What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Fake a Moon Landing: Exposing the Myths of Science Denial
Is hydro-fracking safe? Is climate change real? Did the moon landing actually happen? How about evolution: fact or fiction? Author-illustrator Darryl Cunningham looks at these and other hot-button science topics and presents a fact-based, visual assessment of current thinking and research on eight different issues everybody's arguing about. His lively storytelling approach incorporates comics, photographs, and diagrams to create substantive but easily accessible reportage. Cunningham's distinctive illustrative style shows how information is manipulated by all sides; his easy-to-follow narratives allow readers to draw their own fact-based conclusions. A graphic milestone of investigative journalism!
176 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2012
43 people are currently reading
1174 people want to read
About the author
Darryl Cunningham
20 books126 followersBritish Artist Darryl Cunningham is the creator of the web-comics, 'Super-Sam and John-of-the-Night' and 'The Streets of San Diablo'. Darryl's work can also be found at his blog and flickr page. His book Psychiatric Tales has been published by Blank Slate in the UK and by Bloomsbury in the US.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 320 reviews
May 13, 2013
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; however, everyone is not entitled to their own facts." Michael Specter, an intelligent man
Facts.
You can't argue with 'em, but DAMN! some people sure do try...
In this book that is meant to build a case for critical thinking and the scientific process itself, Cunningham chews through the myth of homeopathy, slices and dices chiropractors and vaccination naysayers, and grinds to a pulp evolution and climate change deniers.
I appreciated the chapter on the dangers of fracking, as this is occurring almost in my own backyard.
The author uses a mix of drawings and photos to demonstrate science denial. He also sheds light on how conspiracy theories and weird beliefs get started and explains how Big Business manipulates data to its own advantage.
Science builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. Science is the most successful tool ever devised for explaining our universe.
I can think of several members of Congress who desperately need to read this book.
Facts.
You can't argue with 'em, but DAMN! some people sure do try...
In this book that is meant to build a case for critical thinking and the scientific process itself, Cunningham chews through the myth of homeopathy, slices and dices chiropractors and vaccination naysayers, and grinds to a pulp evolution and climate change deniers.
I appreciated the chapter on the dangers of fracking, as this is occurring almost in my own backyard.
The author uses a mix of drawings and photos to demonstrate science denial. He also sheds light on how conspiracy theories and weird beliefs get started and explains how Big Business manipulates data to its own advantage.
Science builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. Science is the most successful tool ever devised for explaining our universe.
I can think of several members of Congress who desperately need to read this book.
February 6, 2016
This book — aside from the fact that the graphic novel format isn't used to the best of its capacity — is a study in contradictions. Cunningham sets out, as he says in the introduction, to show the difference between science and pseudoscience in an attempt to show us that in the 21st century, with a wealth of information at our fingertips, we need to question everything we read. We need to be wary of those who rely on information they gleaned from the internet or who use anecdotes.
And then... he proceeds to write a book where the Bibliography at the back is filled with internet articles, and relies on mostly anecdotal information. Often told in a pedantic Socratic method, with either himself as the questioner or the answerer, and the other person as a newscaster or a penguin, he shows us where the misinformation comes from, and then goes on to debunk it. In some cases — like global warming, the moon landing, or evolution (really?) — he's preaching to the converted, and simply regurgitating things that have been said for decades. The moon landing one, granted, is a good chapter, and would be a great one to show to conspiracy theorists to show how a person can lay out all of the doubts and then go through and debunk them in a reasonable manner. But then he turns to things like chiropractic, and at that point I wasn't entirely sure what his agenda is. Science — yes, science — has shown that chiropractic treatment, in many cases, has been proven to stave off more invasive treatments like back surgery, but he actually says at one point that no chiropractic care has been able to do something that a handful of painkillers and spinal surgery couldn't have also done. (??!!) I'm by no means an advocate of chiropractic — I've wrenched my back a few times and decided to go the doctor-recommended route, which is to lie on my back for a week and take copious amounts of tylenol, and by golly, it works. And there have been times where I've decided forget it, I'll go and get a chiropractor to fix it, and he does so in one visit and I'm pain-free. Yes, it ended up costing $40, but it worked much more quickly. But then again, I've gone to chiropractors and come away feeling worse. So I get it: it's not an end-all, be-all. But at the end of that chapter he says that friends of his were shocked he was including chiropractic in the list of conspiracy theories in his book and that they'd actually had tremendous relief, and he draws himself turning to the reader and saying, "But I'm not going to rely on a few anecdotes, I'm relying on SCIENCE."
And then he talks about fracking, and... relies on a lot of anecdotal evidence. At one point he quotes scientists saying there aren't environmental hazards related to fracking, but then counters it by saying he saw a YouTube video of people lighting water on fire. Waitaminute... in a book that explicitly says we need to question everything we see, you're using a YOUTUBE video to quash what other experts are saying? Uh...
And finally, his last chapter talks about how the only reliable sources of scientific information are peer-reviewed journals... and then you turn the page to look at the sources, where there is nary a peer-review journal listed. It's like he wrote down that advice, but assumed it didn't apply to him. Even the foreword, which is written by a science writer from the New York Times, warns the reader about the chiropractic chapter and says he didn't agree with his conclusions in that chapter, nor did he handle the material correctly. When do you ever read a foreword to a book where it questioned the book itself?
I agree with the author's thesis: we have to question everything we see or read. And nowhere is that more important than when reading this particular book.
And then... he proceeds to write a book where the Bibliography at the back is filled with internet articles, and relies on mostly anecdotal information. Often told in a pedantic Socratic method, with either himself as the questioner or the answerer, and the other person as a newscaster or a penguin, he shows us where the misinformation comes from, and then goes on to debunk it. In some cases — like global warming, the moon landing, or evolution (really?) — he's preaching to the converted, and simply regurgitating things that have been said for decades. The moon landing one, granted, is a good chapter, and would be a great one to show to conspiracy theorists to show how a person can lay out all of the doubts and then go through and debunk them in a reasonable manner. But then he turns to things like chiropractic, and at that point I wasn't entirely sure what his agenda is. Science — yes, science — has shown that chiropractic treatment, in many cases, has been proven to stave off more invasive treatments like back surgery, but he actually says at one point that no chiropractic care has been able to do something that a handful of painkillers and spinal surgery couldn't have also done. (??!!) I'm by no means an advocate of chiropractic — I've wrenched my back a few times and decided to go the doctor-recommended route, which is to lie on my back for a week and take copious amounts of tylenol, and by golly, it works. And there have been times where I've decided forget it, I'll go and get a chiropractor to fix it, and he does so in one visit and I'm pain-free. Yes, it ended up costing $40, but it worked much more quickly. But then again, I've gone to chiropractors and come away feeling worse. So I get it: it's not an end-all, be-all. But at the end of that chapter he says that friends of his were shocked he was including chiropractic in the list of conspiracy theories in his book and that they'd actually had tremendous relief, and he draws himself turning to the reader and saying, "But I'm not going to rely on a few anecdotes, I'm relying on SCIENCE."
And then he talks about fracking, and... relies on a lot of anecdotal evidence. At one point he quotes scientists saying there aren't environmental hazards related to fracking, but then counters it by saying he saw a YouTube video of people lighting water on fire. Waitaminute... in a book that explicitly says we need to question everything we see, you're using a YOUTUBE video to quash what other experts are saying? Uh...
