What do you think?
Rate this book
Fake Science: Exposing the Left's Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data
If you listen to any political argument, you're eventually bound to hear something like: "The science is settled on this." Or: "Just look at the statistics!" Or: "There have been studies that say..."
You'd think we were living in the golden age of science and reason. But the truth is far more sinister, says Austin Ruse. We're actually living in the age of the low information voter, easily mislead by all-too-convincing false statistics and studies. In Fact-Shaming, Ruse debunks so-called "facts" used to advance political causes one after the other, revealing how poorly they stand up to actual science.
You'd think we were living in the golden age of science and reason. But the truth is far more sinister, says Austin Ruse. We're actually living in the age of the low information voter, easily mislead by all-too-convincing false statistics and studies. In Fact-Shaming, Ruse debunks so-called "facts" used to advance political causes one after the other, revealing how poorly they stand up to actual science.
256 pages, Hardcover
Published July 17, 2017
57 people are currently reading
183 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
January 22, 2020
An irony exists in reading about the dangers of fake stuff in a book written by a guy named Ruse. Furthermore, it's got a conservative clickbaity feel to it (see the subtitle), there's a danger of confirmation bias, and cool-shaming forces make me hesitant to give this book high praise. Nevertheless, the research is thorough, the issues are important, he does point out conservative caricatures (155–56), and I agreed with just about everything that he said. Brief WORLD review here.
Introduction
"Settled science" is one of the most unscientific concepts imaginable (xii).
Ch. 1 (narrative vs. data)
Michael Cieply writes about the narrative-driven New York Times, where narrative often trumps data. For example, "One senior reporter played solitaire on his computer in the morning, waiting for his marching orders. He overheard a national staff reporter 'more or less' tell a source, 'My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?'" (2). The results of the 2016 presidential election shouldn't have been as shocking as they were, because the polls weren't as horribly off as people thought—the spin was just so severe that the actual data wasn't being reported accurately.
Ch. 2 (transgender movement)
In 2000, NYT ran 24 stories that included "transgender"; in 2005, there were 54; in 2010, 190; in 2015 (Obergefell), 752; in 2016, 1,166 (10). Jazz information (11–12). [See my review of a Jazz-related book here.] In 2014, Facebook offered more than 50 different gender options (explanation here). The APA (2011, 2014) has pushed the distinction between sex and gender (18). [Cf. the genderbread person diagram, found on a page that acknowledges that the diagram changes occasionally.] A 2016 New Atlantis study showed that "the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole" (26). Walt Heyer tells of his own and others' regrets regarding transitions (28–29). The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) denounced the report (30), but The New Atlantis responded to the lies and bullying. A transgender MMA fighter sent an opponent to the hospital, and a transgender track runner won an all-state track meet.
Ch. 3 (SSM)
Sexologist Alfred Kinsey, known for conducting pedophile-based research [and known as "the father of the sexual revolution"], falsely claimed that 10% of the male population is gay (it's closer to 1%); this percentage is widely cited, even though Kinsey's research subjects were overwhelmingly prison inmates (33–34). Table 34 in one of Kinsey's reports discusses sexual responses of children, calling their cries "typical orgasmic response[s]" (33). "One five-month-old infant is reported to have had three orgasms" (33). ["The Children of Table 34" is actually a documentary.] Kinsey's continuum has broad acceptance but is ultimately unprovable (41). "The CDC reports that men who have sex with men are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and are at increased risk for depression and suicide compared to the general population. They are also more likely to experience and perpetrate partner violence" (53). The 1.6% who identify as gay "accounts for 67 percent of all new HIV diagnoses" (53). [See here.] According to O'Leary, Men who have sex with men (MSM) are "far more likely to have a history of psychological disorders, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse problems" (qtd. in Ruse 56).
Ch. 4 (abortion)
Ruse believes that life/pregnancy begins at conception, not implantation (60–61). The implantation notion has been around only since about 1960, and the change in definition comes in handy when pushing for certain pills to be labeled as contraceptives. Margaret Sanger developed the notion of unwanted/accidental children (65). Children raised by a single parent are at more risk in more areas than those who are raised by both biological parents (66). Companion decision to Roe v. Wade (1973) is Doe v. Bolton ; it defined "health" in a broad enough way to allow abortion for any reason: "The medical judgment [for a late-term abortion] may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well-being of the patient" (68). Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade) "later admitted that she had lied about being gang-raped" (68). Sandra Cano (the "Doe" of Doe v. Bolton) "only wanted help in getting her other three children out of foster care" (68). Both McCorvey and Cano are now pro-life. More than fifty million abortions later, pro-choice predictions that "abortion would reduce out-of-wedlock births, cure crime, child abuse, and poverty" have not come true (69). Out-of-wedlock births have actually increased dramatically: "In 1965, 24 percent of black babies and 3.1 percent of white kids were born to single moms. By 1990, those rates had risen to 64 percent for blacks and 18 percent for whites. In the year 2013, 72 percent of births to black women were out of wedlock, while the rate for whites had grown to 29 percent" (69). "The rise of contraception and abortion made it easier for men to demand sex and harder for women to resist even without the promise of marriage. What's more, while contraception and abortion made women freer to have sex without the risk of motherhood, they also allowed men the freedom to walk away even if a woman did not use contraception or refused to get an abortion" (70; see here). Despite claims by many pro-abortion proponents that deny any connection between abortion and breast cancer, and despite vicious attempts to discredit those who suggest such a connection, the evidence exists (72–75). The APA claims that abortions don't lead to any psychological risks such as depression, substance abuse, anxiety, and suicidal behavior, but other studies (here and here) say otherwise (75–76). Plus, many women have spoken out about their stories (76). "[T]here has not been a single treatment or cure derived from the use of embryonic stem cells" (81). Planned Parenthood has a "vested interest in denying fetal pain" (85), and their 3% claim is based on transactions, not revenue (abortions come with many other procedures, such as pregnancy tests, blood tests, contraceptive pills, condoms, blood pressure, anesthesia, etc.). "[A]t least a third of their billion-dollar revenue is generated from their abortion business," according to both The Weekly Standard and Slate (86). Nick Cannon calls Planned Parenthood, started by the eugenicist Margaret Sanger (87), "population control" (85); "Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics are largely located in poor black and Latino communities" (87).
Ch. 5 (sexual revolution)
CDC has reported an epidemic of STDs in 2015—rising for the first time since 2006 (90); Marquis de Sade's perversions (see his Justine) paved the way for the sexual revolution (91–92); Margaret Sanger (supporter of racial eugenics and founder of Planned Parenthood) and Margaret Mead (a cultural relativist whose book was discredited) are downstream from de Sade (93); more on the Kinsey scale that placed human sexuality on a continuum (95–96) and the claim that 10% of the population is homosexual (97); UNESCO (the UN's scientific body) recommends promoting masturbation and homosexuality to young children (99); more than 60 million abortions since Roe v. Wade (100); with worldwide abortions and STD deaths, the sexual revolution has claimed more deaths than the genocidal actions of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Tse-tung (102)
Ch. 6 (children issues: adoption, divorce)
"anything less than the gold standard for children—being raised by their married biological mother and father—is detrimental to the child" (106–7); in 2005, the APA reported that gay/lesbian parenting is no different and might be better (107); Columbia Law School reported something similar in 2015 (107); see also here, here, here, and here (254n4–8)—the problem with these "no difference" reports is that the sample sizes were small and not random, often interview parents instead of children, and include no traditional families for comparison (108–9); even liberal social scientists acknowledge that intact biological families are best for children (109; 255n12); Mark Regnerus's New Family Structures Study contests the "no difference" theory, showing that public assistance, unemployment, criminal behavior, sexual abuse, STDs, and danger in the home all increase significantly (109–11; see here); Regnerus's results were replicated by Paul Sullins, who focuses on depression here (111; see also here); after the '92 LA riots, Dan Quayle was attacked for pointing out the consequences of fatherlessness (112); Victorian shift from fathers to mothers (114); the problem of leisure (115); the destructive nature of "no-fault divorce" (120–21); disastrous effects (see here) of cohabitation on children (123); illegitimacy rate has skyrocketed from 25% among blacks in 1965 to 72% in 2010 (123; for whites in the same years, the % went from 5 to 36); high correlation between single motherhood and poverty (123); one way to achieve/maintain "privilege" is to stay married (125); married people are happier than cohabitants (126)
Ch. 7 (food scares)
[cf. Crichton's "Let's Stop Scaring Ourselves"]
Food scares make people feel righteous and safe, but many of the "dangerous" substances are in such small quantities that they're no more dangerous than the air we breathe. For example, Acrylamide (a compound in French fries) might cause cancer, if you ate 182 pounds of French fries every day (129). Alar (a chemical sprayed on apples) was condemned as a carcinogen, even though you would have to drink 5,000 gallons of apple juice per day for it to possibly result in cancer (130). California's Prop 65 lists almost 1,000 chemicals that companies are required to warn customers about. Golden rice could have helped millions of people with Vitamin A deficiency, but because it's a GMO, Greenpeace freaked out (131–34). Even Slate called the resistance to Golden rice hypocritical and egregious.
