This book is a bit of a mixed bag. It contains a good introduction to, or refresher on, skeptical thinking and logical pitfalls and fallacies, although that part is long and drags after several hundred pages. The examples generally make for more enjoyable reading when they finally arrive.
When the book moves to examples, I agree with nearly all of its targets. Some are treated relatively gently and humorously (the Loch Ness monster, ghosts, UFOs and aliens). However, the authors beat certain topics well past death (intelligent design, antivaxxers, medical quackery). I can understand their outrage when medical quackery kills or injures people, but it still gets tedious if you got their point many pages back. I don’t think traditional religious beliefs deserve the same level of abuse, provided they are not injuring people, although I otherwise agree with the authors. Also, the authors largely ignore the fact that, as traditional religious beliefs have declined, they have been supplanted by new-age religious beliefs, particularly Gaia worship, which they don’t treat with the same level of hostility.
The few partial exceptions where I don’t completely agree with the book are anthropogenic global warming (AGW, discussed below), the alleged gender pay gap (barely mentioned, but uncritically accepted as due to discrimination) and, unimportantly, TWA flight 800 (briefly mentioned to dismiss the testimony of many eyewitnesses, but other evidence is ignored).
I think the authors have a huge blind spot with regard to AGW. The issue isn’t just whether the planet is warming, but include 1) how much, 2) how much human activity is contributing to that vs. solar and planetary cycles, ice age cycles and other factors, 3) whether that is something that warrants such alarm as to justify draconian changes to the national and world economy and probably a significant curtailment of freedom and lowering of living standards and 4) if so, whether China and other countries get a free pass to continue making the purported problem worse while Western countries shoulder nearly all of the burden of mitigation. The authors completely ignore the fact that the same AGW advocates have been sounding the same dire warnings with the same prescriptions (dramatic expansion of government control and restriction of private activity) for so long that they were within living memory once just as adamant that the threat was “global cooling”, then “global warming”, then “climate change”, then “climate crisis” and now “climate emergency”. Chicken Little has been screeching that the sky is falling for far too long.
The authors also ignore that fact that AGW embraces several logical pitfalls that the book otherwise criticizes: 1) its advocates refuse to disclose their data (the disgraceful Michael Mann, who embarrassingly contributed the first blurb to this book, was found in contempt of court), 2) there is evidence that the data is being cooked (“hide the decline”) and narratives being shaped by the selection of biased gatekeeper IPCC authors, 3) its advocates are not very good about making accurate or falsifiable predictions with their theory, 4) its advocates are notorious for moving the goal posts (the polar ice caps and glaciers were supposed to have melted long before now, snow was supposed to be a thing of the past, etc.), 5) there is a strong component of the “appeal to nature” fallacy (which has its own chapter), that whatever is “natural” is good and whatever is “man-made” is bad, and 6) many of the advocates are subject to enormous pressures of “motivated reasoning”, with tons of grant money, fame and fawning media coverage (Scoldilocks), gigantic economic winners and losers, and nearly unlimited government power at stake. I am aware that questioning the motives of AGW advocates has the potential to be a fallacy itself, but the financial and social pressures for motivated reasoning are much stronger with regard to AGW than in any other area.
Ironically, the book contains a chapter mocking the smorgasbord of trendy but fallacious beliefs in “Holly-woo” and the West coast. It also criticizes the widespread politically-correct but fallacious opposition to GMOs. Yet it ignores the fact that AGW is the ultimate sacred cow of trendy, politically-correct beliefs. The authors accept the dubious proposition that a meta-survey which found that 33% of scientists endorsed AGW constitutes a “97 % consensus” (of a few degrees warming), and peremptorily concludes ‘case closed’ - “deniers” are anti-science and should shut up and get with the program. There is no discussion of the quality of the evidence, faulty and unfalsifiable predictions, the relative contributions of non-anthropogenic effects, positive and negative consequences and their magnitude, the motivated reasoning of vehemently statist and anti-capitalist advocates, or mitigation strategies that minimize the oppressive expansion of government power and the impact on individual freedoms and living standards. The authors’ skepticism has its limits when it would really make them pariahs among their circle at Yale. Remember, the lead author is the guy who was taken in by Loose Change 9/11 conspiracy theories because Bush=Hitler, or something. This was before McCain=Hitler and Romney=Hitler and Trump=Hitler, for those keeping score at home.
The book would have benefited from more discussion of examples where the “scientific consensus” turned out to be wrong, for instance mad cow disease (BSE/vCJD) and prions. Galileo, bloodletting, relativity, and quantum mechanics are very briefly mentioned, but soft-pedaled. The book might also have benefited from some discussion of the social bias exemplified by Pauline Kael, who infamously couldn’t understand why Nixon won because “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them”. Scientists and skeptics are more susceptible to groupthink than they would like to admit.