What do you think?
Rate this book
Best of Skeptical Inquirer
Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience
For more than thirty years, The Skeptical Inquirer has steadfastly championed science and reason and been the leading voice for reliable scientific examination of the paranormal and other questionable claims popularized by the media and mass culture. In this new collection of outstanding recent articles, editor Kendrick Frazier has selected some of the best writing on topics of current interest. Among the highlights are:
"A Skeptical Look at September 11th" which prompted a drove of responses (many angry) and was selected by Richard Dawkins for the Best Science and Nature Writing of 2003.
Carl Sagan’s final question-and-answer piece on the topic of science and skeptical inquiry.
Ann Druyan’s beautifully expressed "Science, Religion, Wonder, and Awe."
NASA scientist Stuart Jordan’s excellent appraisal of the scientific evidence for global warming, which prompted much critical response and led to another follow-up article.
Five articles on the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy
Two physicians’ articles that strongly defend the value of vaccinations and critique the anti-vaccination movement
Other distinguished contributors include Mario Bunge, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Paul Kurtz, Chris Mooney, Joe Nickell, Stephen Pinker, and many others. This excellent collection of stimulating articles exploring science and skeptical inquiry, public controversies, and investigating pseudoscientific claims is a must for scientists, educators, skeptics, and everyone concerned about scientific literacy.
"A Skeptical Look at September 11th" which prompted a drove of responses (many angry) and was selected by Richard Dawkins for the Best Science and Nature Writing of 2003.
Carl Sagan’s final question-and-answer piece on the topic of science and skeptical inquiry.
Ann Druyan’s beautifully expressed "Science, Religion, Wonder, and Awe."
NASA scientist Stuart Jordan’s excellent appraisal of the scientific evidence for global warming, which prompted much critical response and led to another follow-up article.
Five articles on the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy
Two physicians’ articles that strongly defend the value of vaccinations and critique the anti-vaccination movement
Other distinguished contributors include Mario Bunge, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Paul Kurtz, Chris Mooney, Joe Nickell, Stephen Pinker, and many others. This excellent collection of stimulating articles exploring science and skeptical inquiry, public controversies, and investigating pseudoscientific claims is a must for scientists, educators, skeptics, and everyone concerned about scientific literacy.
370 pages, Paperback
First published May 26, 2009
3 people are currently reading
143 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 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 25, 2010
Some of these articles were interesting, some I had to skim, but most were somewhat thought-provoking. A few of the articles on evolution went too far into the details of various debates with proponents of Intelligent Design. But I was very interested in a short article about the myths of evolution, which really defined what the theory is and how many people reject it without even understanding it.
The writers in this book basically reject anything that hasn't been proved using rigorous scientific tests. So if you believe strongly in the supernatural, the paranormal, homeopathy, psychotherapy, etc., then you'll either be upset by this book or maybe it will give you some things to think about. For me, it was interesting to read the pieces as a parent, and to consider what my children are learning in science and how they are learning it.
The writers in this book basically reject anything that hasn't been proved using rigorous scientific tests. So if you believe strongly in the supernatural, the paranormal, homeopathy, psychotherapy, etc., then you'll either be upset by this book or maybe it will give you some things to think about. For me, it was interesting to read the pieces as a parent, and to consider what my children are learning in science and how they are learning it.
August 2, 2020
I reviewed this along with another title from Prometheus Press, John Grant's Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality [2011]. I'm posting it under both books.
These two books are a kind of book I usually don't read. I prefer reading books on evolutionary biology rather than books which try to refute the creationists; books on philosophy (and philosophy of science) rather than "atheist" books which try to refute religion; and generally speaking, books which present the science rather than concentrating on answering anti-scientific views which I simply can't take seriously as "live hypotheses" worthy of discussion in the first place. I even dislike the chapters of that sort in popular science books, which I feel usually waste space the author could have used to include more of the science. (It doesn't help that they often make simplistic claims about philosophy which strike anyone trained in philosophy much the way pseudoscience strikes those trained in the sciences; a fault in both these books as well.) Generally, I don't think most people who choose to believe antiscientific religious nonsense (which usually has a political rather than a purely religious origin) can be convinced by reasonable arguments about scientific method anyway -- even if you could get them to read books which aren't from their own perspective.