And finally, his last chapter talks about how the only reliable sources of scientific information are peer-reviewed journals... and then you turn the page to look at the sources, where there is nary a peer-review journal listed. It's like he wrote down that advice, but assumed it didn't apply to him. Even the foreword, which is written by a science writer from the New York Times, warns the reader about the chiropractic chapter and says he didn't agree with his conclusions in that chapter, nor did he handle the material correctly. When do you ever read a foreword to a book where it questioned the book itself?
I agree with the author's thesis: we have to question everything we see or read. And nowhere is that more important than when reading this particular book.
November 16, 2020
Since I had just read Daryl Cunningham's book about Ayn Rand, Age of Selfishness, and liked it, and because we are living in a time of alarming science denial, I htought I would check out this earlier work, which is mistitled, because in each short chapter visual essay, Cunningham briefly debunks contemporary fake news about
*how the moon landing was a hoax
*homeopathy
*chiropractic
*the mmr vaccination scandal
*evolution
*fracking
*climate change
Cunningham's art and wriring style is very straightforward, kinda blocky and simple, nothing I disagree with, and probably many people wo are proponents of one of the above will find something to fight with about, but his over all defense of logic and reason and science as thw world heads into greater and greater turmoil seems calm and reasonable and useful.
*how the moon landing was a hoax
*homeopathy
*chiropractic
*the mmr vaccination scandal
*evolution
*fracking
*climate change
Cunningham's art and wriring style is very straightforward, kinda blocky and simple, nothing I disagree with, and probably many people wo are proponents of one of the above will find something to fight with about, but his over all defense of logic and reason and science as thw world heads into greater and greater turmoil seems calm and reasonable and useful.
February 17, 2025
آیا واقعاً انسان به ماه رفته؟
هومیوپاتی واقعیه؟ کایروپراکتیک چطور؟
آیا واکسن آسیبزاست؟
تکامل واقعیه؟ تغییرات اقلیمی چی؟
اینها موضوعات بحث برانگیزی هستند که در این کتاب تصویری بهشون پرداخته میشه. نویسنده علاوه بر اینکه تاریخچهای در مورد هر موضوع بهمون میده، توضیح میده که چرا آدمها راجع بهشون اشتباه فکر میکنند. با وجود اینکه مطالبش برام جالب بود، به نظرم تصاویرش واقعاً «زشت» بودند و بیشتر تصاویر از یک راوی کج و کوله بود که واقعاً دلیلی نداشت بهش نگاه کنی! برای همین فرمت تصویریش اصلا به دلم ننشست، اما مطالبش برام جالب و در خیلی موارد جدید بودند
کتاب رو میتونید از اینجا دانلود کنید
Maede's Books
۱۴۰۳/۱۱/۲۹
هومیوپاتی واقعیه؟ کایروپراکتیک چطور؟
آیا واکسن آسیبزاست؟
تکامل واقعیه؟ تغییرات اقلیمی چی؟
اینها موضوعات بحث برانگیزی هستند که در این کتاب تصویری بهشون پرداخته میشه. نویسنده علاوه بر اینکه تاریخچهای در مورد هر موضوع بهمون میده، توضیح میده که چرا آدمها راجع بهشون اشتباه فکر میکنند. با وجود اینکه مطالبش برام جالب بود، به نظرم تصاویرش واقعاً «زشت» بودند و بیشتر تصاویر از یک راوی کج و کوله بود که واقعاً دلیلی نداشت بهش نگاه کنی! برای همین فرمت تصویریش اصلا به دلم ننشست، اما مطالبش برام جالب و در خیلی موارد جدید بودند
کتاب رو میتونید از اینجا دانلود کنید
Maede's Books
۱۴۰۳/۱۱/۲۹
January 4, 2022
This is my third book by the author. So, yes, I enjoy his writing. Normally, I prefer my graphic novels fictional, but he just does nonfiction so well. And so, lo and behold, another educated and educational work of investigative journalism told in cutely basic cartoons.
This time Cunningham tackles his probably most challenging subject, the science deniers. A subject one might find untackle-able, because stupidity tends to thrive on itself and wish for no outside perspectives. And yet, there he goes, a brave man, chapter after chapter taking on and ripping apart the most popularly held misconceptions about things like moon landing and climate change and closing with the science of science denial itself.
I’d imagine this must be very frustrating, just the sheer anticipation of all the deaf ears this is going to fall on. People have only gotten dumber and surer of their wrongly held ideas since the book was published. We live in the dangerously stupid times, literally. We live in the times where stupidity literally kills, and it still doesn’t seem like enough of a deterrent.
So, what chance does this book have? What chance does any book have? Well, not much. People who already know all or most of it will nod in agreement and remain an informed minority. People who don’t know what Cunningham is talking about or, more likely, who believe in the complete opposite of it, will probably chafe at the pedantic patronizing tone of the scientific elite and burn it.
To be fair, this book does have something of a patronizing tone, one I imagine born out of frustration with the fact that this these things need to be said in the first place. But nevertheless, it’s erudite and informative. It means well. It really does.
The people who might get the most out of this book are probably those who understand that’s science is real and want to know more about it, more details, so that they can make more coherent arguments when arguing with the idiots around them.
Personally, I like Cunningham’s books, I always learn something new even when I’m familiar with the subjects, so it’s always worth a read. And the last chapter is SO tragically right and makes such an excellent statement…the media in its misguided attempt to provide even and unbiases coverage by showcasing every single perspective has done terrible things to the public mentality by giving equal coverage to facts and opinions. In fact, by making the two indistinguishable and thus somehow equally important. And science isn’t an opinion. Though so long as it is considered as such, the idiocracy will continue its ascendance.
Read this book if only in your own small way of protest against the prevalent mentality of the age. Be as smart as you wish the world to be. Recommended.
This and more at https://advancetheplot.weebly.com/
This time Cunningham tackles his probably most challenging subject, the science deniers. A subject one might find untackle-able, because stupidity tends to thrive on itself and wish for no outside perspectives. And yet, there he goes, a brave man, chapter after chapter taking on and ripping apart the most popularly held misconceptions about things like moon landing and climate change and closing with the science of science denial itself.
I’d imagine this must be very frustrating, just the sheer anticipation of all the deaf ears this is going to fall on. People have only gotten dumber and surer of their wrongly held ideas since the book was published. We live in the dangerously stupid times, literally. We live in the times where stupidity literally kills, and it still doesn’t seem like enough of a deterrent.
So, what chance does this book have? What chance does any book have? Well, not much. People who already know all or most of it will nod in agreement and remain an informed minority. People who don’t know what Cunningham is talking about or, more likely, who believe in the complete opposite of it, will probably chafe at the pedantic patronizing tone of the scientific elite and burn it.
To be fair, this book does have something of a patronizing tone, one I imagine born out of frustration with the fact that this these things need to be said in the first place. But nevertheless, it’s erudite and informative. It means well. It really does.
The people who might get the most out of this book are probably those who understand that’s science is real and want to know more about it, more details, so that they can make more coherent arguments when arguing with the idiots around them.
