Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk: How to Tell the Difference

by Peter A. Daempfle

We are constantly bombarded with breaking scientific news in the media, but we are almost never provided with enough information to assess the truth of these claims. Does drinking coffee really cause cancer? Does bisphenol-A in our tin can linings really cause reproductive damage? Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk teaches readers how to think like a scientist to question claims like these more critically.

Peter A. Daempfle introduces readers to the basics of scientific inquiry, defining what science is and how it can be misused. Through provocative real-world examples, the book helps readers acquire the tools needed to distinguish scientific truth from myth. The book celebrates science and its role in society while building scientific literacy.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction

280 pages, Hardcover

First published December 16, 2012

Reviews

[Giuseppe Jr. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not great but not bad. Started strong but after he pivoted into STEM recruitment it ran away from my interest.

The overarching message is important. Scientism runs rampant in our society and it would do us well to recognize that science is a process that requires critical thinking and the recognition that science can often be bad. He hits on how the media abuses and undermines science a little bit. The chapter on media was basically a summary of Neill Postman’s book called ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death’ which is an important work about how the rise of visual mediums- television, internet, YouTube- have stood as an obstacle to scientific literacy among the populace.

Overall his goal is to shift the readers perception of science in an attempt to help them see the scientific process more realistically and less dogmatically.

3 cause it’s a bit bloated.

[Maha mokbil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book. I was confused before about what science really is. I was convinced that science is the only valid source to knowing the truth, but the idea of manipulating scientific research made me realize that I can't only rely on science there are other factors.

[Brett · Rating 2 out of 5]

The title is misleading. Daemplfe argues for support and better teaching for science. The arguments are not well made, expected, and poorly made.

[Mikebee · Rating 1 out of 5]

I quit after reading the introduction and the introduction, both of which went into so much detail about what the book would be covering. TMI. I lost my interest in following through with the rest of the book. What a waste of a promising book title. And by the way, with an MSc degree, I'm pretty well informed as to the nature and practise of science.

[Rin]

Great for anybody who is interested in the thought patterns of scientists.