However, I was subjected last week to a long harangue by a woman who, rather than giving us (the Library I work at and our clerks and pages) credit for trying to provide as much service as possible in a way that is safe for our patrons (and at some risk to ourselves; librarians have died of COVID-19), attacked us for giving in to a "conspiracy" by the "Democrat Party" to (of course) "destroy America", telling me that no one she knows has gotten COVID-19 and she thinks the people "allegedly" dying in New York for example are dying of other things and being claimed as COVID-19 "to get money from the government." She also told me that she has been crushing flowers to make her own "quinine" which can cure COVID-19 "as President Trump says." (Not sure how "quinine" could cure something that was a just a hoax to begin with. . .) Another clerk was cornered by a patron in the lobby who also argued for over half an hour that COVID-19 was a hoax, that people were being diagnosed with it because it's "profitable to charge them for ventilators", and then claimed to have evidence that it was manufactured by a biological warfare plant in China. (Again, if it is a hoax, what was being manufactured in China. . .?) Of course as city employees at work we can't argue politics, so we're forced to listen to this crap without answering it. As a result I decided to check out these two books on the anti-science movements.
The book edited by Frazier is an anthology of articles by various authors from the Skeptical Inquirer. This magazine and its parent organization originally specialized in debunking "claims of the paranormal" such as ESP, ghosts and the like; and there are a few chapters devoted here to that sort of thing, which is more humorous than dangerous, apart from soaking the gullible out of money. Later on, it began answering the more serious sorts of anti-science propaganda, such as Intelligent Design creation-"science", the antivaxers, the AIDS denialists, and most dangerous of all the climate-change denialists. The COVID-19 denialists of course were not around when the book was published, but they clearly follow the same model and use the same strategies. The articles here more or less divide into two groups, general "philosophical" or methodological arguments which I wasn't impressed by, and specific arguments refuting specific claims, which were very useful and interesting.
Denying Science on the other hand, although it seems equally miscellaneous, is by a single author, John Grant, who has also written other books on the same subject (Bogus Science, Discarded Science and Corrupted Science, among others). It is not clear what Grant's scientific credentials, if any, are; the author bio on the flap mentions only that he has won two Hugo Awards, the World Fantasy Award, the Locus Award, and "other international literary awards." This is not a small point, given that Grant's arguments often hinge on showing that various figures in the anti-science movement do not have appropriate scientific credentials in the areas they are writing about. The book covers many of the same subjects as the Frazier book, but focuses mainly on Intelligent Design and the climate-change denialists. He describes the many organizations with scientific sounding names set up (initially by the Tobacco Industry, and later (with many of the same people) by Exxon-Mobile and the Koch brothers) to promote the idea that there is scientific controversy on questions such as the danger of tobacco smoke, evolution, and anthropogenic global warming, all of which in fact are supported by an overwhelming consensus of all the legitimate scientists in the fields in question. It's interesting that a book with a title mentioning "conspiracy theories" basically describes real conspiracies -- which is the problem with the idea that "conspiracy theories" are a single class of loony theories. Of course what the title refers to are the claims of the anti-science advocates that vaccination and global warming for example are "conspiracies to destroy America", as the woman I listened to on the phone believes about COVID-19.
Neither book has any real analysis of the political basis of these movements, which they tend to attribute to "magical thinking" and other personal deficiencies. At most there is a preference for liberalism over the far-right, although to their credit the authors occasionally expose a Democratic politician as well. The Grant book also points out that while the explicit attacks on science come largely from the far-right, the liberal academic penchant for "postmodernist" relativism disarms defenders of real science by claiming that science is just another ideology as false as any other (a claim used by anti-science writers in the developing world, especially the Islamic countries, to claim science is "colonialist".) However, like the postmodernists, he tries to refute the anti-science groups by showing their affiliations to the far-right and the corporations rather than by taking on their arguments in a detailed way. In the end, it is just the liberal theme of "good" people (scientists) vs "bad" people (and greedy corporations) with no understanding of the structural issues.
To sum up, both books have some valuable information about the anti-science movement as an organized political force, and some arguments against specific lies. However, if someone confused about these issues asked me for recommendations, I would be much more likely to recommend books on evolutionary biology or climate science rather than these.
These two books are a kind of book I usually don't read. I prefer reading books on evolutionary biology rather than books which try to refute the creationists; books on philosophy (and philosophy of science) rather than "atheist" books which try to refute religion; and generally speaking, books which present the science rather than concentrating on answering anti-scientific views which I simply can't take seriously as "live hypotheses" worthy of discussion in the first place. I even dislike the chapters of that sort in popular science books, which I feel usually waste space the author could have used to include more of the science. (It doesn't help that they often make simplistic claims about philosophy which strike anyone trained in philosophy much the way pseudoscience strikes those trained in the sciences; a fault in both these books as well.) Generally, I don't think most people who choose to believe antiscientific religious nonsense (which usually has a political rather than a purely religious origin) can be convinced by reasonable arguments about scientific method anyway -- even if you could get them to read books which aren't from their own perspective.
