Comments on: Bad Science by Ben Goldacre: A Vaguely Systematic Review

By: References in Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science « Nellie the Arts Grad

References in Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science « Nellie the Arts Grad — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:03:11 +0000

[...] sloppy references (see standard preamble). Goldacre previously highlighted Andrew Taylor’s vaguely systematic and random review of the appropriateness of some of the references and remarked: “This is excellently everything I expect from my readers. Totally bravo”. [...]

By: Vicky

Vicky — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:49:39 +0000

Sorry, that was a bit long and it sounds like I think science blogging is easy. What I meant to say was that there are clear, fairly foolproof methods for finding and pointing out exactly how someone’s misreported a science story, whereas there’s not as much dry land in other subjects. Hope that sounds less arsey.

By: Vicky

Vicky — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:36:03 +0000

Reporting on developments in history is often complete rubbish. If it’s not a huge pile of gold or evidence of ritual murder, it’s not considered news. The same goes for a lot of stuff on literature – broad generalisations padded out with unrelated anecdotes and misapplication of trendy theories. Unfortunately that gives the impression that humanities subjects are places where logic and proof really don’t matter. From where I’m standing, bad science, bad history, bad social policy etc. are all part of the same problem.
For example, Matthias Rath’s views on the cause of the holocaust say a lot about the man, but it’s harder to pull people up on that than it is to point out holes in the science.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:11:36 +0000

That would certainly be an apt name for a finance expert.

By: eveningperson

eveningperson — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:07:59 +0000

I disagree with the bit about ‘not dumbing down’ the finance pages, if dumbing down involves reporting conclusions without evidence.

Of course the jargon looks pretty forbidding to us scientists, but if you examine it closely you find that much of it is truly evidence-free, and bears a rather unnerving resemblance to the cognitive world of Gillian, Patrick, Matthias et al.

Perhaps there is a financial Goldacre out there?

By: Teek

Teek — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:38:05 +0000

Andrew, sterling work – it’s good to know that the book isn’t just thoroughly entertaining, but it’s thorough too. You can’t put too fine a point on this theme – where real, honest, well-versed scientists write up their findings with accurate references that anyone can check up on, quacks really do fudge the whole referencing issue by sticking any old leaflets and glossy mag articles as part of a superscript-laden appendix.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:03:49 +0000

I don’t know how many people I have to convince to buy it before my copy was profitable… Probably doesn’t help if I lend it around.

By: TW

TW — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:00:20 +0000

A good and interesting review. I have long been a fan of Ben Goldacre in the Guardian and, now, feel quite tempted to buy the book and see for myself.

At least now the publishers can feel pleased they gave you a “review” copy and I hope they do so with more books.