Personally, I like Cunningham’s books, I always learn something new even when I’m familiar with the subjects, so it’s always worth a read. And the last chapter is SO tragically right and makes such an excellent statement…the media in its misguided attempt to provide even and unbiases coverage by showcasing every single perspective has done terrible things to the public mentality by giving equal coverage to facts and opinions. In fact, by making the two indistinguishable and thus somehow equally important. And science isn’t an opinion. Though so long as it is considered as such, the idiocracy will continue its ascendance.
Read this book if only in your own small way of protest against the prevalent mentality of the age. Be as smart as you wish the world to be. Recommended.
This and more at https://advancetheplot.weebly.com/
June 16, 2016
This loses two stars for inaccuracies in one section. Overall, I liked this book. The information was not new to me, all subjects I have previously researched extensively through legitimate, well-establish scientific journals. The comic style was fun and narratives well written, the chapter on fracking however had some serious issues. For one thing, when I examined the sources listed in the back of the book, I was surprised and how few fracking sources were peer-reviewed science (many coming from the mainstream media he criticized for lack of good science in the last chapter). The overall tone of the fracking chapter was also odd. Unlike the rest of the book, here he suddenly sounded like the paranoid conspiracy theorists he had criticized throughout the book.
He even wrote "Well, I've seen footage of people setting fire to their drinking water because the water is so full of flammable methane gas." This is exactly in line with the arguments he tears down such as "I've heard from a few people who have told me that chiropractic therapy eased or even cured their back pain. To which I would say that their subjective experience, however positive, does not trump the whole of science." His comments on fracking, such as the video statement above, do not constitute an accurate scientific understanding. Watching a video of someone lighting tap water on fire does not automatically mean that fracking is bad. The people in the video may be faking it, there may be other circumstances (such as other gas mining techniques), there may be a local leak from another cause... I am not making an argument that fracking is safe and perfect, I am arguing against the authors methodology for framing his position. Nearly all of the specific problems and dangers he cites are not given any context. Another example would be his mention of formaldehyde as a common chemical in fracking processes. The human body produces formaldehyde as a natural byproduct of digestion, the amounts however are extremely small so it does no harm whatsoever. The also extremely small amounts of formaldehyde in some vaccines also does no harm whatsoever. And a fraction of a fraction of a percent of formaldehyde that may be used in fracking does not automatically mean death.
From my own research (avoiding anything large companies have to say on the matter) is that the safety of fracking is equal to or greater than the safety of other techniques of gas mining. I do not, however like this industry at all. I don't like gas, coal, or oil mining and its overall effect on the environment. In this chapter on fracking, Cunningham steps away from rationality in the formation of his arguments. At no point did he compare fracking to other forms of mining, or other alternatives (or even give real context for his statistics). Just saying the word "formaldehyde" and moving on to make a scary point does not constitute a good scientific argument. "Yeah, well I saw a video once" is not a good argument for anything.
Otherwise, the rest of the book was good.
He even wrote "Well, I've seen footage of people setting fire to their drinking water because the water is so full of flammable methane gas." This is exactly in line with the arguments he tears down such as "I've heard from a few people who have told me that chiropractic therapy eased or even cured their back pain. To which I would say that their subjective experience, however positive, does not trump the whole of science." His comments on fracking, such as the video statement above, do not constitute an accurate scientific understanding. Watching a video of someone lighting tap water on fire does not automatically mean that fracking is bad. The people in the video may be faking it, there may be other circumstances (such as other gas mining techniques), there may be a local leak from another cause... I am not making an argument that fracking is safe and perfect, I am arguing against the authors methodology for framing his position. Nearly all of the specific problems and dangers he cites are not given any context. Another example would be his mention of formaldehyde as a common chemical in fracking processes. The human body produces formaldehyde as a natural byproduct of digestion, the amounts however are extremely small so it does no harm whatsoever. The also extremely small amounts of formaldehyde in some vaccines also does no harm whatsoever. And a fraction of a fraction of a percent of formaldehyde that may be used in fracking does not automatically mean death.
From my own research (avoiding anything large companies have to say on the matter) is that the safety of fracking is equal to or greater than the safety of other techniques of gas mining. I do not, however like this industry at all. I don't like gas, coal, or oil mining and its overall effect on the environment. In this chapter on fracking, Cunningham steps away from rationality in the formation of his arguments. At no point did he compare fracking to other forms of mining, or other alternatives (or even give real context for his statistics). Just saying the word "formaldehyde" and moving on to make a scary point does not constitute a good scientific argument. "Yeah, well I saw a video once" is not a good argument for anything.
Otherwise, the rest of the book was good.
June 15, 2020
Yes, five stars. Not because it's perfect, but because everyone should read it. Even I, who didn't believe in any of these myths, learned a few things, including how thoroughly debunked the myths have been. Very clearly presented evidence... but with the focus always on the scientific method and on skepticism.
From the introduction:
"This book is pro-science and pro-critical thinking. ... We know the scientific process can be relied on, because, if it couldn't be, the light-bulb wouldn't work when you switched it on, your mobile phone would be a useless brick, and satellites wouldn't be orbiting the planet.
"Science isn't a matter of faith or just another point of view. Good science is testable, reproducible, and stands the test of time. What doesn't work in science falls away, and what remains is the truth."
This book makes all that clear. It also points out the money and quests for political control behind many of these pseudo-scientific claims, including chiropractics, anti-vaxx, climate change, and of course fracking.
The one thing it could have done better is been more compassionate towards those who have fallen for these hoaxers. For example, the parents who have been made to be afraid of vaccinations because of the false claims that they can cause autism, or the people of faith who cannot (will not?) understand a complete universe that has no creator. This last concern I have addressed in my comment below.
From the introduction:
"This book is pro-science and pro-critical thinking. ... We know the scientific process can be relied on, because, if it couldn't be, the light-bulb wouldn't work when you switched it on, your mobile phone would be a useless brick, and satellites wouldn't be orbiting the planet.
"Science isn't a matter of faith or just another point of view. Good science is testable, reproducible, and stands the test of time. What doesn't work in science falls away, and what remains is the truth."
This book makes all that clear. It also points out the money and quests for political control behind many of these pseudo-scientific claims, including chiropractics, anti-vaxx, climate change, and of course fracking.
The one thing it could have done better is been more compassionate towards those who have fallen for these hoaxers. For example, the parents who have been made to be afraid of vaccinations because of the false claims that they can cause autism, or the people of faith who cannot (will not?) understand a complete universe that has no creator. This last concern I have addressed in my comment below.
June 19, 2013
This was quite an unusual book by me. Cunningham uses the graphic novel format to use science to refute some sadly common areas of severe misinformation. There's the moon landing hoax stuff that the title mentions, plus quite a few other things, including chiropractic, immunizations, evolution, and even fracking. I greatly appreciated the fracking article, because I felt like it did a good job of explaining exactly what the process is as well as any concerns about it. I hadn't known much at all about fracking beforehand. Now, I'm pretty up to date with most of the other topics here, so I can say that Cunningham has done his research and does a good job of presenting the facts clearly and succinctly. I'm not crazy about the art style, but I like the idea of doing this sort of book as a graphic novel. Let's face it, the people who really need to see this are slightly more likely to pick this up than another, similar book.