However, I was subjected last week to a long harangue by a woman who, rather than giving us (the Library I work at and our clerks and pages) credit for trying to provide as much service as possible in a way that is safe for our patrons (and at some risk to ourselves; librarians have died of COVID-19), attacked us for giving in to a "conspiracy" by the "Democrat Party" to (of course) "destroy America", telling me that no one she knows has gotten COVID-19 and she thinks the people "allegedly" dying in New York for example are dying of other things and being claimed as COVID-19 "to get money from the government." She also told me that she has been crushing flowers to make her own "quinine" which can cure COVID-19 "as President Trump says." (Not sure how "quinine" could cure something that was a just a hoax to begin with. . .) Another clerk was cornered by a patron in the lobby who also argued for over half an hour that COVID-19 was a hoax, that people were being diagnosed with it because it's "profitable to charge them for ventilators", and then claimed to have evidence that it was manufactured by a biological warfare plant in China. (Again, if it is a hoax, what was being manufactured in China. . .?) Of course as city employees at work we can't argue politics, so we're forced to listen to this crap without answering it. As a result I decided to check out these two books on the anti-science movements.
The book edited by Frazier is an anthology of articles by various authors from the Skeptical Inquirer. This magazine and its parent organization originally specialized in debunking "claims of the paranormal" such as ESP, ghosts and the like; and there are a few chapters devoted here to that sort of thing, which is more humorous than dangerous, apart from soaking the gullible out of money. Later on, it began answering the more serious sorts of anti-science propaganda, such as Intelligent Design creation-"science", the antivaxers, the AIDS denialists, and most dangerous of all the climate-change denialists. The COVID-19 denialists of course were not around when the book was published, but they clearly follow the same model and use the same strategies. The articles here more or less divide into two groups, general "philosophical" or methodological arguments which I wasn't impressed by, and specific arguments refuting specific claims, which were very useful and interesting.
Denying Science on the other hand, although it seems equally miscellaneous, is by a single author, John Grant, who has also written other books on the same subject (Bogus Science, Discarded Science and Corrupted Science, among others). It is not clear what Grant's scientific credentials, if any, are; the author bio on the flap mentions only that he has won two Hugo Awards, the World Fantasy Award, the Locus Award, and "other international literary awards." This is not a small point, given that Grant's arguments often hinge on showing that various figures in the anti-science movement do not have appropriate scientific credentials in the areas they are writing about. The book covers many of the same subjects as the Frazier book, but focuses mainly on Intelligent Design and the climate-change denialists. He describes the many organizations with scientific sounding names set up (initially by the Tobacco Industry, and later (with many of the same people) by Exxon-Mobile and the Koch brothers) to promote the idea that there is scientific controversy on questions such as the danger of tobacco smoke, evolution, and anthropogenic global warming, all of which in fact are supported by an overwhelming consensus of all the legitimate scientists in the fields in question. It's interesting that a book with a title mentioning "conspiracy theories" basically describes real conspiracies -- which is the problem with the idea that "conspiracy theories" are a single class of loony theories. Of course what the title refers to are the claims of the anti-science advocates that vaccination and global warming for example are "conspiracies to destroy America", as the woman I listened to on the phone believes about COVID-19.
Neither book has any real analysis of the political basis of these movements, which they tend to attribute to "magical thinking" and other personal deficiencies. At most there is a preference for liberalism over the far-right, although to their credit the authors occasionally expose a Democratic politician as well. The Grant book also points out that while the explicit attacks on science come largely from the far-right, the liberal academic penchant for "postmodernist" relativism disarms defenders of real science by claiming that science is just another ideology as false as any other (a claim used by anti-science writers in the developing world, especially the Islamic countries, to claim science is "colonialist".) However, like the postmodernists, he tries to refute the anti-science groups by showing their affiliations to the far-right and the corporations rather than by taking on their arguments in a detailed way. In the end, it is just the liberal theme of "good" people (scientists) vs "bad" people (and greedy corporations) with no understanding of the structural issues.
To sum up, both books have some valuable information about the anti-science movement as an organized political force, and some arguments against specific lies. However, if someone confused about these issues asked me for recommendations, I would be much more likely to recommend books on evolutionary biology or climate science rather than these.
January 23, 2019
Ann Druyan's contribution in Part 1 was outstanding. Part 2 is packed with interesting controversies: evolution/creationism, global warming/climate change, terrorism, anti-vaxers. Part 3 was less interesting to me, but it might be just your cup of tea: energy healing, vacuum energy, magnet therapy, and ghosts (of course).
June 25, 2011
Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience edited by Kendrick Frazier
"Science Under Siege" is a must-read book of essays in defense of science. The book is based on a collection of great articles presented in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine. This 370-page book is composed of thirty-seven interesting and sometimes even fascinating articles that range from sound science to investigating pseudo scientific claims.
Positives:
1. Great selection of articles about science.
2. Great accessible scientific writing for the masses.
3. The history of Skeptical Inquirer presented by one of the main drivers behind the skeptic movement, Mr. Paul Kurtz.
4. Great classic articles including contributions from Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.
5. Great format, articles are broken out into three main sections as follows: I. Science and Skeptical Inquiry, II. Critical Inquiry and Public Controversies, and III. Understanding Pseudoscience, Investigating Claims.
6. Covers all the main topics of interest involving science and the public.
7. Reliable, trustworthy and based on real science. I love it!
8. Tackling controversial issues in a direct reasonable manner.
9. Controversial look at 911.
10. Great section on investigating pseudo scientific claims.
11. There is something of interest for everyone.
12. Enjoyable read from cover to cover.
13. Educational, interesting and necessary.
14. Easy to pick up and jump to any essay.
15. Great reference book.
16. Notes at the end of each chapter and great references.
Negatives:
1. Having to wait for more books like this.
In summary, I truly enjoy books of science that help educate the public and set the record straight. Subject matter experts need to do more of this and I am thankful that we have a trustworthy source that we can rely on.
Further recommendations: "Merchants of Doubt..." by Erik Conway, "Scientific Paranormal Investigations" by Benjamin Radford, "The Faith Healers" by James Randi, and "Science and Nonbelief" by Taner Edis.
"Science Under Siege" is a must-read book of essays in defense of science. The book is based on a collection of great articles presented in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine. This 370-page book is composed of thirty-seven interesting and sometimes even fascinating articles that range from sound science to investigating pseudo scientific claims.
Positives:
1. Great selection of articles about science.
2. Great accessible scientific writing for the masses.
3. The history of Skeptical Inquirer presented by one of the main drivers behind the skeptic movement, Mr. Paul Kurtz.
4. Great classic articles including contributions from Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.
5. Great format, articles are broken out into three main sections as follows: I. Science and Skeptical Inquiry, II. Critical Inquiry and Public Controversies, and III. Understanding Pseudoscience, Investigating Claims.
6. Covers all the main topics of interest involving science and the public.
7. Reliable, trustworthy and based on real science. I love it!
8. Tackling controversial issues in a direct reasonable manner.
9. Controversial look at 911.
10. Great section on investigating pseudo scientific claims.
11. There is something of interest for everyone.
12. Enjoyable read from cover to cover.
13. Educational, interesting and necessary.
14. Easy to pick up and jump to any essay.
15. Great reference book.
16. Notes at the end of each chapter and great references.
Negatives:
1. Having to wait for more books like this.
In summary, I truly enjoy books of science that help educate the public and set the record straight. Subject matter experts need to do more of this and I am thankful that we have a trustworthy source that we can rely on.
Further recommendations: "Merchants of Doubt..." by Erik Conway, "Scientific Paranormal Investigations" by Benjamin Radford, "The Faith Healers" by James Randi, and "Science and Nonbelief" by Taner Edis.
September 5, 2013
This was book was okay. It's a collection of essays on various topics & each essay is written by a different writer. Some essays are well written & some, in my opinion, fail to really capture the mind in a way that stresses the importance of the issue & makes you understand why it's important. "Four Common Myths About Evolution" by Charles Sullivan & Cameron Smith is a real gem, as well as "The Philosophy Behind Pseudoscience" by Mario Bunge & The Columbia University "Miracle" Study: Flawed & Fraud Supplemented: The Third Strike for Columbia University Prayer Study: Author Plagiarism by Bruce Flamm are all stand-out essays in my opinion. It's worth a read but how well you receive each essay is hit or miss.
August 18, 2013
This is a collection of articles from The Skeptical Inquirer magazine. A few of the articles are a little out of date now, but that is the nature of science.Most are quite interesting and all nicely represent the range of thoughtful articles the magazine is known for. Sadly, some articles in it SHOULD be out of date, but are commenting on issues that just don’t go away (e.g., we should no longer have to defend the need to vaccinate children – modern vaccinations have been proven safe and effective well before most people alive today were even born).
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews