Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science

by Dave Levitan

An eye-opening tour of the political tricks that subvert scientific progress.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan created one of the dumbest talking points of all time:

“I’m not a scientist, but . . .”

Since then, politicians have repeatedly committed egregious transgressions against scientific knowledge prefaced by this seemingly innocuous phrase. Yet, as science journalist Dave Levitan reveals, that line is just the tip of the melting iceberg when it comes to rhetorical tools wielded to attack scientific findings that don’t cooperate with political agendas. Just listen to Mike Huckabee dismiss climate change as “a sunburn,” Donald Trump suggest that vaccines cause autism, or Todd Akin’s infamous invention of “legitimate rape.”

With a taxonomer’s eye, Levitan captures and categorizes these deceptions by chapter, assigning delightful names like “The Butter-Up and Undercut,” “The Literal Nitpick,” “The Straight-Up Fabrication,” and many more. His sharpelbowed humor dismantles our leaders’ deceptive arguments while illuminating the real science behind the worst soundbites from our elected non-scientists.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Politics, History, Psychology, Popular Science, Environment

272 pages, Paperback

First published April 18, 2017

Reviews

[Atila Iamarino · Rating 4 out of 5]

Um livro bastante interessante sobre como políticos desprezam, mal tratam ou distorcem ciência para passar a agenda política. Geralmente começando com a frase "Não sou cientista, mas..."

Os exemplos são principalmente americanos, pois o autor vai pegando pronunciamentos de políticos para mostrar o que cometeram naquela fala. Mesmo assim, são dicas bem proveitosas de quais sinais indicam a atrocidade que vem a seguir. A maior delas, que mais me impressionou, foi a "butter and undercut" ou assopra e bate, onde o político se pronuncia a favor de uma agência ou pesquisa, mas pelas costas enfia a faca no orçamento. Elogiar a pesquisa espacial da NASA, por exemplo, para depois cortar o financiamento de pesquisa atmosférica e em torno de mudanças climáticas.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Considering that the White House is currently occupied by the most disingenuous president in America's history, this book is a must read for anyone interested in recognizing how science is misused to buttress political agendas. Citing primarily modern examples of politicians employing scientific non-facts to mislead their constituents, Dave Levitan names names, quotes their own words, and then proceeds to disprove their statements with the real scientific facts, which he has scrupulously researched.
Written in a breezy, conversational style, "Not A Scientist" is a surprisingly quick and enjoyable read. The data used to rebut the political pseudoscience is presented in a simple and straight forward manner, enabling even scientifically challenged readers to get in on the fun.
Unfortunately, even though the publishing date for this work is April 2017, it was clearly written in early 2016, and thereby completely misses The Donald's utter lack of scientific comprehension, and that of and his accomplices. However, this book is a primer on how to recognize when phony science is being employed for some political purpose, and that is a skill which is imperative for every citizen to master in order to avoid being led down the garden path by unscrupulous civil decision makers.

[jeanmarie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is well-written, interesting, packed full of interesting anecdotes and delivers exactly what it says it will: the many (13) ways politicians get science wrong.

So why 3 stars? Honestly, I feel it's 3.5 but you can't do half stars, so here we are. The book is great in many respects and the different ways it lists are legitimately different ways (cherry picking vs over simplifying, for example).

However, the problem for me was that this book just read as a (very interesting and engaging) laundry list. I've been delaying writing this review because I'm really not sure what I was expecting or how the author could have done better -- this book LITERALLY is a compilation of how politicians get it wrong and it's so well-done. The examples are spot on and easy to interpret, clearly relating back to the chapter's point, for example.

I still felt like something was missing. I feel like I learned how to spot the different types of mistakes, but there wasn't really an arc -- we don't see much beyond just 'how they get it wrong'. I guess that is why the book felt so unsatisfying. I'm not sure if it's fair to expect the book to deliver beyond its premise, but because of how it was laid out, I had a very hard time making myself read it. Each chapter was more of the same with a slightly different twist.

So, who should read this book? People who a) engage in political debate or research and want some handy facts and anecdotes or who are b) dissatisfied with politics as-is and want a better way to catalogue, explain, or describe why this 'not a scientist' bit is unsatisfactory.


Note: I received a copy of this book through a goodreads giveaway

[Melora · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sigh. Hard not to appreciate the relevance of this when the president is currently threatening to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. Why not, after all, since, as he's explained, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

I enjoyed Levitan's book, but it has the same problem most books of this sort do, which is that he's preaching to the choir. As Levitin admits in his introduction, though he includes a few inaccurate scientific claims from left-leaning politicians, the great majority of his examples come from the right. Senator Jim Inhofe, Senator Ted Cruz, Congressman Todd Akin, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and other Republican notables make repeat appearances, either attempting to confuse situations in which the scientific consensus is clear, or making outrageous claims masquerading as science. It seems unlikely to me that readers who believe politicians who claim that climate change is a hoax, that vaccinations cause autism, that women's bodies magically prevent conception from rape, and the other similar sorts of claims Levitan offers as examples will pick this up and give it a thoughtful read. I appreciated his breakdown of the various ways these deceptions are proffered, and there were some useful tips on spotting rhetorical tricks used to hide certain sorts of bamboozlements, but I didn't receive any stunning insights. Still, despite my having listened to dishonest politicians for over fifty years now (or, I could have, if my parents hadn't chucked out the television during my early years due to their dismay at what the politicians had wrought), the internet does offer new opportunities for trickery, political and otherwise, and reminders to be watchful and skeptical of hucksters who preface their scientific pronouncements with the phrase “I'm not a scientist but...” are always useful.

As Levitan reminds us with examples such as acid rain and AIDs during the Reagan years, often the weight of evidence, the persistence of scientists, and the pressure from citizens who see through the flimflam is eventually enough to win the day for choices made on the basis of fact rather than opportunism and ignorance. I'm clinging to that hope, along with the fantasy that Mr.”I'm like, a really smart person” will chose to act smart and listen to the 97% consensus (according to climate.nasa.gov, until the administration removes the information) of climate scientists on climate change and not pull the U.S. out of the Paris treaty and the serious business of saving the planet.

[Lissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you'd told me ten years ago that we'd have a president who constantly spewed forth lies and a large portion of the country didn't care enough to even fact check, but even if the facts PROVED that they were lies were still content to swallow the swill and mutter ridiculous shit about "alternate facts" and "fake news," I would have laughed. And yet here we are. Welcome to America 2.0: The Dumbing Down is Complete.

What a time to be alive.

Do you remember a time when America actually prided itself on being smart and technologically advanced? I...don't, really, because by the time I was aware of such things, it was already fading from the public consciousness. But I feel like this really was the case once. Look at how eager we were, as a country, to become the first to land on the moon. Look at the vibrant space program we built. Look at the numerous technological advances we offered to the world.

Those days are coming to a close now. It apparently is a point of pride to be stupid and obedient, at least for a large portion of the country. It's a race to the bottom, and quite honestly, it's HILARIOUS to me that these same people like to spout about the "forefathers" when they literally know nothing ABOUT anything except what their chosen politicians and "leaders" tell them. (Every time someone bitches about how it's unAmerican to protest or riot, I really, really, REALLY want to mention the Boston Tea Party. Sometimes I do, but I usually only get a blank look because people just say shit without any factual evidence and we're just supposed to accept that now, apparently.)

Anyway, I digress.

Basically, this book calls out the politicians who lie (the author rarely calls them lies, because that infers intent to deceive, but I feel no such restraint - let's be honest, politicians intend to deceive) and points out how they twist, dismiss, or mangle facts to make themselves look "right." And it doesn't really matter, because much of their constituency will believe every word they say, because who needs things like facts and quotes and studies when you can just watch people on television tell you what to think and believe? It's so much EASIER to just passively accept what you're told instead of, oh I don't know, thinking critically.

Ahem.

I debated about giving this book three or four stars. I ended up with four, just because this message needs to get out there so badly. Politicians lie! From both sides of the aisle, although more science-based lies come from the conservatives (surprise, surprise), especially when it comes to such topics as climate change, homosexuality, and marijuana being a big bad evil drug on the level of heroin and meth.

And the author does do a good job of showing how politicians use various ways to lie. But there's no...shall I say, call to arms at the end of the book. There's no plan on how to fight back against the lies, except to say "now you know how they lie, so challenge their lies." I really would have liked a call for higher educational standards in the United States, because there has been such an effort (especially by conservative areas) to teach outlandish shit like the bible as being fact (lololol) while ignoring things of actual importance like science and math. There's a reason why the United States scores in STEM-related subjects are abysmal.

I'd recommend the book, but I feel like it needed to go further than it did. It's still a sobering view of the sorry state of American politics and the educational system.

[Erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Available in April 2017

Science doesn't sit by itself, alone in a lab coat, pondering the mysteries of the universe with little outside influence or consequence. When politicians mistake scientific issues, it can have ripples in our everyday lives.

Dave Levitan explores the ways in which American politicians( majority appear to be the Republican party candidates in the last presidential campaign) have misinterpreted and misused data all in the name of Science.

The book is divided into twelve chapters:
1) The Oversimplification
2)The Cherry Pick
3)The Butter-up and Undercut
4)The Demonizer
5)The Blame the Blogger
6)The Ridicule and Dismiss
7) The Literal Nitpick
8) The Credit Snatch
9) The Certain Uncertainty
10) The Blind Eye to Follow up
11) The Lost in Translation
12) The Straight Up Fabrication
Conclusion The Conspicuous Silence

I must confess that reading a print copy of the text would have been thoroughly more enjoyable because many of the images didn't fit within the size of my e-reader. But I digress.

I liked the way in which the author approaches the topic and repeatedly emphasizes the importance of equipping ourselves with the proper information. A timely reminder in 2017. Issues discussed in the book include: climate change, global warming, vaccinations, epidemics, and abortion.

Thanks to NetGalley for an e-arc of this book in exchange for an honest review. Quotes are subject to change for final copy.

[Matthew · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am a scientist (but not Republican, or American), and I really wanted to like this book, but I am ultimately disappointed. The author fights a lot of good fights, but for me loses his credibility with his overwhelmingly partisan analysis - which is presented as objectivity.

The book ends up reading as a list of the author's bêtes noires when it comes to Republican causes which are in opposition to or unsupported by scientific consensus. And for the most part, the author is bang on. But the fact of the matter is that being anti-science is not exclusively a Republican or right-wing trait: it is assuredly bipartisan, and the author gives almost no examples of un- or anti-scientific speeches or stances from the Democratic or left-wing perspective. The closest the author gets to acknowledging this is in a discussion on GMOs, where he describes it as "an issue that cuts across party lines", and quotes a statement from a Democratic congressman in opposition to the farming of GM salmon. It is true - GM food is an issue which finds opposition more or less equally on the right and the left, but this doesn't stop the author from directing the rest of his criticism towards two Republican senators for the same opinions. On a similar note, the author discusses the current anti-vaccination trend in a number of places, but you would never get the impression from this book that support for the anti-vaccination movement is stronger on the left. Other major un- or anti-scientific stances most common to the left, such as homeopathy or opposition to nuclear power, are not mentioned once in the book. Some of these "errors", such as the "cherry-pick" and "credit snatch", not only are they bipartisan, they are essentially universal, and you will find them in scientific work itself.

The only other Democrat explicitly mentioned in the book as far as I could tell is Obama, who comes in for the mildest criticism from time to time. But he gets away with what Republicans don't. G W Bush, for example, is criticised for not increasing the NIH budget (after inflation) after 2003, though he publicly praised the NIH - "he didn't care enough about science to put the government's money where his mouth was". This budget freeze is then directly linked to the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, based on the opinion of one scientist who reckoned they could have done more to prevent it if only they had more money (if you can find me any scientist, anywhere, who thinks they already have enough funding, I will be amazed). Bush is criticised for this freeze despite the doubling of the NIH budget over the previous few years, and no reasons why the budget might have been frozen are mentioned (such as the government's budget going into deficit). Obama, who cut the NIH budget further even before inflation was taken into account, is largely excused because "he has not been working with a particularly friendly Congress" (Congress is also described as "notoriously stingy" in a later chapter).