April 26, 2012
This book discusses a number of science-related issues, following in the footsteps of Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh et al. Cunningham touches upon topics such as climate change, evolution, the moon landings, the whole MMR hooplah and homeopathy - to name but a few. Unlike Goldacre, Singh etc, he does so through the medium of comics.
First: the science content. The first thing to mention is that there isn't much of it. You could probably glean more information from a cursory skim of the relevant Wikipedia pages than from this book - but maybe that's missing the point.
Cunningham keeps things simple and concise, focusing on the key points of each topic. What he does explain, he explains well. However, none of the topics are discussed with any thoroughness: he'll rebut some, but not all of the anti-science brigade's objections to whichever topic he's discussing, for example. When I finished reading each chapter, I felt like it gave me the jist of each topic: enough to explain it to someone with no knowledge of the subject, but not enough to be able to properly engage with, for example, someone from the anti-MMR camp.
Again, I may be entirely missing the point of this book/comic/thing. Maybe it's intended as a first stepping stone for someone interested in science's Grand Quest of Stopping People Saying Silly Things. However, at the back of my mind, I was just nagged by the fact that this could just have easily been done by skimming Wikipedia...
...which leads me on to the second main discussion point. What does Wikipedia lack which this book doesn't? Comics. Lots and lots of comic-y stuff. This isn't the first book to try the science-meets-comics thing - I read and enjoyed McEvoy's Introducing quantum theory a few years ago.
And just like McEvoy, here I don't think the comics really add anything. A large proportion of the panels are just a guy (presumably Cunningham himself) standing against a plain background, discussing the topic at hand in a monologue. Often, the same image is zoomed in or out over the course of a page as an alternative. Occasionally there's a stylised picture of Andrew Wakefield, or a dinosaur, or Jesus, but while the odd graph here and there is helpful, most of it feels like padding. This book is short, and I mean super-short - I read it in an hour - and most of this book feels like a few short blog posts padded out to fill a book using the comic book panel format.
So while the book is certainly well-intentioned, I think I'd struggle to recommend it to anyone. It feels like it's stretched itself too thinly and missed an opportunity to do something genuinely creative with the comic book format. Maybe I would have preferred it if the book discussed fewer topics in more depth... but then, why wouldn't I just recommend Bad Science or any number of similar titles instead?
As I've said above, I think this book is intended as a broad introduction to combatting psuedoscience silliness. I could see this type of book being good for kids - it's to-the-point and largely jargon-free - but I rather got the feeling from the book's cold tone that kids weren't the target audience. This is far from "a graphic milestone of investigative reporting".
In short, not an abomination, but a missed opportunity. There are better books out there.
First: the science content. The first thing to mention is that there isn't much of it. You could probably glean more information from a cursory skim of the relevant Wikipedia pages than from this book - but maybe that's missing the point.
Cunningham keeps things simple and concise, focusing on the key points of each topic. What he does explain, he explains well. However, none of the topics are discussed with any thoroughness: he'll rebut some, but not all of the anti-science brigade's objections to whichever topic he's discussing, for example. When I finished reading each chapter, I felt like it gave me the jist of each topic: enough to explain it to someone with no knowledge of the subject, but not enough to be able to properly engage with, for example, someone from the anti-MMR camp.
Again, I may be entirely missing the point of this book/comic/thing. Maybe it's intended as a first stepping stone for someone interested in science's Grand Quest of Stopping People Saying Silly Things. However, at the back of my mind, I was just nagged by the fact that this could just have easily been done by skimming Wikipedia...
...which leads me on to the second main discussion point. What does Wikipedia lack which this book doesn't? Comics. Lots and lots of comic-y stuff. This isn't the first book to try the science-meets-comics thing - I read and enjoyed McEvoy's Introducing quantum theory a few years ago.
And just like McEvoy, here I don't think the comics really add anything. A large proportion of the panels are just a guy (presumably Cunningham himself) standing against a plain background, discussing the topic at hand in a monologue. Often, the same image is zoomed in or out over the course of a page as an alternative. Occasionally there's a stylised picture of Andrew Wakefield, or a dinosaur, or Jesus, but while the odd graph here and there is helpful, most of it feels like padding. This book is short, and I mean super-short - I read it in an hour - and most of this book feels like a few short blog posts padded out to fill a book using the comic book panel format.
So while the book is certainly well-intentioned, I think I'd struggle to recommend it to anyone. It feels like it's stretched itself too thinly and missed an opportunity to do something genuinely creative with the comic book format. Maybe I would have preferred it if the book discussed fewer topics in more depth... but then, why wouldn't I just recommend Bad Science or any number of similar titles instead?
As I've said above, I think this book is intended as a broad introduction to combatting psuedoscience silliness. I could see this type of book being good for kids - it's to-the-point and largely jargon-free - but I rather got the feeling from the book's cold tone that kids weren't the target audience. This is far from "a graphic milestone of investigative reporting".
In short, not an abomination, but a missed opportunity. There are better books out there.
February 9, 2022
Short review: Another mindless shill.
This caught my attention because of the title. So I got the book and started reading the first chapter. (I was introduced to some questions dealing with the Moon landings and the possibility of them being fake from the documentary "AMERICAN MOON" (2017)).
So I started reading, and what do I see... The author straw man's the arguments against, instead of presenting coherent and sound reasoning, which is a sign that he either has a propaganda mission or he is a grifter who wanted to get some money.
1. The STARS. He talks about the stars, but the true doubt is not that there are no starts visible in those photos (because they had a different exposure that "floods" the camera and doesn't show the light from the stars because sunlight would dominate). The true doubt is that the astronauts took ZERO photos of the stars. They could very well have stopped and adjusted the exposure. They didn't. They could have taken photos (or better, videos) of the stars when they were orbiting the dark side of the moon, or when they were going towards it. In my knowledge, they didn't. This is the doubt.
So, the way he, and the other fake-debunkers, approach this is deceptive and manipulative. (I never paid attention to these things, because I took the official narrative for granted)
2. He talks about the supposedly reflective Moon surface. So according to him and according to other fake-debunkers, the reflectivity of the Moon surface would explain why the astronaut in the shadow is still very visible, almost as clearly visible as the parts/objects that are directly exposed to sunlight.
BUT, when you lie, your lie will come out, because lies produce incoherences. The incoherence is that, there are other photos of the Apollo missions, where big rocks have one side in sunlight and the other side under the shadow. If we extend their stupid reasoning - that the surface of the moon that surrounds the rock/s in question is reflective - then the part of the rock under the shadow would be fairly visible (as was visible the astronaut in the shadow of the LEM). Yet the side of the big rock under the shadow is totally DARK. The lie produced an in congruence. So the only explanation is that there was another source of light, besides the sun, or better to say the source of light that was supposed to act like the sun.
3. FLAG. Stops at "debunking" the flag moving when touched. Ok, I get that. But what about those parts of the video footage where the flag moves despite no one touching it? This book doesn't mention it at all, and all the explanations I have found are ridiculous.
Obviously, doesn't explain how NASA lost the technology, the telemetry data. Doesn't mention the extreme variations in temperature between parts of the same object, in light and in shadow. This is important because that would have expanded and contracted the camera metal parts and made it useless.
Again, the same temp variation is important because they would have needed excellent techno in the suits to keep the temp constant (even on the same astronaut when one part of his body is facing the supposed Sun while the other part is in its own shadow). Where is that techno now? Would be very interesting to see how it works... wink wink ;) ;)
And so on and on... I won't even mention the fact that there are photos where the shadows that object produce are diverging. That happens only when the light source is close to the objects. That would never happen with the Sun, because the sun is far far away and only produced parallel shadows.
I wrote too much...
This caught my attention because of the title. So I got the book and started reading the first chapter. (I was introduced to some questions dealing with the Moon landings and the possibility of them being fake from the documentary "AMERICAN MOON" (2017)).
So I started reading, and what do I see... The author straw man's the arguments against, instead of presenting coherent and sound reasoning, which is a sign that he either has a propaganda mission or he is a grifter who wanted to get some money.
1. The STARS. He talks about the stars, but the true doubt is not that there are no starts visible in those photos (because they had a different exposure that "floods" the camera and doesn't show the light from the stars because sunlight would dominate). The true doubt is that the astronauts took ZERO photos of the stars. They could very well have stopped and adjusted the exposure. They didn't. They could have taken photos (or better, videos) of the stars when they were orbiting the dark side of the moon, or when they were going towards it. In my knowledge, they didn't. This is the doubt.
So, the way he, and the other fake-debunkers, approach this is deceptive and manipulative. (I never paid attention to these things, because I took the official narrative for granted)
2. He talks about the supposedly reflective Moon surface. So according to him and according to other fake-debunkers, the reflectivity of the Moon surface would explain why the astronaut in the shadow is still very visible, almost as clearly visible as the parts/objects that are directly exposed to sunlight.
BUT, when you lie, your lie will come out, because lies produce incoherences. The incoherence is that, there are other photos of the Apollo missions, where big rocks have one side in sunlight and the other side under the shadow. If we extend their stupid reasoning - that the surface of the moon that surrounds the rock/s in question is reflective - then the part of the rock under the shadow would be fairly visible (as was visible the astronaut in the shadow of the LEM). Yet the side of the big rock under the shadow is totally DARK. The lie produced an in congruence. So the only explanation is that there was another source of light, besides the sun, or better to say the source of light that was supposed to act like the sun.
3. FLAG. Stops at "debunking" the flag moving when touched. Ok, I get that. But what about those parts of the video footage where the flag moves despite no one touching it? This book doesn't mention it at all, and all the explanations I have found are ridiculous.
Obviously, doesn't explain how NASA lost the technology, the telemetry data. Doesn't mention the extreme variations in temperature between parts of the same object, in light and in shadow. This is important because that would have expanded and contracted the camera metal parts and made it useless.
Again, the same temp variation is important because they would have needed excellent techno in the suits to keep the temp constant (even on the same astronaut when one part of his body is facing the supposed Sun while the other part is in its own shadow). Where is that techno now? Would be very interesting to see how it works... wink wink ;) ;)
And so on and on... I won't even mention the fact that there are photos where the shadows that object produce are diverging. That happens only when the light source is close to the objects. That would never happen with the Sun, because the sun is far far away and only produced parallel shadows.
I wrote too much...
April 6, 2016
More reviews at Mrs. ReaderPants.
WHAT I LIKED: The format. It's graphic nonfiction. Very readable and interesting and accessible for reluctant readers. I hope we see many more books like this published in the coming years.
It has classroom applications. I would love to use this with a high school global perspectives or debate class. I'd divide the students into groups of four, and let each group pick and debate their favorite issue. This would be an excellent segue into a position paper or even an IB Extended Essay topic. A science teacher might even partner with the art teacher to have students create their own "myth debunks" in comic format. So many ways to use in the classroom!
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
How to alienate your audience when making an argument:
Fail to identify who your audience is.
Be as condescending as possible. Bonus points for smugness.
Rant and lecture.
Use blogs, opinion articles, and YouTube videos to back up your arguments.
Ugh, the arrogance. That little guy with the glasses (the author?) walks around inside the panels and tells all the middle school readers out there just how stupid they are if they don't agree with the science. Yes, this book is grounded in science. And for the most part, I agree with the author. But I did not feel like some of the issues got a fair shake.
My biggest problem with this book is audience. I can't imagine this was written for adult readers--it looks like a middle school graphic novel to me. If it were written for adults, then why does it look so juvenile? Why use a cute little penguin to tell us about the evils of global warming denial? No, this is written in a way that your average 12-year old would pick it up. So considering that, I did not like the tone of the little guy with the glasses. It feels like he is telling the impressionable young readers about how they--and likely their parents--are wrong about vaccines and chiropractors and evolution because they "don't believe the science."
It's too bad the other side to these issues isn't fairly represented. Despite the enormous scientific research that exists about these topics, the bibliography is full of blogs, opinion articles, and one-sided organizations.
The author discusses an anecdotal YouTube video of someone lighting their water on fire to prove the evils of fracking. Yes, I agree that fracking pollutes ground water. But is that really the best you've got? Methinks you do not question nearly as much as you think you do. Surely there is better science to back up the arguments. These are popular topics that are truly grounded in science; it shouldn't be too difficult to reference more authoritative sources.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Love the format and the topics, but I'm not a fan of the condescending tone and failure to fairly represent all sides to the argument. Bibliographic sources are not the best available on these topics.
STATUS IN MY LIBRARY: We have it. Now that I have read it, I plan to use it as a "what not to do" when presenting an argument.
READALIKES: Evolution: The Story of Life on Earth (Hosler); Nathan Hale's Hazardous Tales series (Hale)
RATING BREAKDOWN:
Overall: 2/5
Creativity: 3/5
Characters: 1/5--ugh, that glasses guy!
Engrossing: 4/5
Writing: 3/5
Appeal to teens: 3/5
Appropriate length to tell the story: 5/5
CONTENT:
Language: none
Sexuality: none
Violence: none
Drugs/Alcohol: mild; medicinal drugs
Other: Librarians should know that evolution is presented as fact. Could cause some ruffled feathers.
July 12, 2017
dang - it sounded like a good idea... sort of the opposite thing to what the science or history channel puts out these days (conspiracy theories and fantastical claims investigated with too much benefit of the doubt). Who doesn't love to hear crazy conspiracy stuff "the moon landing was faked!" and find out what the line of thinking is there, and then to take it apart reasonably and rationally!? And it's a graphic novel!? count me in!
Unfortunately, except for a couple of the items addressed (moon landing and vaccine-autism link), there really isn't much of a laying out of the facts... but more of an axe to grind against non-Western medicine. By which I mean anything that isn't an M.D. prescribing drugs or enacting a surgery on someone.... and i get that some of that stuff gets pretty unscientific pretty fast, but talk about baby with the bathwater! It undermines his credibility significantly which is sort of the opposite thing you should be doing as a myth-buster. Then he gets worse with his fracking, climate change and evolution portions as, while they present more factual sounding laying out of the problems and the two sides of the arguments, his documentation and references are incredibly poor (essential 'stuff I read on the internet') while he sniffs about how irrational the opposition is. Maybe he just figured he was preaching to the choir (to some degree true) but ya can't lay down an argument that 'Science. Facts. The End.' should rule when you don't back up your facts appropriately. I think he got a little distracted with how much he hates the opposition.
Also - crap for graphics.
Unfortunately, except for a couple of the items addressed (moon landing and vaccine-autism link), there really isn't much of a laying out of the facts... but more of an axe to grind against non-Western medicine. By which I mean anything that isn't an M.D. prescribing drugs or enacting a surgery on someone.... and i get that some of that stuff gets pretty unscientific pretty fast, but talk about baby with the bathwater! It undermines his credibility significantly which is sort of the opposite thing you should be doing as a myth-buster. Then he gets worse with his fracking, climate change and evolution portions as, while they present more factual sounding laying out of the problems and the two sides of the arguments, his documentation and references are incredibly poor (essential 'stuff I read on the internet') while he sniffs about how irrational the opposition is. Maybe he just figured he was preaching to the choir (to some degree true) but ya can't lay down an argument that 'Science. Facts. The End.' should rule when you don't back up your facts appropriately. I think he got a little distracted with how much he hates the opposition.
Also - crap for graphics.
October 15, 2013
I just do not connect with Cunningham's work. I'm actually pretty surprised that I gave Psychiatric Tales three stars, because I don't remember liking it at all.
This one has been getting a lot of buzz, and has a great cover, so I decided to try it (and suggest it for a book group I'm in) despite my negative feelings about his previous work.
And yeah, I learned a few things. About the history of Homeopathy, and Chiropractic treatment - oh, and about how the moon landing couldn't have been faked, too (part of his argument revolves around a Mythbusters episode).
It's not that I disagree with anything he says (when I know enough about the subject to have an opinion). It's just that the title is a mis-sell, and his delivery is SO DRY, and he doesn't use the graphic novel medium very effectively.
Each chapter feels like an essay. Not like any kind of original thought. And there's no real narrative through-line. I found the Preface (written in prose) more engagingly written and enlightening than most of the chapters. And I stopped most of the way through the penultimate chapter. Cunningham presents facts (and/or his opinions) - he is not a storyteller. At least, not in my experience. I believe he's got it in him, but I wish... I wish I'd skipped this one.
Honestly, I'd go on, but I have other books to review.
SO freaking meh.
This one has been getting a lot of buzz, and has a great cover, so I decided to try it (and suggest it for a book group I'm in) despite my negative feelings about his previous work.
And yeah, I learned a few things. About the history of Homeopathy, and Chiropractic treatment - oh, and about how the moon landing couldn't have been faked, too (part of his argument revolves around a Mythbusters episode).
It's not that I disagree with anything he says (when I know enough about the subject to have an opinion). It's just that the title is a mis-sell, and his delivery is SO DRY, and he doesn't use the graphic novel medium very effectively.
Each chapter feels like an essay. Not like any kind of original thought. And there's no real narrative through-line. I found the Preface (written in prose) more engagingly written and enlightening than most of the chapters. And I stopped most of the way through the penultimate chapter. Cunningham presents facts (and/or his opinions) - he is not a storyteller. At least, not in my experience. I believe he's got it in him, but I wish... I wish I'd skipped this one.
Honestly, I'd go on, but I have other books to review.
SO freaking meh.
June 29, 2015
Oh Darryl. The preaching to choir-iest of choir preachers. I'm reading this on the heels of his book on Ayn Rand and the Financial Crisis, and appreciate that this touches on more varied subjects more briefly, and uses photographic panels to some effect, but like his other thing, there's a lot of monotonous and ineffective panel work and a whole bunch of Science Is The Only Thing That Could Ever Possibly Be Right. But the stuff about homeopathy and chiropractic practice as quack science kiiiind of blew my mind. I know there are other elements to it, but the whole diluting in water business was super fascinating and ridiculous. Anyway, interesting but a little too grating.
April 8, 2013
This book caught my eye on a recent trip to the bookstore, and I bought it on impulse. A non-fiction graphic "novel" about science denialism and various quackery? I mean, how could I resist?
Cunningham chose topics that are intentionally controversial. The kinds of things that cause comment wars in science blogs over and over again: The Moon Hoax, Homeopathy, Chiropractic, The MMR Vaccination Scandal, Evolution, Fracking, and Climate Change. Which is exactly how they appear in the table of comments, though there is also a final chapter on Science Denialism in general.
This was a fast read, visceral and concise. That makes the essays great nuggets for urging on a science-denying friend, but I sometimes wished for a little less brevity, particularly in the Moon Hoax chapter, But what I do particularly like about this book is that Cunningham does not try to set himself up as the ultimate authority on any of these issues. Rather, what he is promoting is the scientific method itself -- which, by its very nature is open to new conclusions should new evidence become available.
So, yes. There are a few chapters that I'm yearning to find a tactful way to force on some particular friends who jumped instantly to mind. If that process is successful, this book will have paid for itself in spades. Until then, I suppose it can find a happy enough spot on my shelves.
Cunningham chose topics that are intentionally controversial. The kinds of things that cause comment wars in science blogs over and over again: The Moon Hoax, Homeopathy, Chiropractic, The MMR Vaccination Scandal, Evolution, Fracking, and Climate Change. Which is exactly how they appear in the table of comments, though there is also a final chapter on Science Denialism in general.
This was a fast read, visceral and concise. That makes the essays great nuggets for urging on a science-denying friend, but I sometimes wished for a little less brevity, particularly in the Moon Hoax chapter, But what I do particularly like about this book is that Cunningham does not try to set himself up as the ultimate authority on any of these issues. Rather, what he is promoting is the scientific method itself -- which, by its very nature is open to new conclusions should new evidence become available.
So, yes. There are a few chapters that I'm yearning to find a tactful way to force on some particular friends who jumped instantly to mind. If that process is successful, this book will have paid for itself in spades. Until then, I suppose it can find a happy enough spot on my shelves.
March 24, 2017
It's easy to underestimate Darryl Cunningham. His drawing style is simple: blocky figures, simple six panel grid (most pages), use of photos where appropriate. His writing style also appears simple: clear, logical presentation of ideas, A leads to B leads to C and so on. It all seems so obvious and inevitable. Of course, if it really were that obvious, there would be no need for books like this because everyone would be in agreement about climate change and fracking and evolution and so forth. Cunningham makes science writing look easy.
The book is a collection of short comics stories dealing with science topics about which there is some controversy, at least in the public's eye. Topics range from Electroconvulsive Therapy to Science Denial with many points in between. At least some of these stories previously appeared in Cunningham's book, How to Fake A Moon Landing--I'm too lazy to find that book on my shelves and compare the two to say exactly which ones, but trust me: it happened. Still, his work is always interesting to read, even if it's a reread. As always, his research is thorough, and his conclusions sound. Worth reading.
The book is a collection of short comics stories dealing with science topics about which there is some controversy, at least in the public's eye. Topics range from Electroconvulsive Therapy to Science Denial with many points in between. At least some of these stories previously appeared in Cunningham's book, How to Fake A Moon Landing--I'm too lazy to find that book on my shelves and compare the two to say exactly which ones, but trust me: it happened. Still, his work is always interesting to read, even if it's a reread. As always, his research is thorough, and his conclusions sound. Worth reading.
June 3, 2015
An interesting book covering various topics that science-deniers have had issues with (man walking on the moon, vaccines causing autism, global warming, etc.). The book gives brief overviews of each topic, which teens who know little about these issues may find informative. I think it's a good amount of info - enough to explain the issues, while just giving a brief overview.
I don't think the graphic novel format was well-used. Many of the illustrations have little to do with what the text is saying, just graphic placeholders rather than helping to explain concepts.
I don't think the graphic novel format was well-used. Many of the illustrations have little to do with what the text is saying, just graphic placeholders rather than helping to explain concepts.
September 6, 2015
Very similar to the author's book Science Tales (a UK book), with the addition of a chapter on Fracking for the US version.
It's interesting to see all the negative reviews of this book. Plenty of people want to hide in their ignorance. The scientific method is not perfect but over time bad ideas are weeded out and we are left closer to the truth. The author provides more than sufficient references at the end of the book for those who wish to dig deeper.
It's interesting to see all the negative reviews of this book. Plenty of people want to hide in their ignorance. The scientific method is not perfect but over time bad ideas are weeded out and we are left closer to the truth. The author provides more than sufficient references at the end of the book for those who wish to dig deeper.
May 18, 2021
3.5*
August 2, 2023
Un buen repaso al tema de las pseudociencias que gana valor con el crecimiento actual del magufismo y la promoción de ideas anti-científicas. Se resiente un poco con el formato que no permite entrar en más detalle en los temas (Es un recopilatorio de cómics publicados previamente en un blog) pero trata los aspectos más importantes y permite hacerse una idea general.
August 1, 2021
Really enjoyed this book, particularly for the comic strip approach to sorting out the facts.
July 27, 2015
Diversas posiciones con el denominador común de enfrentarse a la ciencia, tales como que la evolución es sólo una teoría, la homeopatía o la inocuidad del fracking, se dan cita a modo de cómic. Son asuntos en los que se profundiza de la mano de Darryl Cunningham, que en la mayoría de los casos rebate con argumentos y evidencia a las opiniones más escépticas. Tono ello en un tono que, como dice el autor del prólogo, "disfrutaría mi propia abuela".
Salvo en el capítulo de la TEC, donde la evidencia se ofrece de forma ambigua, en todos se dan opiniones que respaldan el método y los descubrimientos científicos. Es muy importante una obra de este calibre, que explique y defienda el rigor científico frente a las opiniones o creencias de una minoría que, como muy bien se dice en muchos casos, están financiados con importantes intereses detrás de ellos. El énfasis en aportar estudios, testimonios y datos tiene que resultar clave para esclarecer las cuestiones que, sin saber muy bien por qué, no son aún asimiladas por gran parte de la población. Hay capítulos especialmente intensos, como el del fracking, el cambio climático o el del Apolo XI, en relación a la defensa magistral que realiza. Quizás le encuentre de malo que en algunos capítulos se basa mucho en aportar testimonios individuales cuando debería cargar con el peso de la acumulación de datos.
El tono es didáctico, sin entrar en muchos tecnicismos y sin saturar con demasiado texto un formato invariable de viñeta agradable a la vista. Los dibujos son sencillos y efectivos, en ocasiones con fotografías modificadas. En la parte final podemos encontrar una bibliografía extensa para seguir indagando sobre los temas.
El resultado me ha gustado mucho, y he echado de menos que no continuara con más temas.
Salvo en el capítulo de la TEC, donde la evidencia se ofrece de forma ambigua, en todos se dan opiniones que respaldan el método y los descubrimientos científicos. Es muy importante una obra de este calibre, que explique y defienda el rigor científico frente a las opiniones o creencias de una minoría que, como muy bien se dice en muchos casos, están financiados con importantes intereses detrás de ellos. El énfasis en aportar estudios, testimonios y datos tiene que resultar clave para esclarecer las cuestiones que, sin saber muy bien por qué, no son aún asimiladas por gran parte de la población. Hay capítulos especialmente intensos, como el del fracking, el cambio climático o el del Apolo XI, en relación a la defensa magistral que realiza. Quizás le encuentre de malo que en algunos capítulos se basa mucho en aportar testimonios individuales cuando debería cargar con el peso de la acumulación de datos.
El tono es didáctico, sin entrar en muchos tecnicismos y sin saturar con demasiado texto un formato invariable de viñeta agradable a la vista. Los dibujos son sencillos y efectivos, en ocasiones con fotografías modificadas. En la parte final podemos encontrar una bibliografía extensa para seguir indagando sobre los temas.
El resultado me ha gustado mucho, y he echado de menos que no continuara con más temas.
March 10, 2019
This book is a simple, easy-to-read introduction into a few of the most controversial scientific issues of our present day. I like the format, as it made for a quick read, but I would have liked to read a longer book with more issues included. I also would have liked to see a footnote system, with each fact or piece of evidence referenced to a peer-reviewed journal/scholarly article/research paper in the back of the book. The difficult thing about a book like this is that some of these things can still be proven or disproven in different ways because science is always changing. I do like the emphasis on questioning and critical thinking. I'd have liked to have seen more guidance on that - especially for young people or students - on how to conduct deep research and think for one's self when it comes to these issues. Perhaps a list of reputable scientific organizations and sources? All in all, a good introduction, but I'd like to see it expanded into something more.
June 17, 2017
I liked this quite a bit, though it didn't provide me with a *ton* of new information. Short chapters on a variety of subjects (fracking, evolution, vaccines, science denial) with clear explanations on the science behind them and how so many people have come to doubt that science. (Thanks, 24 hour news cycle!)
There is a very clear explanation of peer review in the academic/scientific world in the last chapter, which I might use in future English 101/102 classes to explain the concept to my students.
The first chapter has a proofreading problem in which the narrator should be saying "nothing to do with X" but instead says "nothing to with X." (This is a new project where I am keeping track of typos and proofreading problems in stuff I read. No, I don't know why yet.)
There is a very clear explanation of peer review in the academic/scientific world in the last chapter, which I might use in future English 101/102 classes to explain the concept to my students.
The first chapter has a proofreading problem in which the narrator should be saying "nothing to do with X" but instead says "nothing to with X." (This is a new project where I am keeping track of typos and proofreading problems in stuff I read. No, I don't know why yet.)
September 1, 2016
An outstanding cartoon presentation for middle school aged kids to adults. Cunningham takes on pseudo-science, global warming deniers, the anti-vaccination movement, and other whacked out notions that threaten our health and/or insult our intelligence. It's a very pro-science book and one badly needed.
Now that I've finished it I'm going to donate it to one of our middle school libraries.
Now that I've finished it I'm going to donate it to one of our middle school libraries.
August 23, 2016
2 stars because while I appreciate the premise, the execution is supremely flawed. Cunningham just dwells and dwells and dwells ...until the subject matter itself becomes so dull you end up asking yourself, "Uh, why am I reading this again?"
April 7, 2017
This book is basically a collection of anti-science hoaxes debunked (or at least argued against). There are chapters on the moon landing, fracking, chiropractic, homeopathy, climate change, evolution, and vaccinations. It is very brief and it moves along at a steady clip without getting too deep into any of the topics. Each chapter more or less stands on it's own as a short snippet into how each topic relates to science denialism, why it's a problem, and how exactly it is incorrect.
I suppose Cunningham's point is to emphasize that "the other side" is sometimes based upon nothing but faith and fear, and promote the scientific method. The topics discussed here are not controversial if you pay attention to facts - as the author points out - but only if you take little doubts and believe them wholeheartedly without any evidence (faith, right?), and in fact in stark opposition to all available evidence. In a world where trials are based upon reaching a conclusion without a shadow of a doubt, I can see why some of these theories would gain traction in the same vein.
My major criticism with this book is the format, which does little to aid the point. There's no reason for this book to be a graphic novel rather than a prose book, except maybe that it would be a very very short book whereas this is a normal length graphic novel. It's really just an illustrated text, and the pictures add little to the content. The one plus is that the format may make the content more accessible for younger readers - high school and maybe middle school. On that note, the art reminds me quite a lot of Guy Delisle or maybe Emmanuel Guibert - simple, basic, lightly colored, and clear. It's inoffensive and doesn't get in the way of the text, but also doesn't add much in this case (where it does generally with the aforementioned authors).
I wish some topics had been covered in more detail at the expense of topics that weren't covered quite as convincingly. Apparently the research on fracking leaves something to be desired, if some other reviews are correct.
While this book does get into a little bit of complicated thinking it, it is pretty basic and easy to comprehend. I'd recommend it to middle and high schoolers interested in science and curious about why so many science topics are controversial. I suppose it has a liberal bias, but that bias (as Cunningham also discusses) is sort of fabricated on the back of faith-based fact-denial. The bias is pretty light I think, so maybe it will help to sway some people back to a science-believing, fact-based point of view?
I suppose Cunningham's point is to emphasize that "the other side" is sometimes based upon nothing but faith and fear, and promote the scientific method. The topics discussed here are not controversial if you pay attention to facts - as the author points out - but only if you take little doubts and believe them wholeheartedly without any evidence (faith, right?), and in fact in stark opposition to all available evidence. In a world where trials are based upon reaching a conclusion without a shadow of a doubt, I can see why some of these theories would gain traction in the same vein.
My major criticism with this book is the format, which does little to aid the point. There's no reason for this book to be a graphic novel rather than a prose book, except maybe that it would be a very very short book whereas this is a normal length graphic novel. It's really just an illustrated text, and the pictures add little to the content. The one plus is that the format may make the content more accessible for younger readers - high school and maybe middle school. On that note, the art reminds me quite a lot of Guy Delisle or maybe Emmanuel Guibert - simple, basic, lightly colored, and clear. It's inoffensive and doesn't get in the way of the text, but also doesn't add much in this case (where it does generally with the aforementioned authors).
I wish some topics had been covered in more detail at the expense of topics that weren't covered quite as convincingly. Apparently the research on fracking leaves something to be desired, if some other reviews are correct.
While this book does get into a little bit of complicated thinking it, it is pretty basic and easy to comprehend. I'd recommend it to middle and high schoolers interested in science and curious about why so many science topics are controversial. I suppose it has a liberal bias, but that bias (as Cunningham also discusses) is sort of fabricated on the back of faith-based fact-denial. The bias is pretty light I think, so maybe it will help to sway some people back to a science-believing, fact-based point of view?
June 1, 2022
With such books it’s always tricky because the audience it’s intended for is very likely not the one consuming it. When I picked this book up, I was mainly curious to explore author’s writing style and how he addresses such dense subjects in an engaging and succinct way. On that count I found the book underwhelming. The narration feels like a monotonous PowerPoint presentation filled with a bunch of bullet points on each slide. I didn’t see any creative outlook or an interesting insight that makes the science really stand out, meaning I don’t think that this book will be successful in converting a non-believer (in a rare chance that they do pick up this book). At the same time believers might not get much out of it. So I am wondering, who is the target audience?
Having said that, I don’t regret reading this book because (i) it was a quick read and (ii) I did learn a few new things. I especially love how he describes science as a process, where existing theories can be challenged and modified based on new evidences. He also alludes a bit about how science-controversies-politics-money are all interconnected, thus putting some light onto the practical causes and implications of these things. He is urging the readers to become critical-thinkers but there’s very little in there about “how should one approach a piece of news” but rather “here is a list of facts from history and present”.
I would definitely gift it to my teenage nephew (possibly an apt target reader :). It is informative, has a bibliography at the end for follow-up readings, the graphic is sufficient and helps when he is explaining the concepts like evolution and fracking.
Having said that, I don’t regret reading this book because (i) it was a quick read and (ii) I did learn a few new things. I especially love how he describes science as a process, where existing theories can be challenged and modified based on new evidences. He also alludes a bit about how science-controversies-politics-money are all interconnected, thus putting some light onto the practical causes and implications of these things. He is urging the readers to become critical-thinkers but there’s very little in there about “how should one approach a piece of news” but rather “here is a list of facts from history and present”.
I would definitely gift it to my teenage nephew (possibly an apt target reader :). It is informative, has a bibliography at the end for follow-up readings, the graphic is sufficient and helps when he is explaining the concepts like evolution and fracking.
March 24, 2017
Three and a half stars, maybe, but I don't mind rounding up to balance out all the reviews that hate it way more than I think is warranted. I can see not loving it—the writing is sometimes unclear and I dislike the way humans are illustrated in it. But it reads pretty straightforwardly to me, and nowhere did I think Cunningham was insulting or condescending. There are panels where you can sense his bias—which is fine, because as this a graphic novel and not a scientific paper, the author is allowed to share his own opinions.
The best chapter was the last, on science denial in general, and how American culture is set up to create as much confusion as possible.
This book is actually a good companion read (from the science angle, instead of politics, and in a very different style) to Jane Mayer's Dark Money . In fact, I think Cunningham used one of her articles as a source.
The best chapter was the last, on science denial in general, and how American culture is set up to create as much confusion as possible.
This book is actually a good companion read (from the science angle, instead of politics, and in a very different style) to Jane Mayer's Dark Money . In fact, I think Cunningham used one of her articles as a source.
January 25, 2018
I really liked the book "How to Fake a Moon Landing," by Darryl Cunningham, because of how many unique sections of the book there are.Some of these sections include “homeopathy,” “climate change,” and “evolution”. My favorite though, has to be, “The Moon Hoax.” This section includes great use of language just like all the other sections, but also we are learning about space in science which relates to “The Moon Hoax,” which is awesome. Basically I loved the way the book was written and what it is about. This book is a graphic novel so didn’t think it would have much good use of language, but it definitely does. In the book it says, “the united states flag ripples and bends, as if in a breeze.” this is imagery, because the author uses words like “ripples” and “bends” which help the reader create a mental picture of the flag. I also like the contents of this book, because it relates to science class. In science class we are learning about moon phases and such. This knowledge can be applied when reading to enjoy this book even more. The book also focuses on conspiracies which is interesting, because of all the outlandish stories people can come up with. In the book it says, the moon landing was fake, illness can be cured by homeopathy, chiropractic remedies could heal most illnesses, etc. Those two reasons are why I loved reading this book, the first is that the author uses more elevated language than I expected because it is a graphic novel. Also the topics are great in my opinion, some of it relates to science class which is neat, because i can apply my knowledge and finally there are many conspiracies brought up which are fun to listen to.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 320 reviews