Product Description

Praise for A. K. Dewdney's previous book, 2000f Nothing

"An entertaining, stinging exposé."—Publishers Weekly

"In today's world, 'innumeracy' is an even greater danger than illiteracy, and is perhaps even more common. . . . I hope that this wise and witty book will provide cures where they are possible, and warnings where they are necessary. It's also a lot of fun. I can guarantee that 100 percent"—Arthur C. Clarke

"It is rare indeed when advertisers, politicians, pop economists, and drumbeaters for medical programs offer a statistical argument that is not either meaningless or downright deceptive. Professor Dewdney has given us a marvelous, witty account of such flimflams and how to guard against them. It is impossible to read this timely, important book without enjoyment and eye-opening enlightenment."—Martin Gardner

"Dewdney retells with charm and wit magnificent morsels of mathematical mayhem. . . . 2000f Nothing plumbs the depths of innumeracy in daily life and reveals what ordinary people can do about it. A rich, readable, instructive, and persuasive polemic."—Lynn Arthur Steen, Professor of Mathematics St. Olaf College

"Have you really detected an alien civilization?" "We're not sure. There's no way to know" This answer could not have been better calculated to raise curiosity about the incident still further, guaranteeing a great deal of publicity for Project Ozma. A better answer would have been,"As far as we know, the anomalous signal originated right here on Earth."—from Yes, We Have No Neutrons

In this lively excursion, the acclaimed author of 2000f Nothing takes a fun-filled, in-depth look at eight famous (or rather, infamous) cases of bad science: highly touted discoveries or projects that are astonishing examples of serious scientific slipups. Originally trumpeted as impressive projects full of promise, some of this century's most publicized scientific studies—SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence), Binet's IQ theory, neural nets—have been fatally flawed. From the alleged detection of N rays to the Biosphere 2 debacle, Yes, We Have No Neutrons unveils exactly what went wrong.

Mr. Dewdney takes us behind the scenes to reveal why bad science occurs for a variety of reasons, whether due to faulty methodology or flawed interpretations of results. In some instances, researchers—amateur as well as experienced—neglected key ingredients of the scientific method, leading to conclusions that were either not feasible or simply could not be reproduced. That accounts for the unfortunate circumstance of not only René Blondlot and his N rays, but also Frank Drake and his failed Project Ozma. In other cases, the pursuit of glory played a major role. When overzealous researchers declare their conclusions without strong proof, the results can lead to such notorious findings as the now infamous cold fusion discovery.

In Yes, We Have No Neutrons, A. K. Dewdney provides a delightfully entertaining blend of cogent analysis, keen insight, and sharp-eyed wit, offering irrefutable proof that bad science makes great reading!

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #182510 in eBooks
• Published on: 1997-04-01
• Format: Kindle Book
• Number of items: 1

Amazon.com Review
"Cold fusion" has become an oft-used synonym for science gone wrong, but as A. K. Dewdney colorfully explains in Yes, We Have No Neutrons, that bad science has a long and (un)distinguished history. Predicating his discussion on Langmuir's "Laws of Bad Science," which describe common characteristics of dubious scientific claims, Dewdney recounts such classic scientific blunders as the "discovery" of N-rays by Rene Blondlot, psychoanalysis as practiced by Sigmund Freud, and even the ill-fated Biosphere 2 experiment. (Yes, cold fusion is there too.) Dewdney's book will sharpen the mental razor of anyone who hopes to separate legitimate claims from bunk.

From School Library Journal
YA?Eight entertaining vignettes that illustrate how science can go awry when researchers become convinced of the truth before all the results are in and the analysis completed. Examples come from 20th-century research in a variety of areas including biology, physics, astronomy, psychology, and sociology. Case studies include the 1989 announcement by two scientists that they had achieved cold fusion in a simple contraption and the highly touted, but flawed, Biosphere. The book is easy reading even for those with no technical background. The sections can be read at random, and there's enough continuity for readers to place each segment into the context of the larger theme.?Greg Matthes, R. E. Lee High School, Springfield, VA
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
In a waggish vein, Dewdney recounts eight scientific flops in this century, in which scientists let their conviction regarding a new discovery (and desire for fame) outrun the basic methods of science. After a funny summary of said methods, Dewdney introduces the discoverer of "N-rays," ReneBlondlot, whose rays no one else could reproduce--the requirement of irreproducibility also led to the downfall of cold fusion, a recent fiasco probably more familiar to readers. On another fundamental blunder that leads to bad science, not posing a proper thesis, Dewdney hangs the "biosphere," admired more by TV cameras than scientists. He then turns to methodological shortcomings in subjects as varied as the search for extraterrestrial life, Freudian psychology, and the genetic basis, some allege, of human intelligence, spicing his skepticism with biting asides. Expounded in an engaging, conversational manner, these eccentric episodes in scientific progress might appeal both to students starting to grasp principles of the scientific method and to oldsters looking for a chuckle. Gilbert Taylor

Customer Reviews

Fun for some
The clever title refers to the cold fusion delusion of 1989. Dewdney also takes apart the Biosphere 2 experiment in Arizona in 1991 where the roaches prospered while the people lost a lot of weight and would never have made it without some artificial help from a CO2 "scrubber." Freud, SETI, The Bell Curve believers and neural nets also come under attack as unscientific.

Well, Freud shouldn't even be suspected of being "scientific." In France Freud is read as literature, as is only right. And to attack SETI! Sure it's a long shot, probably a VERY long shot, but what else do we have to do that could possibly reveal anything near as interesting should it succeed? Shame on you, Dewdney. Otherwise, I tend to agree with him, especially about Biosphere 2 which ought to be done again with people who have something close to a clue as to the sort of Herculean dedication and commitment necessary. And bravo for going after the not-too-bright proponents of the antiquated notion of IQ, who think they can define "intelligence," but haven't the foggiest understanding of the real question, "Intelligence for what?" even if they could define it.

In other words, this is a fun book if your ox is not being gored.

Mostly good, but some confusions
Mr. Dewdney confuses diffeent catagories of scientific theory. He in on the mark when he talks about N-rays and cold fusion as examples of bad science. But with IQ tests, psychoanlaysis and SETI the situation is much murkier. These fields are still controverial and it is questionable as to what degree they are "bad science" if at all.

In regard to SETI (The search for extraterrestrial intelligence) he says that it is a non-falsifieable hypothesis that there is "extraterrestrial intelligence" and as such is (I presume according to Popper) not science. This is wrong on two counts: 1) The SETI scientists do not assert that there is extraterrestrial intelligence, only that there may be. Since there may be, or may not be, it may be valid to search for it, and 2) Even if they asserted that there was extraterrestrial intelligence, it is not non-falsifiable. To assert that there is extraterrestrial intelligence is to assert that it is not the case that there is not extraterrestrial intelligence. Actually receiving an intelligent signal from space would falsify that hypothesis.

Save your money
This book might have been an interesting debunking of bad science, but Mr. Dewdney conducts his examination in the true spirit of the Inquisition: he is less interested in finding the truth than he is in watching the accused burn. The result is singularly unsatisfying, as the reader wades through pages of Mr. Dewdnet not debunking bad science, but simply deriding it and righteously thumbing his nose at it. The experience is rather like watching someone shoot fish in a barrel--except that he's armed only with a squirt gun. Readers looking for an intellectually careful exploration of the issues here will be disappointed