Mike Huckabee ("the Huckster", as he is called at one point) comes in for some stern criticism over the space of a good five pages for using a rhetorical device (describing climate change as "a sunburn") which the author says belittles climate change, but where the intent was clearly to make a joke and accuse Obama of, in Huckabee's view, not taking the threat of ISIS seriously. You could criticise most comedians for using these same tactics, and they have just as much public sway as politicians. Nonetheless, the author argues Huckabee "belittled [climate change's] importance by comparing it to terrorism - which American military leaders have specifically said could be made worse by climate change" - this is science is it?!

On the topic of climate change, while quite correctly lambasting those who deny the existence or human contribution to climate change, then lumps those deniers along with "skeptics" and "those who oppose action" (despite later, on another topic, insisting that science is never settled) into a single category, "TOADS". This I think has all manner of problems - it is common in environmental discussions to conflate people who oppose specific policies with people who deny climate change altogether, even though there is a big gulf between "is climate change happening" where the science is, for all intents and purposes, settled, and what we should do about it, where the science (and economics) is certainly not settled. This is a dangerous logical progression which the author, I think, does little to discourage. The author discusses work which has determined that "doing nothing will cost far more than doing something", but this really depends on what that something is. Hequotes the Stern Review in its estimate that it would cost about 1% of global GDP to manage climate change - well, Germany by some estimates - the country itself doesn't actually know - is spending not far off 1% of its GDP on the Energiewende for what has so far made very little dent in its CO2 emissions.

The author notably engages in some anti-science of his own especially on the topic of fracking, in which he cites the alarmist documentary "Gasland" and engages in some blatant chemophobia early on in describing the components of fracking fluid, which includes "such hard-to-swallow substances as hydrochloric acid" - which is ironic, with hydrochloric acid being a major component of stomach acid. For all his discussion of scientific consensus on topics such as anthropogenic CO2, the possibility of fracking fluid seeping up from the well to the water table is described only as "most difficult to assess", though this is widely agreed to be prevented by basic geology. He spends plenty of time criticising Senator Jim Inhofe for the "nitpick" (yet correct) argument that the fracking process itself has not been implicated in any instances of groundwater contamination, though spillage or other release of contaminants at the surface has occurred. An EPA report is cited in which these instances of water contamination were determined to be not "widespread" or "systemic", which the author laments as a "tidbit Inhofe and others jumped on to claim victory". I am quite sure the author is committing one of the errors he sets out to highlight by focus on isolated and specifically not systematic incidents (which are related to gas drilling in general, not fracking specifically) to paint a general picture of fracking as inherently unsafe.

Lastly, my biggest problem with this book other than the partisanship is that rather overlooks that crucial link between science and politicians: the media itself. Or rather I should say the link between science and the media. The author brings up the MMR vaccine-causes-autism story on a number of occasions, which he criticises a number of politicians for repeating even though it has long been debunked. Well, the problem is that the original study was published in The Lancet, a very prominent medical journal, received a ton of exposure at the time, but took 12 years to retract. And retractions never get the same sort of sensational exposure as the original. So these errors - committed by scientists in the first place - take a long time to die. This is just one major and particularly dangerous example, but it happens all the time. Many sensational studies which are maybe not "wrong" or fraudulent (and so never get retracted) but nonetheless weak in evidence get wide media coverage because they hint at some surprising new result (how many articles have you read which link something you've always enjoyed with causing cancer? and then maybe can actually help prevent cancer? probably plenty if you read the Daily Mail). Many scientists do nothing substantive to discourage this.

The author takes aim at one point of the "Wastebook" - a compilation of apparently frivolous science argued to be examples of government waste, but which have wider relevance and importance. Scientists, I will freely admit, and especially those of us working in fields of public interest, have to be more aware of how our work is shared in the public, how it is communicated, and to make it understandable. There will always be people trying to distort things for their own reasons but if science is presented honestly, clearly and transparently with the active participation of the researchers involved, the truth will ultimately come through. This was part of the problem with "Climategate", also mentioned in the book. It is easy to take aim at politicians, especially conservative politicians with "outdated" views, but the problem does not start or end there - not even close.

So, to sum up - if you already have a deep dislike of the Republican party and want to spend a couple of days chuckling to yourself about how stupid they are or stoking the fires of rage in how cynically manipulative they can be, then sure, buy this book and you won't be disappointed. If you want more than this then I suggest you might find it lacking - I did.

[Book Shark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science by Dave Levitan

“Not a Scientist” is an entertaining expose of deception used by politicians to undermine science that goes against their agenda. Journalist and author, Dave Levitan takes the readers on a journey of underhanded politicians who misrepresent science for personal gain. The author explores a variety of devious tactics and helps the reader identify them. This enjoyable 267-page book includes the following twelve chapters: 1. The Oversimplification, 2. The Cherry-Pick, 3. The Butter-Up and Undercut, 4. The Demonizer, 5. The Blame the Blogger, 6. The Ridicule and Dismiss, 7. The Literal Nitpick, 8. The Credit Snatch, 9. The Certain Uncertainty, 10. The Blind Eye to Follow-Up, 11. The Lost In Translation, and 12. The Straight-Up Fabrication.

Positives:
1. A well written and well researched book.
2. A timely topic, how politicians misrepresent science.
3. Levitan’s style is very accessible, straight-forward and is not afraid to let loose from time to time.
4. Levitan doesn’t waste stating the main purpose of the book. “The “not a scientist” line is a way out of talking about actual science, but politicians don’t always have such an exit strategy when scientific topics arise. And as those examples illustrate, even when they do try to dodge the question, they end up spewing misinformation and errors virtually at every step. This book is about what happens when our elected officials talk science, and fail.”
5. The book does a very good job of describing a number of mistakes and misrepresentations. “The Oversimplification - They take a complicated scientific issue and strip it down to a sound bite, a pithy turn of phrase that might garner cheers during a speech or build support for a piece of legislation, but would also give anyone listening an incorrect impression of the science in question.”
6. A good list of hot button topics misrepresented. “With regard to fetal pain, the claim regarding 20 weeks is part of the ongoing effort by Republicans to limit and restrict abortions.”
7. Good use of charts and diagrams to complement the narrative.
8. Helps readers identify bad science on the part of politicians. “When a politician cites a singular example as a means of refuting a larger trend, take note; this is the hallmark of bad science.”
9. Many examples of politicians by name misrepresenting science. “NASA was created by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. This legislation was part of a hasty attempt to respond to the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the world’s first orbiting satellite, in October 1957. The founding document actually manages to refute Cruz in the very first objective listed: “The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.”
10. Provides the best of our current scientific knowledge. “To be extremely, urgently clear: that conclusion was false. Vaccines. Do. Not. Cause. Autism.”
11. The use of bad information to support claims. “This is the BLAME THE BLOGGER—when a politician repeats information from often terrifically dubious sources, with the knowledge that many people simply won’t know how to check the underlying science. It’s online, so it must be true!”
12. The use of ill-founded ridicule. “Here’s how Huckabee put it at an event in Iowa, in January, a few months before he declared his candidacy for the presidency: When [Obama] said: “The greatest threat this nation faces . . . is climate change.” Not to diminish anything about the climate at all, but Mr. President, I believe that most of us would think that a beheading is a far greater threat to an American than a sunburn!” “The Pentagon released a “Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap” in October 2014,4 calling global warming a “threat multiplier.””
13. The issue of fracking is presented. “In spite of these sorts of obstacles, it is now beyond dispute that there have, in fact, been cases of water contamination as a result of fracking and related oil and gas development activities.”
14. A politician favorite, taking credit for some sort of accomplishment just because it happened on their watch. “Christie suggested that removing his state from the RGGI (pronounced “Reggie”), which is indeed a regional cap-and-trade program aimed at lowering carbon emissions, somehow resulted in the solar power boom. Essentially, he took one decisive action—pulling out of RGGI—and claimed it as the reason for this clear example of progress. This is about as drastic and audacious a CREDIT SNATCH as one can imagine.”
15. Global warming is one the headliners of this book. “The assessments of global warming, including the fact that we have already raised Earth’s temperature by about 1°C and that we’re on track for a whole lot more in the coming years and decades, are based on very solid science. The fact that humans have caused virtually all of that warming is also a rock-solid conclusion.”
16. A look at vaccines. “The science was clear back then, and it has only become clearer since: all young people, both boys and girls, should receive the HPV vaccine before becoming sexually active, according to the CDC.”
17. A fascinating look at Genetically Modified foods (GM). “GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
18. Senator Paul’s ludicrous story about Robert Lucas and a new EPA rule. “Paul claimed that this old man was sent to prison for literally putting dirt on his own land. Here’s how the EPA described it: “The most significant criminal wetlands case in the history of the Clean Water Act.”11 What gives?”
19. Ben Carson bites the dust. “In an interview in early 2015, as Dr. Ben Carson was gearing up for his presidential run, he disputed the idea that the progress toward marriage equality mirrored the civil rights battles of the mid-twentieth century. The difference, he said, lay in the fact that people have no control over their race, but they can, in fact, choose whether or not to be gay.” “There is a general consensus that the vast majority of us do not experience our sexual orientation as a choice.”
20. Reagan’s mishandling of AIDS and the impact. “In Reagan’s case, critics say his silence on AIDS (HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was not named until May 1986) greatly hindered research into its causes, potential treatments, and prevention efforts.”

Negatives:
1. A bit on the short side, I wanted more.
2. Right wingers will not like the partisan-siding book.
3. Notes included but no separate formal bibliography.

In summary, an entertaining an informative book. Levitan does a good job of highlighting the different techniques politicians use to obfuscate or deceive the public in order to protect their agenda. Conservatives may have a valid argument that the book is one sided but the truth is Republicans tend to be more often than not on the wrong side of science. It’s a worthwhile read, I recommend it!

Further recommendations: “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, “The War on Science” by Shawn Lawrence Otto, “The Truth to Power” by Al Gore, “The Weather of the New Future” by Heidi Cullen, “The Panic Virus” by Seth Mnookin, “Lies Incorporated” by Ari Rabin-Havt, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” by Michael E. Mann, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Science” by Sherry Seethaler, “The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars” by Michael E. Mann, “Reality Check” by Donald R. Prothero, and “This Changes Everything” by Naomi Klein.

[Betsy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short very easy read. All the different ways politicians fight science. I probably didn't learn anything, other than a few obscure details. Any moderately science literate reader would recognize most of these devices. But it helps to have them clearly debunked. And I enjoyed the occasional biting humor.

[Joseph Reilly · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book and others like it should be read and taught at Middle, High School, and University levels. This could be part of a critical thinking curriculum where students can learn and debate important issues.

Critical thinking was a big part of my University experience. We debated and wrote on difficult issues. We searched for the truth and we searched for solutions. These skills are essential for a healthy and prosperous society. Most of the public lacks critical thinking skills, and the United States is suffering because of this.

This was written before the Trump administration and the MAGA movement—a movement of anti-science and anti-intellectualism. Levitan could see the writing on the wall and he gives excellent advice on how to recognize and counter political trickery.

[Sarah Clement · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was okay, at least what there was of it. But there wasn't enough of it, nor enough substance. The book was essentially an explanation of the various types of tactics politicians use in trying to use - yet abuse - "science-y" concepts to their advantage. The premise is that old conservative political trick...the "I am not a scientist, but I am about to pretend to be one and to use scientific ignorance to my political advantage." Levitan picks apart fact more than the subtle subtext sitting under this premise, however. While I think it was interesting that Levitan decided to categorise the various type of deliberate tactics that politicians use, I thought this should have formed only the first part of a book on this topic, with the other half delving deeper into the hows and whys. As it stands, the book is a mere account of various incidents, many of which those of us who follow US politics will already be familiar. I feel this book is either preaching to the choir or informing the uninformed of the various incidents of scientific and political dishonesty on topics like vaccines, homosexuality, and climate change. It is obvious that the author isn't a scientist, but it's also obvious that he is left and he is passionate about science, so in this sense it's really just like reading a Guardian article or a post from within my echo chamber. I needed a lot more depth and breadth, both in terms of topic and underlying drivers, in order to get real benefit from this book. Overall, an interesting book on an important topic, but lacking in several key ways if it is to either have a wider impact or a role in helping science lovers better understand the world.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not a Scientist is a book that sorts the types of errors that politicians usually make with regards to science (credit snatching, blaming the blogger, butter up and undercut, etcetera), explains how to spot them, and offers advice on how to fact check information found in each of the error types. Each type of error has its own chapter, and Not a Scientist is pretty much built on the examples that make up the bulk of each chapter. There is also general information about the importance of science in public discourse and how an involved citizenry can go about keeping their representatives honest (or at least as accurate as possible).

I very much enjoyed Not a Scientist for its conversational tone as well as its plethora of examples, many of which I hadn't known (Levitan doesn't often go for the low-hanging fruit of the proverbial example tree). It is deliberately written in a way that is accessible for the general public and the author goes out of his way to fully explain the science of the various topics that come up in error examples, the implications of the science, and the far-reaching effects of errors. Not a Scientist is a book that would recommend.

[Robert Hausladen · Rating 1 out of 5]

A read disappointment. Lack of clear critical thinking about what science can and cannot do and about the role of politics in society.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

This should be required reading for high school and college students!

[Kelly Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

No surprises. But still irritating to read the quotes. Probably a bad time to read this anyway, as scientific illiteracy is so obviously prevalent-and celebrated- in our culture. Ugh. So disappointed with humans right now.

[Sharon · Rating 1 out of 5]

TL;DR: Good premise, insufferable book, and ultimately offers nothing new. The author engages in name-calling, and the exact same fallacies he claims to call out. There are far better books.

Any descriptions of non-glamorous scientific procedures - calibrations, datasets, etc. - are interesting. However, the book manages to be somehow both avuncular and smug, making me understand why some people can’t stand scientists.

The vast majority of his examples are from Republicans (which is acknowledges, in fairness) but he tries to 1) claim he’s totally not making a political statement, 2) show the complexity of science (a good thing!) and then, 3) couch everything in a tone that says, “no reasonable person could disagree with this!”

It is simply intellectually dishonest to claim to be objective/nonpartisan and to frame, for example, abortion, fetal pain, and Planned Parenthood exclusively as an issue of “reproductive freedom/health” and those terrible Republicans.

His examples are incredibly homogenous and consequently repetitive. They’re all from the past few decades (unless I missed some), most are about climate change, most/all are about American Republicans. Examples and historical realities - several GLARING ones - that do not fit in with his narrative are left out.

The silliest part of the book, and the line that made me give up, is: “Many of the other errors described in this book are relatively recent phenomena.” I hadn’t realized that Donald “Literally Hitler” Drumpf and the evil Republicans literally invented the concept of logical fallacies in 2014! Wow! Literally no one before in history has ever articulated the ad hominem fallacy, or correlation is not causation, or the unreliable authority! By the way, this line is from the chapter “The Demonizer,” a rewording of ad hominem. This is particularly ironic because the author unceasingly calls climate change deniers TOADS - Those who Oppose Actions/Deniers/Skeptics. The best way to convince someone is always to call them clever names!

The overall impression is that the author clearly isn’t interested in changing minds; the ideal audience is people who already agree with him. This is reinforced by the last paragraph, where instead of encouraging people to authentic conversion through conversation and love, he urges them to use social media and kick up a fuss with your politicians. By all means participate in democracy, but again, be honest that that’s for you; that rarely changes someone’s heart and mind.

[Siobhan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The publication timing of this book is extremely appropriate. Not just because of our current political climate, but also literally -- debuting in April, it's something that I would want to assign as summer reading for high school and college students. While the political overtones may make it a difficult sell in that context (though it can't be denied that the bulk of scientific misinformation in media is heavily weighted towards one side of the aisle), nonetheless this is a fast, accessible read with practical applications to developing critical thinking while consuming today's news media. Chapters are divided to address the different techniques (from "Oversimplification" to "Blame the Blogger" and "The Certain Uncertainty") used both intentionally and inadvertently by politicians using specific examples and quotes from the Reagan years to the present. It concludes with the "Conspicuous Silence", illustrating that silence on an issue (such as in the case of Reagan and the AIDS crisis) can be nearly as damaging as misinformation, and that "normalizing science and discussion of science" are imperative to the science literacy of the general public. In a sea of misinformation, we could all use all use a refresher. Highly recommended for everyone, and thanks to NetGalley for the review copy!

[Jared · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Not a Scientist" evaluates different ways politicians distort or otherwise spin scientific findings to agree with their specific agenda. The author does a good job giving examples of specific times the different techniques were used, and how it can effect the debate going forward, as well as how it influences the views of other people.

I thought it was interesting, though, to see the author use a couple of the same techniques in how he presented the information. Not to distort the science, but the politics.

For example, one of the techniques he calls "Demonizing" in which a politician will portray those who disagree with them as ridiculous or evil. The author employs this technique himself when he coins the acronym "TOADS" for climate skeptics.

Another example is "Cherry Picking" - choosing only the results that match your agenda. The author employed this in the examples he picked. Out of the many examples, only two or three were from Democrats, while the rest were Republicans. I'm not saying that his examples were not valid, but I was disappointed that he did not take the time to find similar examples from both sides. Every politician, no matter their party affiliation, has used at lease some of these techniques. So to only see examples from Republicans felt very partisan.

All in all, it was good to bring awareness to the way politicians spin information, especially in the sciences.

[Meg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I laughed, I groaned. I laughed, I groaned. That's my best summary of my experience reading this book. It was entirely enjoyable except when I considered the fact that these men (and a few women) direct our national scientific policy. Levitan's method of dividing the different styles of dissing and mis-explaining science was very well conceived. It is also a call to action: Don't be gullible, be informed, America!

[Heather · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't consider myself political or conservative, but the leftward slant of this book was dizzying. I was hoping for a science book about the SCIENCE forming policies and instead got a 206 page, politically motivated, name calling (TOADS? Really?) rant. Boo.

[David Kent · Rating 4 out of 5]

I tag this is an important book that everyone should read, while recognizing that the people who need it most will refuse to do so. The main title is derived from the oft-heard refrain from Republican politicians in the year or so leading up to the recent presidential campaign: "I am not a scientist." Invariably this meaningless throwaway line was followed by some statement that was both false and already refuted by the science.

Each chapter of the book introduces one of a series of what the author calls mistakes, misrepresentations, and errors. [I would call them tactics] They include the "oversimplification," "cherry-pick," "butter-up and cut," "demonizer," "blame the blogger," and so forth. Some of these will sound familiar and others not, but all are common tactics used by politicians to mislead the public and give cover for fellow science-denier legislators. The examples he uses will be recognizable by most people who watch or read the news.

The "oversimplification," for example, is done by boiling down a complicated science into a simple statement that appears to be true and definitive (though is likely to be neither). The example he gives is when several Republican politicians argued "the scientific evidence is clear" that unborn babies at 20 weeks feel pain. In fact, there is essentially no scientific evidence supporting this argument (and much evidence to refute it), but by stating something as settled fact that isn't settled fact they are able to push their anti-abortion agenda.

On the flip-side of this is the "certain uncertainty" tactic. Republican politicians often claim that since we don't every single detail of man-made climate change (e.g., how many feet the seas will rise by 2030 or the temperature by 2050) then we should not take action. Politicians who don't want to take action on climate change demand absolute certainty to avoid responsibility; politicians who do want to take action to block funding for women's reproductive choices claim as certainty conclusions that are in no way certain. In both cases, politicians are selectively choosing a tactic that misrepresents the science for their political gain.

There are two aspects of the book that I believe keep it from reaching the entirety of its potential. First, the format of each chapter is to introduce examples from politicians mouths to illustrate the tactic being discussed. This is a good start, but then Levitan spends considerable time documenting the research that debunks that particular politician's statement. I agree that explaining the reality is necessary to show the fallacies, faults, and fallaciousness of the statements, but in my opinion these discussions go on way too long. The author is a respected journalist and does an excellent job digging out the background behind the statements, but I wish he had covered the material more concisely so that he could provide more examples and more insights into how to recognize these tactics. No casual viewer or listener of these political statements is going to do investigative reporting to know that the statements are false. The public needs to be able to recognize in real time when politicians are misleading them.

The second aspect is that Levitan works hard to avoid calling a lie a lie. Many of the tactics he describes as errors and misrepresentations are intentional. The carefully constructed "literal nitpick" of James Inhofe, for example, is done intentionally to misinform the public so that they won't call him out on the science denial that negatively impacts his constituents (but greatly helps his campaign donors, and future donations to his coffers).

[See this article on The Dake Page for more discussion of this James Inhofe example: http://thedakepage.blogspot.com/2017/...]

Considering the critiques above, I think the book falls short of what it potentially could have accomplished. That aside, I also highly recommend that everyone read it. The tactics that Levitan discusses are used repeatedly by politicians - mostly, but not exclusively, Republicans - and the general public MUST be aware of how science deniers intentionally misrepresent the science. Why the capital letters "MUST?" Because denial of science, and the resulting abdication of responsibility to take policy action to address it, endangers each and every American (not to mention everyone else on Earth, and Earth itself).

[William Schram · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not A Scientist is a brilliant and incisive look into how politicians misunderstand Science and attempt to undercut it. Now I understand, thinking is hard. This is true especially if you have a number of people to command and a large area to “govern.” Science is something that requires thought, and clearly, it isn’t for everyone. However, given the cosmopolitan nature of our world, in general, it would be in our best interests to understand science in all of its facets. The unfortunate thing is that many do not understand or simply latch onto something that happened many years ago or was redacted.

Science is always moving forward. There is almost always another horizon to look forward to in the realm of science. Take something like Frontal Lobotomy, a universally panned and ridiculed practice nowadays. Did you know that the person who invented the Frontal Lobotomy earned a Nobel Prize for his efforts? Well, he did. However, politicians and some celebrities are convinced in the findings of outdated studies. I could talk for hours on some things if people would let me. Vaccination and Autism is one of those things. No, there is no relation between the two, but people continually refer to the study that wasn’t supported by any other scientist. The doctor who put out the paper lost his license to practice, yet people still prattle on about that paper he wrote.

The book is marvelously interesting and well-written in how it dissects the spurious arguments of politicians. Now the names that the author comes up with are merely his own terms, but you could probably find some proper names for them, perhaps some of them even have fancy Latin terms like Non-Sequitor or Modus Ponens or something.

So if you are a politician and you can withstand harsh criticism for your lack of basic scientific knowledge, you can avoid reading this book. On the other hand, the book is more for a voter since it does mention that this is meant to prepare you for bad arguments. I would highly recommend this book.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a scientist is: "A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences." Clearly then, the vast majority of our politicians are not scientists. However, as Dave Levitan explains, many politicians follow their "not being a scientist" statement by misusing, inventing, distorting, and outright lying about scientific topics in order to push their particular political agenda.

I doubt that this will come as a surprise to most readers, politicians use all sorts of cons to convince us to vote them into, and keep them in, office. As Mark Twain said, "It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled."

In turns out that politicians have spent years perfecting ways of fooling us and hiding the truth. Levitan outlines thirteen specific methods, each with its own chapter. They are: the oversimplification, the cherry-pick, the butter-up and undercut, the demonizer, the blame the blogger, the ridicule and dismiss, the literal nitpick, the credit snatch, the certain uncertainty, the blind eye to follow-up, the lost in translation, the straight-up fabrication, and the conspicuous silence. Backing up what he writes about, Levitan provides thirty-three pages of footnotes.

While Levitan does give examples of both Democrat and Republican politicians abusing scientific "truths", he makes it clear that the Republican party is the grand master of science bashing. This seems to have started with Ronald Reagan who invented the "I'm not a scientist" disclaimer before presenting his mashed up version of the science of global warming.

I loved the topic, found the examples interesting (and infuriating), and the thirteen categories helpful. However, overall this book reads a bit like a phone book. I'm sure the author was trying to be unbiased in his presentation of the facts but putting in some emotion, humor, side comments, etc. would make this easier to read and digest. Still, overall this book is definitely worth reading.

[Finn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is great. It has no left or right leaning biases. It just tells the objective truth, regardless of the leanings of the person it's talking about. If way more of one party is called out in this book, that's telling of the party. Not of this author.

It took me a while to read this because I just kept getting infuriated by these politicians and kept having to put it down. It's a frustrating read, but a very enlightening one. I think I came out of it more informed and more capable of facing the world in its current state. For that, I am genuinely grateful.

This book came out in 2017, and so much more has happened in the political sphere since then. I would love to read an updated version that covers all the dumb shit that various politicians have said and done in the past near-decade since.

Also, this book almost exclusively focuses on American politics. Regardless, it's very informative and indicative of how politicians everywhere lie. I would recommend it to anyone and everyone, no matter where you live. We should all read and learn from this.

[Richard Mactough · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read and calls politicians out on their bullshit when it comes to science. Each chapter focuses on a particular strategy used by politicians on various scientific issues. It is contemporary involving abortion, climate change, and vaccines.
Levitan writes the book with a fitting humor of sarcasm. He mentions their ties to lobbyist preventing scientist from doing their jobs.
He fact checks claims from 2016 presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Carly Fiona, and Ben Carson. He uses their claims, fixes what was wrong and exaggeration.
Give this book to fellow family and friends denying science and how to call it out.

[Christian · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fairly short summary of the ways in which politicians misuse and abuse science in order to pursue an agenda. The book is fairly clear and concise and does a good job of outlining common ways that politicians lie (a term he doesn't use because intentions are hard to know) about science. The author describes the book as a tool to use which I think is fair. It's less of an analysis and more of a list in the hopes that people will be fooled less often by these techniques.

[Hind · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a bad book, but too much politics for my liking. He does a very thorough job at identifying various logical mistakes politicians (or people) make when talking about science.

[Todd Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

“I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist.”
- Senator Marco Rubio (republican) trying to the answer the question “How old do you think the Earth is?” and failing miserably

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”
- Representative Todd Akin (republican) possibly suffering from a stroke or other severe brain impairment

I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.
- President Barack Obama (democrat), putting the issue of climate change into its correct context

The ‘I’m not a scientist’ excuse has been dubbed "the dumbest talking point in the history of mankind" by a GOP strategist. And yet, politicians and polemicists misrepresent science all the time to further their ideological ends. Needless to say, republicans are far and away the political party most responsible for this abuse these days despite Governor Bobby Jindal’s exhortation to “stop being the stupid party”. Such is the way with all ideologues. They don’t care about facts or evidence. Instead, the would prefer reality to be subsumed to their insular preconceived world view.

In Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science science journalist Dave Levitan examines some of the techniques politicians use to deceive their constituents. These include typical logical fallacies such as cherry-picking, misrepresentation and just making stuff up. Levitan provides numerous quotes from politicians using these techniques and then identifies the fallacy and the actual scientific evidence behind the claim.

Most politicians tend to dissemble on ideological issues such as: global warming, the safety of vaccines, homosexuality, genetically modified foods and abortion, but the book came out prior to Trump’s ascendancy in the republican ranks otherwise Levitan presumably would have taken on such unmitigated horseshit as his inauguration crowd size (smaller than Obama’s), whether voter fraud is rampant (nope) and whether he won the popular vote (also no).

As to the book, I thought it was ok. It’s short and to the point, but I didn’t really learn anything new. I will, however, echo Levitan’s call for a presidential scientific debate. The purpose of such an event (as the mission statement of www.sciencedebate.org declares) would be:

To ensure that the key science and technology issues that affect our lives get the attention they deserve through political discourse and public dialogue. Furthermore, to incentivize political candidates and elected officials specifically to make decisions based on evidence instead of ideology wherever possible.

Wouldn’t that be breath of fresh air?

[K. Haas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Politicians do not tell the truth. That is not a revelation. But in “Not a Scientist” Dave Levitan breaks down the tells for spotting when a politician is distorting science for political gain.

Levitan coins terms for common techniques for undermining science like “The Cherry Pick,” The Blame the Blogger” and the “Blind Eye to the Follow-up.” Then, he works to drill these terms into your head by placing them in ALL CAPS each time they’re referenced. The end goal is to make the reader more scientifically savvy and allow them to easily spot often-used tactics for bending the truth.

The book is a master class in information literacy, and is the type of thing that should be taught in schools. Being able to discern credible information from baloney is difficult in the internet age, and books like “Not a Scientist” can help lay people navigate the complicated and ever-changing world of scientific research.

Levitan is careful not to give outright motive for why politicians distort scientific fact — other than noting it’s for political gain. As he says, motive is hard to define, but we can look at whether what politicians say matches the science — and often it does not.

The flaw that may hurt Levitan’s overall mission to educate is his narrow focus on the political right. It’s understandable that the book would contain more criticisms of conservatives, given the fact that climate science is one of the biggest political issues in this book and most of the denial on that subject comes from the right. However, even with issues like anti-vaccination his focus is squarely on the right, despite it being an issue that draws people from both extremes of the political spectrum.

The book is not without critiques of the left, but missteps from those like President Barack Obama are handled almost apologetically. Take for example this passage about Obama’s mangling of the return on investment of the Human Genome Project:

“The president’s BLIND EYE TO FOLLOW-UP was not, in the grand scheme of things, a particularly dangerous error.

“His basic point … is nearly indisputable.”

Those on the right don’t get near as much leeway, such as how former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is playfully derided as the Huckster.

The point here is that when you focus squarely on one political side, you risk alienating the people who may need the message most. You’re unlikely to get a conservative to read a book that only criticizes the politicians who they respect the most. And the overall message is too important to not be seen by both liberals and conservatives.

That aside, Levitan should be commended for how deftly he breaks down complicated scientific study into terms neophytes can handle. Science is complicated. It’s not often right the first time. But the people who correct science gone awry are other scientists, not politicians.

[Trish · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Simply saying you're not an expert is not an appropriate introduction for trying to act like one." (page 3 )

"It is a simple two-step process that many in politics seem to ignore: learn what is known, then talk about it." (page 202 )

Oversimplification
"The Oversimplification can cheapen the magnificent complexity of science in pursuit of the perfect sound bite." (p. 27)

Example: "Marijuana is a gateway drug." -- Chris Christie, April 2015

The actual picture is far murkier. "The scientific community is still arguing about it." -- Susan Weiss, National Institute on Drug Abuse

"The lesson here...is simple; science is hard. When a politician makes it sound easy, settled, definitive--look closer." (p. 23)

Cherry pick
"A small piece of a big puzzle is used to confuse anyone listening, and to undermine scientific and political progress at once." (p. 43)

Example: Sen. James Inhofe brought a snowball to the Senate floor on Feb. 26, 2015, to "rebut" climate change.

"When a politician makes what sounds like a very specific point...be wary. Check the details of that specificity. Did he pick that number for a reason? What do the longer, more general trends or more wide-ranging data show us? Where are the data actually coming from?" (p. 37)

new term: climate TOADS - Those who Oppose Action/Deniers/Skeptics

Butter-up and Undercut
"The misdirection tends to weaken and damage the very institution or issue the speaker is admiring so breathlessly." (p. 32) "Politicians have to try to use this technique, have to understand that they are walking a tightrope balanced between positive public opinion and negative action. By fixing our attention away from where the sneaky stuff is going on, they apply a magicians's showmanship to the act of undermining scientific progress." (p. 59)

Example: Sen. Ted Cruz "lavished praise" on NASA in March 2015, then tried to cut the agency's funding for studying climate change.

Demonizer
"This rhetorical maneuver simply takes advantage of a difficult and usually scary scientific concept...and links it to an unrelated issue to advance a political agenda." (p. 60)

Example: Congressman Mo Brooks (Alabama) declaring that immigrants bring diseases to America, such as enterovirus, which had caused several deaths.

"Spotting this tactic is relatively easy, since it is generally limited to this particular scientific field: if a politician warns that allowing foreigners in will spread a certain disease, doubt the claim. Check the actual modes of transmission of the disease, or the actual prevalence of that disease." (p. 72)

Blame the Blogger
"Even if politicians know that a certain source may not be the best, sometimes they're not afraid to use it anyway." (p. 73)

Example: Rick Santorum using a statistic from a blog called Fabius Maximus on Bill Maher to try to poke holes in the scientific consensus on climate change. The blog is written by non-scientists who distorted results from a real study.

"Politicians have a public influence that the average blogger does not wield, and they should be held to a higher standard when it comes to science. Calling out their repetitions of silly, ridiculous, or downright dangerous internet nonsense can have wide-ranging impacts." (p. 95)

Ridicule and Dismiss
Example: The Golden Fleece awards

In this chapter (p. 106) Levitan reviews the benefits of fruit fly research. This corresponds with previous RCC discussions of covering long-term research programs rather than just individual studies. While the title or a summary of one study may seem ridiculous, it's harder to dismiss that study when situated in a broader context.

"In some ways, science is an easy thing to ridicule. A lot of scientific research is basic, and simple, and adds up to something relevant and practical only when each layer is added on to many earlier layers." (page 110)

Literal Nitpick
"A politician homes in on the very specific definition of the words involves, or a few particular words among many, in order to stay out of trouble." (p. 112) "A selective focus on one aspect of an issue, or the strict definitions involved, when logic would require a more expanded view." (p. 120)

Example: Sen. James Inhofe (again) claiming Oklahoma has had no instances of groundwater contamination due to fracking since 1949.

"Look carefully at word choice, as well as the specifics and details of the argument. If it sounds like a politician is focusing a bit too closely on one specific aspect, ask yourself, Who threw the baseball?" (p. 123)

Credit Snatch
"Politicians claim some sort of accomplishment just because it happened 'on their watch.' " (p. 125)

Certain Uncertainty
"Since we don't know it all, we don't know anything" (p. 139) ... and therefore should make no changes. (Note that right off the bat this ignores the fact that continuing on a current path IS an action. It's not possible to do nothing.

Example: George W. Bush in 2000 said "Look, global warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously. But science, there's a lot--there's differing opinions. And before we react, I think it's best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what's taking place."

Blind Eye to Follow-up
"When an elected official repeats information from what may be outdated, improved-on, or out-right debunked scientific inquiry." (p 156)

Lost in Translation
"This error occurs when politicians hear a scientific claim second-, third-, or fourth-hand and, along the way, the truth of the matter gets lost." (p. 174)

Example: Rand Paul repeated a story that he claimed showed absurd government overreach -- an elderly man imprisoned for 10 years for "putting dirt" on his land. His account was similar to various editorials in small newspapers. What actually happened was a man filled in 260 acres of protected wetlands to build a housing development (after having been repeatedly warned by the Army Corps of Engineers that the land wasn't suitable for homes and in violation of a cease and desist order from the EPA).

Straight-up Fabrication
"A claim about science that has no basis in fact or any sort of reasonable or understandable sourcing." (p. 187)

Example: Missouri Congressman Todd Akin claiming that "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down."

"The only antidote is to look for reputable sources and do your homework." (p. 200)

Conspicuous Silence
"Failing to address issues of importance spreads the idea that those issues don't matter." (p. 202)

Example: President Ronald Reagan ignoring the AIDS crisis.

"Many of the errors in this book could be avoided simply by letting the scientific consensus act as a talking point; of course, the scientific consensus has to be largely understood in order for that to work." (p. 204)

How do we do a better job of spreading the scientific consensus and NOT repeating misinformation?

President Obama's 2015 State of the Union address: "I've heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saving they're not scientists; that we don't have enough information to act. Well, I'm not a scientist, either. But you know what, I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and at NOAA, and at our major universities. And the best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we don't act forcefully, we'll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration and conflict and hunger around the globe."