Ch. 8 (poverty)
Feeding America CEO makes $650,000/year; company makes more than $2 billion (145). The "one in eight" statistic regarding "food insecurity" is exaggerated—that would be 40 million Americans, larger than the population of California (146). "Food insecurity" is often an issue of unwise spending—rice and beans are nutritious and inexpensive (149). Behavior changes could work financial wonders: no smoking, drinking, soda, or eating gas station food (149–50). LBJ's War on Poverty has been expensive and ineffective; it has also "create[d] a permanent underclass utterly dependent on [welfare from] the government" (150). "[T]he poverty rate is the same as it was when the War on Poverty kicked in"—and we've spend $22 trillion (151; see here). "Poverty has almost everything to do with family formation," although the Left considers this a racist notion (156; see here and here).
Ch. 9 (fossil fuels and natural gas)
fracking = hydraulic fracturing (pressurized water breaks up rock and releases gas); Gasland (I and II) spread the fear that methane was being released (burning water!), but FrackNation exposes the flawed evidence (163–64); burning water is not as uncommon as people think (see this story of Washington and Paine and swamp gas [164])
More comments on Ch. 10 (climate change), Ch. 11 (population), and Ch. 12 (authority) here.
Introduction
"Settled science" is one of the most unscientific concepts imaginable (xii).
Ch. 1 (narrative vs. data)
Michael Cieply writes about the narrative-driven New York Times, where narrative often trumps data. For example, "One senior reporter played solitaire on his computer in the morning, waiting for his marching orders. He overheard a national staff reporter 'more or less' tell a source, 'My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?'" (2). The results of the 2016 presidential election shouldn't have been as shocking as they were, because the polls weren't as horribly off as people thought—the spin was just so severe that the actual data wasn't being reported accurately.
Ch. 2 (transgender movement)
In 2000, NYT ran 24 stories that included "transgender"; in 2005, there were 54; in 2010, 190; in 2015 (Obergefell), 752; in 2016, 1,166 (10). Jazz information (11–12). [See my review of a Jazz-related book here.] In 2014, Facebook offered more than 50 different gender options (explanation here). The APA (2011, 2014) has pushed the distinction between sex and gender (18). [Cf. the genderbread person diagram, found on a page that acknowledges that the diagram changes occasionally.] A 2016 New Atlantis study showed that "the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole" (26). Walt Heyer tells of his own and others' regrets regarding transitions (28–29). The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) denounced the report (30), but The New Atlantis responded to the lies and bullying. A transgender MMA fighter sent an opponent to the hospital, and a transgender track runner won an all-state track meet.
Ch. 3 (SSM)
Sexologist Alfred Kinsey, known for conducting pedophile-based research [and known as "the father of the sexual revolution"], falsely claimed that 10% of the male population is gay (it's closer to 1%); this percentage is widely cited, even though Kinsey's research subjects were overwhelmingly prison inmates (33–34). Table 34 in one of Kinsey's reports discusses sexual responses of children, calling their cries "typical orgasmic response[s]" (33). "One five-month-old infant is reported to have had three orgasms" (33). ["The Children of Table 34" is actually a documentary.] Kinsey's continuum has broad acceptance but is ultimately unprovable (41). "The CDC reports that men who have sex with men are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and are at increased risk for depression and suicide compared to the general population. They are also more likely to experience and perpetrate partner violence" (53). The 1.6% who identify as gay "accounts for 67 percent of all new HIV diagnoses" (53). [See here.] According to O'Leary, Men who have sex with men (MSM) are "far more likely to have a history of psychological disorders, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse problems" (qtd. in Ruse 56).
Ch. 4 (abortion)
Ruse believes that life/pregnancy begins at conception, not implantation (60–61). The implantation notion has been around only since about 1960, and the change in definition comes in handy when pushing for certain pills to be labeled as contraceptives. Margaret Sanger developed the notion of unwanted/accidental children (65). Children raised by a single parent are at more risk in more areas than those who are raised by both biological parents (66). Companion decision to Roe v. Wade (1973) is Doe v. Bolton ; it defined "health" in a broad enough way to allow abortion for any reason: "The medical judgment [for a late-term abortion] may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well-being of the patient" (68). Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade) "later admitted that she had lied about being gang-raped" (68). Sandra Cano (the "Doe" of Doe v. Bolton) "only wanted help in getting her other three children out of foster care" (68). Both McCorvey and Cano are now pro-life. More than fifty million abortions later, pro-choice predictions that "abortion would reduce out-of-wedlock births, cure crime, child abuse, and poverty" have not come true (69). Out-of-wedlock births have actually increased dramatically: "In 1965, 24 percent of black babies and 3.1 percent of white kids were born to single moms. By 1990, those rates had risen to 64 percent for blacks and 18 percent for whites. In the year 2013, 72 percent of births to black women were out of wedlock, while the rate for whites had grown to 29 percent" (69). "The rise of contraception and abortion made it easier for men to demand sex and harder for women to resist even without the promise of marriage. What's more, while contraception and abortion made women freer to have sex without the risk of motherhood, they also allowed men the freedom to walk away even if a woman did not use contraception or refused to get an abortion" (70; see here). Despite claims by many pro-abortion proponents that deny any connection between abortion and breast cancer, and despite vicious attempts to discredit those who suggest such a connection, the evidence exists (72–75). The APA claims that abortions don't lead to any psychological risks such as depression, substance abuse, anxiety, and suicidal behavior, but other studies (here and here) say otherwise (75–76). Plus, many women have spoken out about their stories (76). "[T]here has not been a single treatment or cure derived from the use of embryonic stem cells" (81). Planned Parenthood has a "vested interest in denying fetal pain" (85), and their 3% claim is based on transactions, not revenue (abortions come with many other procedures, such as pregnancy tests, blood tests, contraceptive pills, condoms, blood pressure, anesthesia, etc.). "[A]t least a third of their billion-dollar revenue is generated from their abortion business," according to both The Weekly Standard and Slate (86). Nick Cannon calls Planned Parenthood, started by the eugenicist Margaret Sanger (87), "population control" (85); "Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics are largely located in poor black and Latino communities" (87).
Ch. 5 (sexual revolution)
CDC has reported an epidemic of STDs in 2015—rising for the first time since 2006 (90); Marquis de Sade's perversions (see his Justine) paved the way for the sexual revolution (91–92); Margaret Sanger (supporter of racial eugenics and founder of Planned Parenthood) and Margaret Mead (a cultural relativist whose book was discredited) are downstream from de Sade (93); more on the Kinsey scale that placed human sexuality on a continuum (95–96) and the claim that 10% of the population is homosexual (97); UNESCO (the UN's scientific body) recommends promoting masturbation and homosexuality to young children (99); more than 60 million abortions since Roe v. Wade (100); with worldwide abortions and STD deaths, the sexual revolution has claimed more deaths than the genocidal actions of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Tse-tung (102)
Ch. 6 (children issues: adoption, divorce)
"anything less than the gold standard for children—being raised by their married biological mother and father—is detrimental to the child" (106–7); in 2005, the APA reported that gay/lesbian parenting is no different and might be better (107); Columbia Law School reported something similar in 2015 (107); see also here, here, here, and here (254n4–8)—the problem with these "no difference" reports is that the sample sizes were small and not random, often interview parents instead of children, and include no traditional families for comparison (108–9); even liberal social scientists acknowledge that intact biological families are best for children (109; 255n12); Mark Regnerus's New Family Structures Study contests the "no difference" theory, showing that public assistance, unemployment, criminal behavior, sexual abuse, STDs, and danger in the home all increase significantly (109–11; see here); Regnerus's results were replicated by Paul Sullins, who focuses on depression here (111; see also here); after the '92 LA riots, Dan Quayle was attacked for pointing out the consequences of fatherlessness (112); Victorian shift from fathers to mothers (114); the problem of leisure (115); the destructive nature of "no-fault divorce" (120–21); disastrous effects (see here) of cohabitation on children (123); illegitimacy rate has skyrocketed from 25% among blacks in 1965 to 72% in 2010 (123; for whites in the same years, the % went from 5 to 36); high correlation between single motherhood and poverty (123); one way to achieve/maintain "privilege" is to stay married (125); married people are happier than cohabitants (126)
Ch. 7 (food scares)
[cf. Crichton's "Let's Stop Scaring Ourselves"]
Food scares make people feel righteous and safe, but many of the "dangerous" substances are in such small quantities that they're no more dangerous than the air we breathe. For example, Acrylamide (a compound in French fries) might cause cancer, if you ate 182 pounds of French fries every day (129). Alar (a chemical sprayed on apples) was condemned as a carcinogen, even though you would have to drink 5,000 gallons of apple juice per day for it to possibly result in cancer (130). California's Prop 65 lists almost 1,000 chemicals that companies are required to warn customers about. Golden rice could have helped millions of people with Vitamin A deficiency, but because it's a GMO, Greenpeace freaked out (131–34). Even Slate called the resistance to Golden rice hypocritical and egregious.
Ch. 8 (poverty)
Feeding America CEO makes $650,000/year; company makes more than $2 billion (145). The "one in eight" statistic regarding "food insecurity" is exaggerated—that would be 40 million Americans, larger than the population of California (146). "Food insecurity" is often an issue of unwise spending—rice and beans are nutritious and inexpensive (149). Behavior changes could work financial wonders: no smoking, drinking, soda, or eating gas station food (149–50). LBJ's War on Poverty has been expensive and ineffective; it has also "create[d] a permanent underclass utterly dependent on [welfare from] the government" (150). "[T]he poverty rate is the same as it was when the War on Poverty kicked in"—and we've spend $22 trillion (151; see here). "Poverty has almost everything to do with family formation," although the Left considers this a racist notion (156; see here and here).
Ch. 9 (fossil fuels and natural gas)
fracking = hydraulic fracturing (pressurized water breaks up rock and releases gas); Gasland (I and II) spread the fear that methane was being released (burning water!), but FrackNation exposes the flawed evidence (163–64); burning water is not as uncommon as people think (see this story of Washington and Paine and swamp gas [164])
More comments on Ch. 10 (climate change), Ch. 11 (population), and Ch. 12 (authority) here.
August 11, 2017
"Willfully ignorant" doesn't even begin to describe Fake Science. Full of logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and us vs them rhetoric, Fake is not aimed at those on the fence seeking to balance out their understanding of important issues. Instead, Fake is clearly meant to strengthen the confidence of those already firmly entrenched in their own points of view.
Fake uses a double standard for what constitutes real science based on the view point of the author. While the author likely has good points on both GMOs and the hyperbolic rhetoric of many environmentalists, it's impossible to even see these through the demagoguery.
What's worse, Fake's author demonstrates a clear lack of a basic understanding of probability and statistics: an understanding critical to the basic premise of this book. For example, if you estimated that an event had a 17% chance of happening, your statistics weren't wrong if the event still happened, just as you wouldn't be wrong about the unlikeliness of a royal flush if one indeed showed up in a game of poker.
This book is toxic; stay clear of it.
Fake uses a double standard for what constitutes real science based on the view point of the author. While the author likely has good points on both GMOs and the hyperbolic rhetoric of many environmentalists, it's impossible to even see these through the demagoguery.
What's worse, Fake's author demonstrates a clear lack of a basic understanding of probability and statistics: an understanding critical to the basic premise of this book. For example, if you estimated that an event had a 17% chance of happening, your statistics weren't wrong if the event still happened, just as you wouldn't be wrong about the unlikeliness of a royal flush if one indeed showed up in a game of poker.
This book is toxic; stay clear of it.
March 13, 2018
This is a political book, as evidenced in the title. Not a science book.
But it works. Here's why:
The issues it brings up are complex, and the reality is that science has a lot to say about the subjects, but very little to say definitively. However, progressives need evidence to make claims that changes must be made, so they grasp on to "Science" in a way that is different from conservatives.
I use "conservative and progressive" rather than right and left, because both the right and left use "Science" when they want to make changes (i.e. progress), and they both fall into the same traps. Conservatives want to keep things they way they are (or revert to a way they were) and progressives want to change them to something "better". It doesn't take a lot of evidence to want to keep things the same or go back to something that's already existed. That's history and existence. No science needed. But to convince people to change, you need evidence.
Over the last few years, the most extreme progressives have been on the left, and they've grasped at any science they can get a hold of to convince people that change is needed. In doing that, they have made a lot of mistakes, and that's what this book points out.
A good take away is not that the left is bad at science, and the right is good at science. It's that *people* are bad at science, and reality is complicated. Don't pretend that something is scientifically sound when politics (or religion, or really any ideology) are involved.
I wouldn't recommend this book. It's okay, but it's purposely confrontational, as if the "right" has some better grasp of what science is. They don't. They just don't need it as much. I don't know what would have made it better. The complexities of arguing against "settled" science require getting into the details both quantitatively and philosophically. It's a difficult battle to demonstrate the errors. It really is a process of deconversion (from the concept of "settled science" to a concept of skeptical science) that is very much like pulling someone out of a cult. You're not going to pull that off in a book. So this book acts more as a shout-out to those that already agree - it requires a bit of an echo chamber, and I'm not a fan.
But it works. Here's why:
The issues it brings up are complex, and the reality is that science has a lot to say about the subjects, but very little to say definitively. However, progressives need evidence to make claims that changes must be made, so they grasp on to "Science" in a way that is different from conservatives.
I use "conservative and progressive" rather than right and left, because both the right and left use "Science" when they want to make changes (i.e. progress), and they both fall into the same traps. Conservatives want to keep things they way they are (or revert to a way they were) and progressives want to change them to something "better". It doesn't take a lot of evidence to want to keep things the same or go back to something that's already existed. That's history and existence. No science needed. But to convince people to change, you need evidence.
Over the last few years, the most extreme progressives have been on the left, and they've grasped at any science they can get a hold of to convince people that change is needed. In doing that, they have made a lot of mistakes, and that's what this book points out.
A good take away is not that the left is bad at science, and the right is good at science. It's that *people* are bad at science, and reality is complicated. Don't pretend that something is scientifically sound when politics (or religion, or really any ideology) are involved.
I wouldn't recommend this book. It's okay, but it's purposely confrontational, as if the "right" has some better grasp of what science is. They don't. They just don't need it as much. I don't know what would have made it better. The complexities of arguing against "settled" science require getting into the details both quantitatively and philosophically. It's a difficult battle to demonstrate the errors. It really is a process of deconversion (from the concept of "settled science" to a concept of skeptical science) that is very much like pulling someone out of a cult. You're not going to pull that off in a book. So this book acts more as a shout-out to those that already agree - it requires a bit of an echo chamber, and I'm not a fan.
December 15, 2017
While some of the information may be true it is not the whole picture by far. He states that poor people in America are not really "poor" because they own air conditioners, DVD players and cell phones. First the air conditioners, have you tried to find housing that does not have air conditioning? It is almost automatic that homes/ apartments have air conditioning and heat. Now just because they have it does not mean that they use it. When weather is at it's extremes public places are full of people who can not afford to pay to use their heating or air.
Second the DVD player. A cheep DVD player cost about twenty five dollars and last maybe ten years, dvds are free to check out at your library. Cable or Dish cost at least twenty five dollars a month.
Third the cell phone. For most poor people a cell phone is the only access they have to the internet. There is also the fact that most poor people only have prepaid phones that are rarely turned on.
Second the DVD player. A cheep DVD player cost about twenty five dollars and last maybe ten years, dvds are free to check out at your library. Cable or Dish cost at least twenty five dollars a month.
Third the cell phone. For most poor people a cell phone is the only access they have to the internet. There is also the fact that most poor people only have prepaid phones that are rarely turned on.
October 9, 2023
Already in the intro we have quite a lot of questionable logic.
I don't know if fetuses are human beings. That's a very specific term. He obviously is anti abortion, but he could have used a term like living being. Or living organism or a fetus with feelings. Instead he tries to use an already well-known term to describe something outside the usual definition of the term to gain a cheap and unfair win. Using a term in a different or unique way is not always wrong, but it's just lazy and forced logic when you try to persuade readers by doing this.
Godwin's law. No, it won't be seen as "just as barbaric" as what the Nazi doctors did. For that it would need to be forceful towards millions of children. So the parents would need to say no and try to run away, but get captured by military units who then force it on them. That would then be comparable to what Nazis did to Jews to some degree.
Chapter 1: Pollsters’ Waterloo
6/10
Trump's win was proclaiming nearly impossible. I don't think it's a good chapter. It's waaay too short. It should have been like half the book to explain this well. This issue is tackled more in-depth in even short news segments on liberal media so it's quite embarrassing that a MAGA man can't explain it better while claiming the left-wing is overlooking this issue. Furthermore he seems to mix and mash various statements to make a point. Like talking about how pollsters got it wrong and then also mentioning pundits. I think 99% of the issue was pundits. Like Huffington Post proclaiming Hillary was 99% likely to win. Instead he is using tweets from single people and hazy statements to claim pundits were wrong. The author is of course correct. But the big news was seeing the giant liberal media hosts all slunk and nearly cry when Trump won and then right away try to explain his win. They spent half a year claiming Hillary could not lose then a minute after Trump wins and they wipe their tears and try to explain how it happened. Totally clueless. They proved themselves ignorant and instead or slowing down and reading up on stuff they double down on their pundit skills. This is the essential story here. The chapter is just a lazy overview. Not bad at all, but it's just not good either.
Chapter 2: The Transgender Moment
5/10
I mean, this is an easy win for conservatives. I notice that in many modern video games and movies there are trans people in main roles now and this has become maybe the key issue for the left-wing above economy, war, education, safety, wages. And their ideas and morals on this are so extremely basic and one-sided that one at times wonder if they have gone fully insane. It's like critical thinking leaves the left at times and they become monkeys slinging excrement at everyone who dares engage with them. Really not hard for conservatives to get a win in these debates today which is a giant shame because the left has people who can think straight on this topic. Unfortunately they are all too afraid to speak up now. I'm not sure conservatives can educate the left on this though as progressives see conservatives as the pure evil. The debate is just stupidity incarnated and absolutely not worth your time or energy. Honestly just skip this. I skip movies, games, and books even alluding to this stuff as this is the stupidest thing ever. Just have the fights and preachy morals somewhere else, I'm good. I'm waiting for this to be over so that I can enjoy media without anyone screeching at me for enjoying or not enjoying stuff.
The chapter itself is tame and lame with the author just mainly noting how some kids are proclaimed the opposite gender because they made a few statements about being so. And this has become an activist issue with parents forcing their kids to wear dresses or claim they are something they are not. Unfortunately he only uses 1 single cases where the kid grew up, changed back, and killed himself. All other cases are just the author noticing it happens. But if you don't follow up on the cases they are quite pointless to note. If they remain this way mentally he would seem to be wrong to some degree. If they become depressed and change back he has another story to tell. These are not full stories yet. You do need to show how this causes harm long-term not just show how repulsive some of the child abuse cases are right this moment. Abuse is measured in the effect of it.
Chapter 3: Not Born That Way
6/10
The author supports "pray away the gay". He claims that homosexuality is on a spectrum. That human sexuality is adapted and changed in life and one can be homosexual one year and straight the next. He uses a lot of studies to support his claims, but a critical reader will feel something is wrong here. He makes the NUMBER 1 mistake in science. He doesn't define his terms and this is exactly why he never really poses himself a strong enough challenge to prove anything. He shows studies showing that some people claim they are gay or bi one year and then change. But some people changing doesn't imply he is correct. He would need to show 100% can change in some conditions. Just showing some people claim they have changed doesn't tell us anything whatsoever about the whole as these may be a few crazy people. I assume the author knows this, but tries to trick his readers who he assumes are stupid and gullible. It's ironic because this fluent sexuality claim is the same many progressives make today.
The author makes such a loose and hazy argument that I'm not sure he is even taking a clear standpoint on the biology of it all. Is he saying all homosexuality is just a behavior these people learn and can unlearn? Is he claiming the biological basis is nonexistent? Does he claim some of the conversion therapy programs work? He does defend conversion therapy and does go against gay weddings. But he doesn't propose HOW exactly one would convert gays consistently and why the Jewish ran program he mentions belongs in this category of proper and effective methods? Rather I propose if the conversion actually worked many gay people who opt in. Especially in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Uganda. Yet this doesn't seem to be an effective thing.
The chapter is curious and fun to read. But surely the author sees that he didn't answer most of the interesting questions here which is a great shame. And I do think he is actually going against conservative values on much of this without even noticing it. Disputing biology studies that many progressives ridiculously hate and call Nazi science is not really doing much for his conservative cause. I can't even morally agree or disagree with the author as I can't quite understand his vague claims.
Chapter 4: Everything They Say about Abortion Is a Lie
6/10
Since I'm a radical centrist I support privatized and voluntary eugenics which require abortion rights. He is absolutely correct that people like me created abortion rights to progress the eugenics movement. Of course I don't see it as an evil, but I do want to hear more about his opinions on this matter and I feel like he implies so many things that it's hard to make out. He jumps from point to point without letting me fully understand his feelings about any of this. And with so few logical points that it's hard to agree or disagree with him on much of it. But it is all interesting.
Chapter 5: Never Mind the Herpes, Full Speed Ahead
6/10
About marriage and the sexual revolution. The author goes into how for example condoms and contraception pills made things worse as made society break apart. He also seems to really hate Kinsey for being a child abuser. As the author claims he theoretically sexually abused children in his experiments to measure their reactions. I know nothing about this.
Chapter 6: The Grand Experiment on the Children
6/10
The author proposes that marriage with a man and woman creates a better household for the kids. And that the old type of marriage where you stay together for the kids is the proper one. He then mentions a lot of negative factors for kids who grew up in divorced households. I think this "evidence" is utterly pointless here. And I do claim the same when progressives make this same logical error with claiming that some correlation proves a causation. Often some culture they dislike is blamed for something extremely negative. Which is also why Macron, the president of France, went out and blamed video games for the mass burnings and looting caused by Muslim immigrant groups. Of course it's easy to blame video games as it's something the government doesn't fully control. But the same guy is eager to support Vitality in CSGO too. One of the most violent video games ever made. You don't even need to take a side on these matters to see why the evidence itself is lacking when such claims are made. I'm not saying the author is wrong on this and of course I'm pro his type of marriage, I'm just not convinced the science directs one to this moral conclusion.
YET ... I have to say, in left-wing books, and this includes most social science textbooks, the chapters about similar topics are extremely irritating to read. Often they will use THE SCIENCE to claim they are correct and mock any alternative opinion by calling it racist, sexist, bigoted, and ignorant. It's just repulsive to read such ignorant arrogance in science. An area where exploration and a critical mind are the key elements to success. It's the anti-thesis of science. In this book meanwhile the author does not claim that THE SCIENCE is on this side he just uses it to claim he is correct. It's a breath of fresh air. Even if you hate conservatives and have a Karl Marx tattoo I think you will appreciate this more calm and less pretentious way to go about moral philosophy as it doesn't enrage you.
Chapter 7: One Hundred Eighty-Two Pounds of French Fries
8/10
About Golden rise and GMO overall and how "the left" killed millions in Africa by forbidding the use of GMO food that could feed way more people and survive harsher conditions. They also banned DDT that could wipe out malaria in Africa if made fully legal by the West to use there. I'm not fully convinced the left does this. Rather these are clueless psychopathic people who don't care about poverty in Africa or India. They are often left-wing, but the author would have needed to show who thinks what. Scientists on the left for sure don't think this as they are not this stupid. So how many on the left caused this?
These chapters are mad short which makes them way worse as they never feel like they cover all the main points. This is a shame as this is stuff I love to explore. But when I read a book I expect to get more info per chapter than from a 1-2 hour Youtube video or regular doc.
Chapter 8: Poverty Could Make You Rich
8/10
About how poverty in USA is exaggerated. Actually a fairly neutral chapter with some calm and rational points.
Chapter 9: Flaming Water, Flaming Lies
8/10
Best chapter so far. This could be found in any book about shoddy science and misleading claims. This is about a documentary maker who made fracking in USA into an evil thing by lying about how it supposedly made drinking water flammable and overall poisoned water. Which was in later studies shown to be completely false. There are no moral claims here. The author is just completely correct. The anti-fracking activists are clueless liars and facts shows this clearly. I don't really think you need to be right-wing or pro fracking to see this.
Chapter 10: Global Warming Is Real—and It’s a Good Thing
6/10
Personally I again disagree on the morals and ideas. I do think global warming is quite serious. But I also think the left has waaaaay overblown the seriousness of it. The biggest pundits on the left have been claiming for 50 years that the world would collapse in just a decade. That's a delusion so great that you can't take them seriously anymore. The author meanwhile just ignores the dilemmas of global warming by claiming it's a good thing and that nothing much will happen. Then uses some very selective sourcing to claim a big left-wing science conspiracy. I think it would be smarter if he talked about some middle ground instead of just claiming it's not a big deal at all. But to him the modern disasters are not caused by climate change and since it's only a few degree it's not a great change.
Chapter 11: Life on an Empty Planet
6/10
Against birth control. Not sure I agree with him, but interesting chapter.
Chapter 12: Back Off, Man, I’m a Scientist
5/10
More attacks on left-wing pop scientists.
Full book review
I have gone over the main points. Mainly the book is just way too short. The topics are presented, but with these story science topics I want to dig down into a topic like a nerd and explore even small details. Here it's just a ton of chapters not connected to each other that fire out a ton of shots at the left and their THE SCIENCE claims. As always when disputing a point you have to make the listener want to jump into another point of view. So you have to make it fun, exciting, and illuminating. Here it's not quite the case. He never convinces me to join his moral standpoint because he just doesn't take his time to do so. He frankly often doesn't even fully expand on the points he wants to dispute. The left is anti-scientific and abuses science to present their weird ideology, we know this. And we know how conservatives think. But he is meant to carefully tell us how many said what and how many believe the claims. Then dispute the claim and tell us what groups believe the truth. Quite often half the left will actually consider the other half batshit crazy. The left-wingers who stopped nuclear power in Germany and forced Germany to demolish towns to dig up more dirty coal are actually disliked by more rational left-wingers. But of course the anti-nuclear protest does come from the left so they should do more to solve it internally and stop misusing science to make foolish and insane claims. Which the other half of the left could make sure happens yet they think it's easier to just shut up and ignore the controversy to stay a united front. United but utterly gullible and ignorant as the stupid people in the group are proclaimed leaders and the main pundits. That's how the author could have presented it instead of just claiming the left overall says this stuff without explaining who said it or what groups on the left believe it. There are also us centrists who see modern left-wingers as childish fools who control universities, scientific journals, movies, games, TV shows, news media. And then there are the right-wingers who can be just as stupid, but to watch or read right-wing stuff I have to actively search for it like I did here. While even as I try to avoid left-wing stuff 60% of what I read and watch is left-wing propaganda. Hence there is no great need for me to hate the right-wing as much right now as they are insignificant and have very little cultural power.
The audiobook reader is top notch. The bias is a bit much. This is a conservative point of view all against: gay marriage, sex change stuff, divorce, huge welfare state, global warming claims, pro abortion standpoints. For us centrists most of the moral points will look silly. Unfortunately for the author 95% of the science books we find are left-wing and often extremely progressive and anti-science. As we are eager to read other stuff at times we find books like this that are not really what we seek either and we attack them too even though we knew what we were getting into here. But there are some clever chapters and points here. And I actually did want to explore the anti-abortion sentiment and such that I am against. I still want to read about the topic to see if I am morally wrong about this. But the author just doesn't deliver here and I'm eager to find more right-wing books that expand on such point of views. I did for example change my mind on gun rights years ago. In Europe we watch anti-gun movies in schools and are taught to hate guns. Yet seeing mature and trained people handle guns in freer countries made me understand that guns are actually crucial for protection as seen in South Africa for example where Black gangs rob farmers. But to change my mind you do need a bit more than a short chapter. You need to carefully lay out your logic.
At the end of the day I was actually having fun with the book despite disagreeing with it. Something I rarely experience with such science books because I'm way too busy feeling rage and irritation. Here the author is so extremely transparent about his beliefs that I didn't need to catch him in a bias. He's transparent about his biases. Such books are just fun to explore. You dive into another worldview and try to understand how someone else sees the world without the person acting like a smug asshole and claiming that The SCIENCE is on his side. I do recommend it if you want to read a conservative pro Trump point of view. But don't expect flawless science. I do have to subtract some stars for some claims I find less than convincing.
Unborn babies are living human beings.
I don't know if fetuses are human beings. That's a very specific term. He obviously is anti abortion, but he could have used a term like living being. Or living organism or a fetus with feelings. Instead he tries to use an already well-known term to describe something outside the usual definition of the term to gain a cheap and unfair win. Using a term in a different or unique way is not always wrong, but it's just lazy and forced logic when you try to persuade readers by doing this.
Fully trained doctors experimented on Jews in Nazi Germany, carried out frontal lobotomies and sterilized the mentally “unfit” in the name of eugenics right here in America, and subjected African-Americans to excruciating and preventable death from tertiary syphilis at Tuskegee. Will our modern “transgender” science one day seem just as barbaric?
Godwin's law. No, it won't be seen as "just as barbaric" as what the Nazi doctors did. For that it would need to be forceful towards millions of children. So the parents would need to say no and try to run away, but get captured by military units who then force it on them. That would then be comparable to what Nazis did to Jews to some degree.
Chapter 1: Pollsters’ Waterloo
6/10
Trump's win was proclaiming nearly impossible. I don't think it's a good chapter. It's waaay too short. It should have been like half the book to explain this well. This issue is tackled more in-depth in even short news segments on liberal media so it's quite embarrassing that a MAGA man can't explain it better while claiming the left-wing is overlooking this issue. Furthermore he seems to mix and mash various statements to make a point. Like talking about how pollsters got it wrong and then also mentioning pundits. I think 99% of the issue was pundits. Like Huffington Post proclaiming Hillary was 99% likely to win. Instead he is using tweets from single people and hazy statements to claim pundits were wrong. The author is of course correct. But the big news was seeing the giant liberal media hosts all slunk and nearly cry when Trump won and then right away try to explain his win. They spent half a year claiming Hillary could not lose then a minute after Trump wins and they wipe their tears and try to explain how it happened. Totally clueless. They proved themselves ignorant and instead or slowing down and reading up on stuff they double down on their pundit skills. This is the essential story here. The chapter is just a lazy overview. Not bad at all, but it's just not good either.
Chapter 2: The Transgender Moment
5/10
I mean, this is an easy win for conservatives. I notice that in many modern video games and movies there are trans people in main roles now and this has become maybe the key issue for the left-wing above economy, war, education, safety, wages. And their ideas and morals on this are so extremely basic and one-sided that one at times wonder if they have gone fully insane. It's like critical thinking leaves the left at times and they become monkeys slinging excrement at everyone who dares engage with them. Really not hard for conservatives to get a win in these debates today which is a giant shame because the left has people who can think straight on this topic. Unfortunately they are all too afraid to speak up now. I'm not sure conservatives can educate the left on this though as progressives see conservatives as the pure evil. The debate is just stupidity incarnated and absolutely not worth your time or energy. Honestly just skip this. I skip movies, games, and books even alluding to this stuff as this is the stupidest thing ever. Just have the fights and preachy morals somewhere else, I'm good. I'm waiting for this to be over so that I can enjoy media without anyone screeching at me for enjoying or not enjoying stuff.
The chapter itself is tame and lame with the author just mainly noting how some kids are proclaimed the opposite gender because they made a few statements about being so. And this has become an activist issue with parents forcing their kids to wear dresses or claim they are something they are not. Unfortunately he only uses 1 single cases where the kid grew up, changed back, and killed himself. All other cases are just the author noticing it happens. But if you don't follow up on the cases they are quite pointless to note. If they remain this way mentally he would seem to be wrong to some degree. If they become depressed and change back he has another story to tell. These are not full stories yet. You do need to show how this causes harm long-term not just show how repulsive some of the child abuse cases are right this moment. Abuse is measured in the effect of it.
Chapter 3: Not Born That Way
6/10
The author supports "pray away the gay". He claims that homosexuality is on a spectrum. That human sexuality is adapted and changed in life and one can be homosexual one year and straight the next. He uses a lot of studies to support his claims, but a critical reader will feel something is wrong here. He makes the NUMBER 1 mistake in science. He doesn't define his terms and this is exactly why he never really poses himself a strong enough challenge to prove anything. He shows studies showing that some people claim they are gay or bi one year and then change. But some people changing doesn't imply he is correct. He would need to show 100% can change in some conditions. Just showing some people claim they have changed doesn't tell us anything whatsoever about the whole as these may be a few crazy people. I assume the author knows this, but tries to trick his readers who he assumes are stupid and gullible. It's ironic because this fluent sexuality claim is the same many progressives make today.
The author makes such a loose and hazy argument that I'm not sure he is even taking a clear standpoint on the biology of it all. Is he saying all homosexuality is just a behavior these people learn and can unlearn? Is he claiming the biological basis is nonexistent? Does he claim some of the conversion therapy programs work? He does defend conversion therapy and does go against gay weddings. But he doesn't propose HOW exactly one would convert gays consistently and why the Jewish ran program he mentions belongs in this category of proper and effective methods? Rather I propose if the conversion actually worked many gay people who opt in. Especially in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Uganda. Yet this doesn't seem to be an effective thing.
The chapter is curious and fun to read. But surely the author sees that he didn't answer most of the interesting questions here which is a great shame. And I do think he is actually going against conservative values on much of this without even noticing it. Disputing biology studies that many progressives ridiculously hate and call Nazi science is not really doing much for his conservative cause. I can't even morally agree or disagree with the author as I can't quite understand his vague claims.
Chapter 4: Everything They Say about Abortion Is a Lie
6/10
Since I'm a radical centrist I support privatized and voluntary eugenics which require abortion rights. He is absolutely correct that people like me created abortion rights to progress the eugenics movement. Of course I don't see it as an evil, but I do want to hear more about his opinions on this matter and I feel like he implies so many things that it's hard to make out. He jumps from point to point without letting me fully understand his feelings about any of this. And with so few logical points that it's hard to agree or disagree with him on much of it. But it is all interesting.
Chapter 5: Never Mind the Herpes, Full Speed Ahead
6/10
About marriage and the sexual revolution. The author goes into how for example condoms and contraception pills made things worse as made society break apart. He also seems to really hate Kinsey for being a child abuser. As the author claims he theoretically sexually abused children in his experiments to measure their reactions. I know nothing about this.
Chapter 6: The Grand Experiment on the Children
6/10
The author proposes that marriage with a man and woman creates a better household for the kids. And that the old type of marriage where you stay together for the kids is the proper one. He then mentions a lot of negative factors for kids who grew up in divorced households. I think this "evidence" is utterly pointless here. And I do claim the same when progressives make this same logical error with claiming that some correlation proves a causation. Often some culture they dislike is blamed for something extremely negative. Which is also why Macron, the president of France, went out and blamed video games for the mass burnings and looting caused by Muslim immigrant groups. Of course it's easy to blame video games as it's something the government doesn't fully control. But the same guy is eager to support Vitality in CSGO too. One of the most violent video games ever made. You don't even need to take a side on these matters to see why the evidence itself is lacking when such claims are made. I'm not saying the author is wrong on this and of course I'm pro his type of marriage, I'm just not convinced the science directs one to this moral conclusion.
YET ... I have to say, in left-wing books, and this includes most social science textbooks, the chapters about similar topics are extremely irritating to read. Often they will use THE SCIENCE to claim they are correct and mock any alternative opinion by calling it racist, sexist, bigoted, and ignorant. It's just repulsive to read such ignorant arrogance in science. An area where exploration and a critical mind are the key elements to success. It's the anti-thesis of science. In this book meanwhile the author does not claim that THE SCIENCE is on this side he just uses it to claim he is correct. It's a breath of fresh air. Even if you hate conservatives and have a Karl Marx tattoo I think you will appreciate this more calm and less pretentious way to go about moral philosophy as it doesn't enrage you.
Chapter 7: One Hundred Eighty-Two Pounds of French Fries
8/10
About Golden rise and GMO overall and how "the left" killed millions in Africa by forbidding the use of GMO food that could feed way more people and survive harsher conditions. They also banned DDT that could wipe out malaria in Africa if made fully legal by the West to use there. I'm not fully convinced the left does this. Rather these are clueless psychopathic people who don't care about poverty in Africa or India. They are often left-wing, but the author would have needed to show who thinks what. Scientists on the left for sure don't think this as they are not this stupid. So how many on the left caused this?
These chapters are mad short which makes them way worse as they never feel like they cover all the main points. This is a shame as this is stuff I love to explore. But when I read a book I expect to get more info per chapter than from a 1-2 hour Youtube video or regular doc.
Chapter 8: Poverty Could Make You Rich
8/10
About how poverty in USA is exaggerated. Actually a fairly neutral chapter with some calm and rational points.
Chapter 9: Flaming Water, Flaming Lies
8/10
Best chapter so far. This could be found in any book about shoddy science and misleading claims. This is about a documentary maker who made fracking in USA into an evil thing by lying about how it supposedly made drinking water flammable and overall poisoned water. Which was in later studies shown to be completely false. There are no moral claims here. The author is just completely correct. The anti-fracking activists are clueless liars and facts shows this clearly. I don't really think you need to be right-wing or pro fracking to see this.
Chapter 10: Global Warming Is Real—and It’s a Good Thing
6/10
Personally I again disagree on the morals and ideas. I do think global warming is quite serious. But I also think the left has waaaaay overblown the seriousness of it. The biggest pundits on the left have been claiming for 50 years that the world would collapse in just a decade. That's a delusion so great that you can't take them seriously anymore. The author meanwhile just ignores the dilemmas of global warming by claiming it's a good thing and that nothing much will happen. Then uses some very selective sourcing to claim a big left-wing science conspiracy. I think it would be smarter if he talked about some middle ground instead of just claiming it's not a big deal at all. But to him the modern disasters are not caused by climate change and since it's only a few degree it's not a great change.
Chapter 11: Life on an Empty Planet
6/10
Against birth control. Not sure I agree with him, but interesting chapter.
Chapter 12: Back Off, Man, I’m a Scientist
5/10
More attacks on left-wing pop scientists.
Full book review
I have gone over the main points. Mainly the book is just way too short. The topics are presented, but with these story science topics I want to dig down into a topic like a nerd and explore even small details. Here it's just a ton of chapters not connected to each other that fire out a ton of shots at the left and their THE SCIENCE claims. As always when disputing a point you have to make the listener want to jump into another point of view. So you have to make it fun, exciting, and illuminating. Here it's not quite the case. He never convinces me to join his moral standpoint because he just doesn't take his time to do so. He frankly often doesn't even fully expand on the points he wants to dispute. The left is anti-scientific and abuses science to present their weird ideology, we know this. And we know how conservatives think. But he is meant to carefully tell us how many said what and how many believe the claims. Then dispute the claim and tell us what groups believe the truth. Quite often half the left will actually consider the other half batshit crazy. The left-wingers who stopped nuclear power in Germany and forced Germany to demolish towns to dig up more dirty coal are actually disliked by more rational left-wingers. But of course the anti-nuclear protest does come from the left so they should do more to solve it internally and stop misusing science to make foolish and insane claims. Which the other half of the left could make sure happens yet they think it's easier to just shut up and ignore the controversy to stay a united front. United but utterly gullible and ignorant as the stupid people in the group are proclaimed leaders and the main pundits. That's how the author could have presented it instead of just claiming the left overall says this stuff without explaining who said it or what groups on the left believe it. There are also us centrists who see modern left-wingers as childish fools who control universities, scientific journals, movies, games, TV shows, news media. And then there are the right-wingers who can be just as stupid, but to watch or read right-wing stuff I have to actively search for it like I did here. While even as I try to avoid left-wing stuff 60% of what I read and watch is left-wing propaganda. Hence there is no great need for me to hate the right-wing as much right now as they are insignificant and have very little cultural power.
The audiobook reader is top notch. The bias is a bit much. This is a conservative point of view all against: gay marriage, sex change stuff, divorce, huge welfare state, global warming claims, pro abortion standpoints. For us centrists most of the moral points will look silly. Unfortunately for the author 95% of the science books we find are left-wing and often extremely progressive and anti-science. As we are eager to read other stuff at times we find books like this that are not really what we seek either and we attack them too even though we knew what we were getting into here. But there are some clever chapters and points here. And I actually did want to explore the anti-abortion sentiment and such that I am against. I still want to read about the topic to see if I am morally wrong about this. But the author just doesn't deliver here and I'm eager to find more right-wing books that expand on such point of views. I did for example change my mind on gun rights years ago. In Europe we watch anti-gun movies in schools and are taught to hate guns. Yet seeing mature and trained people handle guns in freer countries made me understand that guns are actually crucial for protection as seen in South Africa for example where Black gangs rob farmers. But to change my mind you do need a bit more than a short chapter. You need to carefully lay out your logic.
At the end of the day I was actually having fun with the book despite disagreeing with it. Something I rarely experience with such science books because I'm way too busy feeling rage and irritation. Here the author is so extremely transparent about his beliefs that I didn't need to catch him in a bias. He's transparent about his biases. Such books are just fun to explore. You dive into another worldview and try to understand how someone else sees the world without the person acting like a smug asshole and claiming that The SCIENCE is on his side. I do recommend it if you want to read a conservative pro Trump point of view. But don't expect flawless science. I do have to subtract some stars for some claims I find less than convincing.
May 10, 2018
Being an engineer by education and experience, I cringe when anyone says “the science is settled” or “the scientific consensus is...” because science doesn’t work that way. It requires testing theories and then retesting to show repeatability by other scientists before you can comfortably believe you have proven that you understand how something works. And even then you may have misinterpreted some of your results and find errors at a later dare. The author of this book, Fake Science, has done a very good job of exposing how bad results are created by scientists constantly looking for government grant money and are willing to even fudge or falsify data to get the results that someone, usually a politician or government agency wants. Unfortunately the general population in the US is so science illiterate that they are easily fooled into believing bad or fake science, even when predictions are off and the story is changed to explain the results observed. And, sadly, much of this Fake Science is being drilled into our children through schools and teachers who have drunk the Koolaid and are pushing a political agenda. Fake Science should be required reading for kids in school to make them more skeptical and get them to start questioning the consensus of settled science!
August 25, 2018
If you've never taken a psychology class and learned how to properly collect data and how sometimes data is used wrongly, or learned how statistics work and how to select data sets and other factors, and if you've never studied history, religion and philosophy and learned that humans suffer from biases, then you might be surprised by what you read in this book!
Rather than reading this book, I would recommend taking a college course or reading a book that takes the time to more thoroughly and maturely explore specific examples of the misuse of scientific data/conclusions.
Each chapter presents some facts, some examples of scientists who were politically motivated, and then states that their work has been exploited.
I was already convinced that you shouldn't believe everything you hear, but Ruse's specific arguments aren't enough to convince me that the Left is exploiting science. The angry, making-fun-of tone of the book is troubling and indicative of today's political climate, and it's easy to see how the Left and Right are unable to see eye-to-eye if they have attitudes like this.
Rather than reading this book, I would recommend taking a college course or reading a book that takes the time to more thoroughly and maturely explore specific examples of the misuse of scientific data/conclusions.
Each chapter presents some facts, some examples of scientists who were politically motivated, and then states that their work has been exploited.
I was already convinced that you shouldn't believe everything you hear, but Ruse's specific arguments aren't enough to convince me that the Left is exploiting science. The angry, making-fun-of tone of the book is troubling and indicative of today's political climate, and it's easy to see how the Left and Right are unable to see eye-to-eye if they have attitudes like this.
July 9, 2018
It was maddening and laughable at the same time. At one point it uses the debunked, fake video, but treating it as unassailable solid proof, of Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts as "evidence". The rest of the book is equally as sketchy on its sources. More feelings than facts
January 23, 2018
I read this book not because I was particularly interested in the political viewpoint, but because I thought I might learn more about bad science. The author makes a compelling case that too much of science is driven by politics instead of what actually makes for good science. What undercuts the message of the book is that it feels so much like a polemic, that I can't help but wonder the extent to which he's stacking the deck to his advantage. He may be giving an honest review of the studies and issues he cites, but the blanket descriptions of 'the left' make him seem as biased as he claims they are. His book would have been better served had it not framed the issue as an assault on the left's thinking, but rather an expose of bad science in general.
December 27, 2022
I have mixed feelings about this book.
The author tries to make a case against homosexuality, abortion, climate change, and more. It has shaken my beliefs in these topics a little bit but not convinced me that the major things that are commonly known about these subjects are false.
He criticizes many popular scientists and research papers trying to convince that those generated opposite results are correct. How can a reader be sure who is right?
From time to time, the author tends to exaggerate other scientists mistakes, making bold statements against them. It does not help convince me, as I start to think that other comments in this book might also be an exaggeration.
The author tries to make a case against homosexuality, abortion, climate change, and more. It has shaken my beliefs in these topics a little bit but not convinced me that the major things that are commonly known about these subjects are false.
He criticizes many popular scientists and research papers trying to convince that those generated opposite results are correct. How can a reader be sure who is right?
From time to time, the author tends to exaggerate other scientists mistakes, making bold statements against them. It does not help convince me, as I start to think that other comments in this book might also be an exaggeration.
June 28, 2018
How can you have facts on your side and be so obnoxious and wrong?
September 26, 2024
Rating should be 1.4 really.
December 8, 2017
science is measured and replicated, newspapers driven by editors and narratives, 30%+ trans genders attempt suicide mental health pattern, 1.6% homosexual via Center of Disease, began 150 years ago, more likely with college, attempts to bar mental health treatment, no gay gene, more likely to abuse sexually drugs alcohol and suicide, data on childhood abuse, pro abortion all lies, unstable same sex households high divorce rate and abuse, children of divorce poor success unhappy whereas married are most happy, link of divorce to poverty, golden rice data decades old, evidence of gmo gleuten ddt, malaria in ww2 bird pop tripled Carson wrong on all accounts, US food hunger cure by stop smoking soda get beans rice, poverty rate same 14% since 60’s despite spending 3x cost of all wars, family formation is solution to poverty, fracking Fox video of 11and13 used gas in hose and natural methane, last ice 1300-1870 warming since, only 32% concerned screened scientists to get small group with 97% consensus, population myth all except Africa below replacement rates, some countries not dieing like flies anymore, who is a scientist Nye is ME and comedy and no phd or some phd’s not in related field, 11 of 13 iphone innovations from military, breast cancer med discovery via military not NIH, peer review scam and rigging with fraudulent reviewers.
November 11, 2017
This is an eye-opening book revealing many popular myths and exposing many popularly accepted scientific facts as fallacies or distortions of reality. The book is also fairly easy and enjoyable to read, however, the one thing that bothered me was the author's tendency to imply that just because a person used dubious data or tried to cover up evidence that was inconvenient to their cause, that they were politically left.
It seems to me plausible that people on the right, or conservatives, as this writer calls them, are not all untarnished angels and may also be deceptive in promoting their interests.
It seems to me plausible that people on the right, or conservatives, as this writer calls them, are not all untarnished angels and may also be deceptive in promoting their interests.
September 9, 2017
Politics relies on fake science
This book is really depressing. It shows examples where inaccurate or incorrect science has been used to achieve political objectives. It shows how theories that have been proven untrue just don't go away. It shows numerous examples of how groupthink shuts down non conforming views just like the church burned heretics in the 15th century. People are so uninformed that they evaluate scientific claims based upon emotion rather than critical thought. Truly sad. All driven by politicians who need crises to get money and votes
This book is really depressing. It shows examples where inaccurate or incorrect science has been used to achieve political objectives. It shows how theories that have been proven untrue just don't go away. It shows numerous examples of how groupthink shuts down non conforming views just like the church burned heretics in the 15th century. People are so uninformed that they evaluate scientific claims based upon emotion rather than critical thought. Truly sad. All driven by politicians who need crises to get money and votes
March 4, 2018
Really interesting book about many current issues such as population control, GMOs, global warming, abortion, and more. I realize that it is easy to find statistics to support just about any position, but what I appreciated was the author's explanation of WHERE many commonly-cited statistics had come from, such as "97% of scientists endorse the theory that global warming is man-made" and "one in 8 Americans struggles with food insecurity". It is far too easy to repeat these statistics than to dig deeper and get a fuller picture.
June 25, 2018
An interesting read, exposing a lot of "Fake Science", expounded by the mass media.
Ironically, for a book about exposing Fake Science, the author advocates a fair amount of Fake Science, himself... so, be aware. For example, Austin Ruse really should have read "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government and Systematically Deceived the Public", written by Steven M. Druker, before attempting to expound the scientific virtues and safety, of GMOs.
Ironically, for a book about exposing Fake Science, the author advocates a fair amount of Fake Science, himself... so, be aware. For example, Austin Ruse really should have read "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government and Systematically Deceived the Public", written by Steven M. Druker, before attempting to expound the scientific virtues and safety, of GMOs.
June 3, 2019
This is as good a book as any to expound on the conservative take on things because it has statistics and many notes, but the author's bias is still evident and his chapter on gayness is off, even preachy. I lean conservative, but not in a kneejerk fashion a la Breitbart, with which the author has been affiliated. Because the Left is so loud now, the Right has to be loud as well, but both sides come off as shrill. This book isn't shrill, but does feed into the Right's narrative. I'm no fan of the extreme Left either, and being in the middle is increasingly hard these days.
September 12, 2017
A Must Read For Scientists & Non-scientists
Knowledge & non-knowledge heavily skewed for the purpose of pursuing an ideological agenda, well presented in this in this informative book, "still what a man hears what he wants to hear & disregards the rest" (apologies to Paul Simon "the boxer") recommend & contemplate.
Knowledge & non-knowledge heavily skewed for the purpose of pursuing an ideological agenda, well presented in this in this informative book, "still what a man hears what he wants to hear & disregards the rest" (apologies to Paul Simon "the boxer") recommend & contemplate.
August 22, 2020
As a TRUE practicing Catholic, I find this man (and his writings... ) to be one of the most disgustingly despicable humans to walk this earth. Making fun of a CHILD with a stutter? How very Christian.
Boycott him, boycott his books, boycott what he stands for.
Boycott him, boycott his books, boycott what he stands for.
August 31, 2017
If you like science & you follow social issues etc. you will love this. However if you don't love this you may not really love science (or the quest for truth) - just saying :)
April 26, 2024
Reading Austin Ruse's Fake Science feels like diving into a bizarro world where up is down, left is right, and scientific rigor is an optional garnish rather than the main course. Ruse sets out to uncover what he perceives as a vast conspiracy where data is twisted by the sinistral hands of left-leaning scientists to fit nefarious narratives. The result is a book that, while occasionally hitting a thought-provoking note, more often than not plays like a symphony where the instruments are out of tune.
Ruse attempts to tackle a smorgasbord of topics—from environmental science to gender studies—with the fervor of a magician pulling rabbits out of a hat. Unfortunately, these rabbits are often just loosely connected anecdotes and selective readings of studies that seem to be chosen more for their headline value than their scientific robustness. The chapters present a cascade of assertions that feel like they were cherry-picked with a zeal that would make even the most ardent conspiracy theorist blush.
What is most striking about Fake Science is not just its critical eye on left-leaning data manipulation, but its own flirtation with the very pitfalls it warns against. The irony is almost palpable as Ruse rails against skewed statistics and fuzzy facts, all while presenting arguments that often lack the depth and balance that are hallmarks of true scientific inquiry.
The book could have been a meaningful critique on the politicization of science—an important topic where there is much to be said about the integrity and misuse of scientific data. However, Ruse's approach comes across as more of a partisan screed than a thoughtful examination. His selective skepticism seems reserved only for studies that contradict his worldview, suggesting a mirror image of the bias he seeks to expose.
Among my favorite moments in Fake Science was when the author vigorously defended the absolute harmlessness of DDT, wielded the long-discredited Regnerus study as a shield, and questioned the reality of global climate change by noting the lack of destructive hurricanes hitting the mainland USA. This was further embellished with the claim that global warming would predominantly bring positives anyway—a curious assertion in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. Perhaps the only point on which the author does not err is golden rice. However, it's worth noting that the opposition to golden rice did not come from a unified left-wing front but rather from a few ideologically driven anti-GMO groups. This nuanced reality is lost in Ruse’s broader brush strokes that seem eager to paint an entire political spectrum with the same dismissive shade.
In essence, Fake Science serves as a perfect example of how not to engage with scientific discourse. It's a cautionary tale that underscores the importance of critical thinking and the need to scrutinize all claims—especially those that conveniently align with our preconceived notions. The book inadvertently reminds us that in the pursuit of truth, it's crucial to avoid the seductive simplicity of echo chambers. And for that lesson, if nothing else, it proves its own worth in the most ironic way possible.
Ruse attempts to tackle a smorgasbord of topics—from environmental science to gender studies—with the fervor of a magician pulling rabbits out of a hat. Unfortunately, these rabbits are often just loosely connected anecdotes and selective readings of studies that seem to be chosen more for their headline value than their scientific robustness. The chapters present a cascade of assertions that feel like they were cherry-picked with a zeal that would make even the most ardent conspiracy theorist blush.
What is most striking about Fake Science is not just its critical eye on left-leaning data manipulation, but its own flirtation with the very pitfalls it warns against. The irony is almost palpable as Ruse rails against skewed statistics and fuzzy facts, all while presenting arguments that often lack the depth and balance that are hallmarks of true scientific inquiry.
The book could have been a meaningful critique on the politicization of science—an important topic where there is much to be said about the integrity and misuse of scientific data. However, Ruse's approach comes across as more of a partisan screed than a thoughtful examination. His selective skepticism seems reserved only for studies that contradict his worldview, suggesting a mirror image of the bias he seeks to expose.
Among my favorite moments in Fake Science was when the author vigorously defended the absolute harmlessness of DDT, wielded the long-discredited Regnerus study as a shield, and questioned the reality of global climate change by noting the lack of destructive hurricanes hitting the mainland USA. This was further embellished with the claim that global warming would predominantly bring positives anyway—a curious assertion in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. Perhaps the only point on which the author does not err is golden rice. However, it's worth noting that the opposition to golden rice did not come from a unified left-wing front but rather from a few ideologically driven anti-GMO groups. This nuanced reality is lost in Ruse’s broader brush strokes that seem eager to paint an entire political spectrum with the same dismissive shade.
In essence, Fake Science serves as a perfect example of how not to engage with scientific discourse. It's a cautionary tale that underscores the importance of critical thinking and the need to scrutinize all claims—especially those that conveniently align with our preconceived notions. The book inadvertently reminds us that in the pursuit of truth, it's crucial to avoid the seductive simplicity of echo chambers. And for that lesson, if nothing else, it proves its own worth in the most ironic way possible.
February 19, 2022
Not a surprising read, this book demonstrates ow the liberal media and politicians have weaponized science and the media. It appears to be well-researched and is populated with multiple endnotes to buttress the positions it takes.
While I find much of my research also supports the majority of the books conclusions, one must be cautious in following it slavishly, as the conservatives have also enlisted its own soldiers in the meida and science wars. Notwithstanding this fact, it is an excellent demonstration of how phrases (e.g., "trust the science") can be used to distort positions and dishonestly mislead many people.
Unfortunately, although the books main focus is politicized science, the task of finding good science is made infinitely more difficult by the misuse of media outlets. Almost none of them may be trusted to be actually neutral, and instead they are advocates for positions, instead of for truth.
While I find much of my research also supports the majority of the books conclusions, one must be cautious in following it slavishly, as the conservatives have also enlisted its own soldiers in the meida and science wars. Notwithstanding this fact, it is an excellent demonstration of how phrases (e.g., "trust the science") can be used to distort positions and dishonestly mislead many people.
Unfortunately, although the books main focus is politicized science, the task of finding good science is made infinitely more difficult by the misuse of media outlets. Almost none of them may be trusted to be actually neutral, and instead they are advocates for positions, instead of for truth.
December 6, 2020
Well-researched and thought-provoking. Refreshing to see a sound debunking of the leftist narrative with facts . . . because facts don't care about your feelings. Ruse, with intellectual honesty, refutes the "science is settled" argument.
August 30, 2017
Pretty good book showing even science is wrapped up in politics.
June 7, 2022
EVERYONE should read this book !
October 25, 2018
Good to hear opposite voices too.
August 26, 2024
The book is a interesting primer on the position of the uncompromising right. It is very aggressive in its tone, and at times makes the impression that it would never admit any of the other sides narratives. But it's ok to present that side of the argument too, in order to have heard both. If you only listen to the mainstream, you don't even know that this side of the spectrum exists.
It seems a lot of political issues are decided intimidating researchers until they spit out the right answers, or bullying the ones who released unwelcome findings until they recant, in order to be able to say that "the science" agrees with the bullies. Often these policies lead to poverty and death, particularly disease seems to be a hallmark consequence. But because such policies can be defended as "more tolerant", anyone who disagrees is persecuted as a bigot.
(Skipped a few segments, so I wouldn't have to mark it as read, for fear of being Julien-Assanged for having this in my read list.)
It seems a lot of political issues are decided intimidating researchers until they spit out the right answers, or bullying the ones who released unwelcome findings until they recant, in order to be able to say that "the science" agrees with the bullies. Often these policies lead to poverty and death, particularly disease seems to be a hallmark consequence. But because such policies can be defended as "more tolerant", anyone who disagrees is persecuted as a bigot.
(Skipped a few segments, so I wouldn't have to mark it as read, for fear of being Julien-Assanged for having this in my read list.)
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews