCIENCE where Grant goes to great lengths to point out specific science-deniers or science-manipulators in the media. I have absolutely no problem with these folks being called out; what I would’ve liked to see, however, is a following section specifically highlighting the best places to go for reasoned and accurate scientific information on the web, in magazines, in newspapers, etc. As I mentioned at the start of this review, science has never been my forte; I need to pointed and prodded in the right direction sometimes, and having a resource of outlets Grant feels strongly qualified would’ve been a nice addition. Sure, I can uncover many of them through careful and deliberate rereading of his book or his citations; I only offer it as a suggestion hoping that perhaps others, like myself, might post suggestions in the ‘comments thread’ accompanying my review.

It’s a meaty book that, quite frankly, is properly not for the uniformed. Rather, it’s a grand expose (with facts included) in some of the most controversial subjects facing and influencing society today. Faith. The law. Medicines and healthcare. AIDS. Global warming. Education. Evolution. Eugenics. Parts of it were a bit treacherous for my unscientific mind, but, as I said, Grant’s central theme – the pitfalls of having the truly uniformed leading the masses – comes through loud and clear. His passion for clear thinking wins the day … maybe not the ‘war with words’ yet … but it’s certainly an impressive opening salvo.

Highly recommended.

In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the folks at Prometheus Books provided me with a press copy of DENYING SCIENCE for the purposes of this review.

[Brian Clegg · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a cracking book, a really excellent exposé of the extent to which science is under threat from multiple directions. John Grant dissects the anti-science efforts of religious extremists, big companies, legislators and more in a whole range of fields from evolution to climate change.

The book comes in a long tradition of attempts to support rational thinking in a sea of hogwash. I think, for instance, of Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things and Carl Sagan’s classic The Demon Haunted World. But Grant’s book benefits from being up-to-date and particularly politically aware, emphasising those that actively deny science, rather than concentrating solely on the scientific nonsense of many silly beliefs.

The book takes in complementary medicine, the anti-vaccine brigade (including AIDS/HIV deniers), self help books (yes, really), and has lots on evolution and climate change. Although it can sometimes be a little heavy going in the sheer volume of examples that Grant uses (he might have concentrated on fewer to better effect), it is surprisingly lightly and entertainingly written and really brings home the sheer bonkers nature of some of the opposition to science, and the serious political issues involved, often, though not entirely from religious groups and the US right.

In a way this kind of book is always going to be preaching to the converted. I suspect it will not make a single anti-vaxxer or climate change denier change their views. In fact they won’t read it. Instead it will be read by those who feel that science is under threat – and they are certainly right to be concerned. If you have any feeling for the importance of science to human civilization, then this is an important book to have on your shelves. There is nothing better than knowing what the opposition is likely to throw at you to be better able to defend what is important. But be prepared to throw your hands in the air in horror at the stupidity of a worryingly large proportion of humanity.

Review first published on www.popularscience.co.uk and reproduced with permission

[Fcsuper · Rating 2 out of 5]

I bought this book because I was looking for useful information about denialism of climate change, evolution, vaccinations and AIDs (which was specifically mentioned on the inside cover flap). However, what I found was like many books on either side of the discussion, the author of this book presumes too much about his own opinions about the world (opinions which he considers to be facts). If the book had stayed with the basic subjects, it might have been a useful reference. However, the author takes parting shots at so many subjects, one starts to wonder about how much his own beliefs cloud *his* judgment.

The first paragraph of the Introduction starts out promisingly enough, going into brief mentions of denialist. Then, the book quickly just gets snarky and disingenuous to the reader's intelligence (the same intelligence that the author laments is missing from most Americans). Go figure.

So, although I entered into reading this book with hopes of it being an relatively useful rebuttal of denialism, it turns out to be just another book that tries too hard to categorize people and subsequently insult anyone that has any belief system that slightly differs from what the author considers to be reality. Yawn. How does this make the author any better than the people he insults?

This book seems to be meant to make a particular class of readers feel good about themselves. It doesn't provide much more value than that unless you can wade through the long discourses about how stupid people are.

Here's my personal note to the author: Though a useful tool to discover facts, the Scientific Method (upon which all sciences are founded in one way or another) is based on the philosophy of materialism (one of many philosophies founded by ancient civilizations). Being such, it is just on way to look at the world. Just because particular subjects cannot be studied using the Scientific Method does mean that any consideration of them only produce false results. Your belief that only sciences produce truths isn't anymore valid than the people you make fun of. Just because you haven't had spiritual experiences (or perhaps stand in denial of the such in your life), it doesn't mean that people who do have such experiences are ignorant. Perhaps your own quote could be used to address your beliefs about others, "Not only did [you] reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but [your] incompetence robs [you] of the ability to realize it." Now, I'm not saying the E=mc2 could've been different if discovered by a woman, but I am saying your attack on anything outside the title of "scientific" is a bit arrogant and blinds you to things that you do not understand. It hinders your work from being a truly useful reference against the war on science.

[James F · Rating 2 out of 5]

I reviewed this along with another book from Prometheus Press, Kendrick Frazier, ed., Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience [2009]. I'm posting it under both books.

These two books are a kind of book I usually don't read. I prefer reading books on evolutionary biology rather than books which try to refute the creationists; books on philosophy (and philosophy of science) rather than "atheist" books which try to refute religion; and generally speaking, books which present the science rather than concentrating on answering anti-scientific views which I simply can't take seriously as "live hypotheses" worthy of discussion in the first place. I even dislike the chapters of that sort in popular science books, which I feel usually waste space the author could have used to include more of the science. (It doesn't help that they often make simplistic claims about philosophy which strike anyone trained in philosophy much the way pseudoscience strikes those trained in the sciences; a fault in both these books as well.) Generally, I don't think most people who choose to believe antiscientific religious nonsense (which usually has a political rather than a purely religious origin) can be convinced by reasonable arguments about scientific method anyway -- even if you could get them to read books which aren't from their own perspective.

However, I was subjected last week to a long harangue by a woman who, rather than giving us (the Library I work at and our clerks and pages) credit for trying to provide as much service as possible in a way that is safe for our patrons (and at some risk to ourselves; librarians have died of COVID-19), attacked us for giving in to a "conspiracy" by the "Democrat Party" to (of course) "destroy America", telling me that no one she knows has gotten COVID-19 and she thinks the people "allegedly" dying in New York for example are dying of other things and being claimed as COVID-19 "to get money from the government." She also told me that she has been crushing flowers to make her own "quinine" which can cure COVID-19 "as President Trump says." (Not sure how "quinine" could cure something that was a just a hoax to begin with. . .) Another clerk was cornered by a patron in the lobby who also argued for over half an hour that COVID-19 was a hoax, that people were being diagnosed with it because it's "profitable to charge them for ventilators", and then claimed to have evidence that it was manufactured by a biological warfare plant in China. (Again, if it is a hoax, what was being manufactured in China. . .?) Of course as city employees at work we can't argue politics, so we're forced to listen to this crap without answering it. As a result I decided to check out these two books on the anti-science movements.

The book edited by Frazier is an anthology of articles by various authors from the Skeptical Inquirer. This magazine and its parent organization originally specialized in debunking "claims of the paranormal" such as ESP, ghosts and the like; and there are a few chapters devoted here to that sort of thing, which is more humorous than dangerous, apart from soaking the gullible out of money. Later on, it began answering the more serious sorts of anti-science propaganda, such as Intelligent Design creation-"science", the antivaxers, the AIDS denialists, and most dangerous of all the climate-change denialists. The COVID-19 denialists of course were not around when the book was published, but they clearly follow the same model and use the same strategies. The articles here more or less divide into two groups, general "philosophical" or methodological arguments which I wasn't impressed by, and specific arguments refuting specific claims, which were very useful and interesting.

Denying Science on the other hand, although it seems equally miscellaneous, is by a single author, John Grant, who has also written other books on the same subject (Bogus Science, Discarded Science and Corrupted Science, among others). It is not clear what Grant's scientific credentials, if any, are; the author bio on the flap mentions only that he has won two Hugo Awards, the World Fantasy Award, the Locus Award, and "other international literary awards." This is not a small point, given that Grant's arguments often hinge on showing that various figures in the anti-science movement do not have appropriate scientific credentials in the areas they are writing about. The book covers many of the same subjects as the Frazier book, but focuses mainly on Intelligent Design and the climate-change denialists. He describes the many organizations with scientific sounding names set up (initially by the Tobacco Industry, and later (with many of the same people) by Exxon-Mobile and the Koch brothers) to promote the idea that there is scientific controversy on questions such as the danger of tobacco smoke, evolution, and anthropogenic global warming, all of which in fact are supported by an overwhelming consensus of all the legitimate scientists in the fields in question. It's interesting that a book with a title mentioning "conspiracy theories" basically describes real conspiracies -- which is the problem with the idea that "conspiracy theories" are a single class of loony theories. Of course what the title refers to are the claims of the anti-science advocates that vaccination and global warming for example are "conspiracies to destroy America", as the woman I listened to on the phone believes about COVID-19.

Neither book has any real analysis of the political basis of these movements, which they tend to attribute to "magical thinking" and other personal deficiencies. At most there is a preference for liberalism over the far-right, although to their credit the authors occasionally expose a Democratic politician as well. The Grant book also points out that while the explicit attacks on science come largely from the far-right, the liberal academic penchant for "postmodernist" relativism disarms defenders of real science by claiming that science is just another ideology as false as any other (a claim used by anti-science writers in the developing world, especially the Islamic countries, to claim science is "colonialist".) However, like the postmodernists, he tries to refute the anti-science groups by showing their affiliations to the far-right and the corporations rather than by taking on their arguments in a detailed way. In the end, it is just the liberal theme of "good" people (scientists) vs "bad" people (and greedy corporations) with no understanding of the structural issues.

To sum up, both books have some valuable information about the anti-science movement as an organized political force, and some arguments against specific lies. However, if someone confused about these issues asked me for recommendations, I would be much more likely to recommend books on evolutionary biology or climate science rather than these.

[Spicy T AKA Mr. Tea · Rating 3 out of 5]

Continuing my research into conspiracy, I picked this up a couple of months ago and finally read it. Generally, pretty good. I thought he did a nice job of summing up major parts of all kinds of different contemporary conspiracies while dismantling them with science and common sense. My problems are a few. 1) I get tired of reading books like this where in each chapter there is another snapshot of the larger conspiracy community. I've run into this with surveillance. It gets tedious after a while. 2) He doesn't lay out a framework to put all these snapshots in--or maybe he did and I've just read better and didn't pick up his point. 3) He ended the book abruptly and it seemed to lack direction and a conclusion by the end aside from showing how some of the same people/influences are still cranking out shit to confuse and distort scientific evidence. 4) I really didn't like/agree with his stance on nuclear energy. His pro-nuke position kind of came out of left field and I was shocked because we've seen countries like Germany shut down their nuke reactors because of he energy gotten through solar. His argument was that safety has increased as has design. All I can say is Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Also, he doesn't address nuclear waste from fuel rods. We still haven't figured out a way to recycle/reduce/reuse this shit. For everything he's said in the book up to this point, you'd figure he'd have a great argument in favor of nuclear but he doesn't. That left a bad taste in my mouth. If you're new to this topic, it's a basic intro--but there are better sources out there.

[Wischerj · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author of this book falls victim to his own criticism. He makes over-generalizations, stereotypes, and is so filled with hate it was really hard to get through the book. His bias makes it completely impossible for him to have a reasonable discussion on the topics he choose to discuss. I was so looking forward to an unbiased book that examined both sides of the issue, their evidence and their flaws. Instead this book was more to point a finger at those "stupid" people and pat his own back on how "smart" he is to see science so clearly. He is just the other extreme to what he is criticizing, yet errors in the same way.

[Alvaro Gonzalez · Rating 4 out of 5]

"If there is anyone here whom I have not insulted, I beg his pardon", said Johannes Brahms.
in this book John Grant is on a crusade against denialists, and in the process he proceeds to insult people from most religions, climate scientists, journalists, politicians, lawyers, you name it. He is certainly not being politically correct.
But it is a well researched book, and Mr Grant deserves credit for defending what he thinks is the correct scientific thinking.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Notes to self: Relevant at time of reading page 117 where personal injury lawyers were manilupating the VAERS system for claims of injury due to Thimerosal. Confirming lack of proof for cause and effect where Thimerosal use was actually going down as behavioural and mental issues increased. Note also as organic food intake has increased so has autism.

[Paññādhammika Bhikkhu · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this wanting to understand how to understand why people deny science in order to help them come to the light of science. Turns out, this is more of an angry rant. It's good anyway if you need some resources to combat the various science deniers, but not for converting them.

[David Brooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

In a battle between liberal science and republican Ann Coulter I wrote a dueling review pitting this book against Ann Coulter's Demonic here: http://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com/...

This book is a great way to hear the other side of popular scientific topics that have hit the news in the last 5 years. With FOX news and media outlets focusing on the big controversial story over actual scientific fact, this book is a necessary response everyone should read.

At the start of one chapter, Author John Grant quotes Ann Coulter then responds to her scathing view of liberal propagandist environmentalism by saying,

“Ann Coulter’s view on environmentalism and environmentalists may seem extreme, but they lie on the same spectrum as those of many other commentators and many members of the public.”

Okay, so it’s not a middle finger, but that’s why this book is so good. It’s level headed, calm under pressure, and adequately explains why certain arguments are very wrong, and why his arguments are very right. The strongest elements in this book utilize very little persuasive language but simply good references.

The greenhouse effect, autism linked to vaccinations, creationism and AIDS controversies are just a few of the topics discussed in the book. With 38 pages of citations and a huge bibliography the book has its fair share of sources and proof. The book reads like a very good essay on each subject that culls together many bits and pieces to strengthen the authors arguments. Grant not only points out scientific fact, but scientific fiction, at one point quoting Representative John Shimkus’ (R-IL) view of the greenhouse effect,

“There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.”

Grant responds to the quote, saying,

“It’s interesting Shimkus used the term “theological debate” in connection with climate science. Theology has absolutely no relevance to considerations of the ideal level of Co2 in the earth’s atmosphere.”

He doesn’t stop there though, as he uses cold hard numbers to prove why so many politicians, and so called experts are wrong. The fact that it’s so chock full of data ensures the reader is getting real information and not just opinion. With so many citations one wonders how much the author has contributed in the field, but it's necessary in order to speak towards such edgy issues of today.

This is a quick read that doesn't spend much time on issues, but rather lays down an argument and slam dunks it. At times though, Grant’s slam dunk is not without a bit of attitude. The attitude comes few and far between, but it puffs himself up and makes the proof, however sound feel slanted. One example of his bias shining through comes when speaking about global warning deniers who used a bin Laden’s public statement about global warming being an important issue,

“Evident the truth might be, but immediately rightwing US commentators, logic be damned, seized on the support of the bin Laden as yet further “proof that global warming was a conspiracy.”

He doesn’t name names, nor says only a few or quantifies them at all. In a way the above statement is chastising all right wingers, which isn’t very fair. He isn’t necessarily using emotionally charged language as proof as Coulter does, but he’s using language that suggests he’s biased. One might argue this is simply language to convey confidence and assure the point, but the tone at times tends to get too snarky for its own good.

I think this book shouldn't be read as a definitive conclusion on every issue discussed, but as a primer it brings up some great points many are unaware of.

Much like "The Wrecking Crew" or other political spin books, this book does ridicule and the use of an insulting tone hurts the arguments made at times. I tended to read them as funny knocks for entertainment value than debasing comments to strengthen the argument. Straying from just the facts to a deriding tone unfortunately makes the book lose some of its argumentative strength.

[Juan Pablo · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a pretty good book. It paints a general picture of various problems in regards to denying facts on various topics, from vaccines, to aids, to evolution, to climate change. The author goes into detail about who some of the major players are in spreading misinformation & sadly, some names come up frequently. What's worse is that some of these people may be experts in one field but they know nothing about what it is they criticize as they aren't qualified on the subject but this is a fact that most people simply don't know. The book gives a lot of good facts, as well as some of the author's opinions. At certain times you can see his frustration with those who would deny the facts in the way that he ventures off into either slight ad hominems or just general saracasm. Despite this, the essays presented are, overall, well written. The last quarter of the book covers climate change/global warming. Depending on what you were looking for, this can be a good thing or a bad thing. You could argue that perhaps one significantly longer essay on the topic would've been better & the other chapters could've been used for other topics or you could say it's good because it allowed him to cover various aspects in more depth. I think it was a good thing & it further drove the point home how important the issue is & unfortunately, how it isn't taken seriously by society in general. I'd recommend the book for anyone curious about what misinformation is spread, who spreads it & how they do it.

[John Dahlgren · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Grant has presented us with a wake up clock called, Denying Science. The alarm has started. The question is: will people press the snooze button (yet again) and turn the other side, thus letting another destructive decade continue or will they finally rub their eyes and get out of bed and see what's actually happening in our world. As you'll find out, by reading this greatly insightful and shocking (the truth often is)book, this is our only world and home. Scary, isn't it? And...it's going on and on and on right in front of your nose.

Highly recommended and with great scientific insights!

[Douglas · Rating 4 out of 5]

The scope of the argument in this book is compelling, and very timely - as well as well researched. The argument does break down a bit in spots, most notably the author engages in some of the same rhetorical techniques that he criticizes, almost always though after already establishing his point, so, I guess there is some poetic justice in that.

The book is staying on my shelf, mostly for the solid references supporting his case.

[Joe · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting stuff but hard to get past the far left political thinking of the author. Early on, it seems every other page has to fit a shot at anti-global warming followers into whatever the actual discussion of the chapter is.

[Linda · Rating 4 out of 5]

No I did not finish this - it was bad for my blood pressure! If we are not we should all be terrified of the ignorance running rampant in our country.

[Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this book was awfully depressing at times...

[Mills College Library]

500 G7623 2011

[Gayle Gordon]

Borrowed from the Dallas Public Library.

[Alexis Eccleston · Rating 3 out of 5]

If the end-notes are any indication, the research was extensive. It was nice to know the source of some of the craziest of lies, but the book offers no solutions. Mostly it makes you sad.