Rating: 
Summary: Perfect - Seems almost Current
Review: Although this was written some time ago - in the 50's I think - it is more apropos even today. When one considers all the pseudo-science, fads, and utter ridiculous irrationality that has crept into "mainstream" thought, a book like this ia like a good stiff drink to refresh the senses.I have long been looking for a common denominator of wacky thinking and maybe Gardner has given the most plausible one - it goes against demonstrable science and is totally irrational. The Einstein was Wrong chapter was a hoot. I still smile thinking of guys trying to disprove Einstein with phrases like "he done gone and tried to make us believe all that stuff". The wacky belief systems are also dissected but one has to keep in mind that this is BEFORE the age of the Hollywood medium, the channeling of the ignorant or the use of ouija boards (Reagan) or crystal balls (Hillary) at the White House. A great book to read and reread.
Rating:
Summary: Timless essays a must-read for all
Review: Although written in the 1950s, Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies is one of the masterpieces of science. Gardner tackles both seriously and humorously the pseudoscience of his day, including flying saucers, flat-earthers, dianetics, medical cults, dowsers, orogonomy, Atlantis historians, and many more. From Trofim Lysenko's efforts to overthrow Darwin's theory of evolution for Lamarck's theory of acquired characteristics in Russia, to the hilarious chapter on Charles Fort's philosophy of "accept everything but believe nothing" in our own country, Gardner paints a marvelous portrait that will make the reader roll their eyes and smile at some people's credulity as well as be shocked at how far some will go to search for and believe in what isn't there. What strikes me as the most prominent thing about this book is that he almost seems to be addresing the pseudoscience/antiscience of our day instead of decades past. In summary, his essays will bring the reader's mind to a more a skeptical level of thinking when faced with current claims that resemble those of yester-year. Gardner's book is a fitting prequel to Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World as it not only debunks the false claims of pseudoscience, but also educates the reader's mind about what real science is while maintaining an apt for wonder.
Rating:
Summary: It should be read by all educated people
Review: Human nature being what it is, this book is still valid, despite being originally published in 1952. Gardner describes some of the most popular pseudoscientific beliefs that existed in the early fifties, and despite their lack of concrete success, some, such as Dianetics and Scientology still flourish. Reading it is simultaneously depressing and comforting. It is depressing in that there are people who will believe in such outlandish principles, despite the overwhelming evidence that they have no validity. The stories are comforting, in that most of the movements Gardner describes no longer exist or are so tiny as to be irrelevant. Furthermore, many of those who now use pseudosciences such as numerology or astrology use them more as an amusement rather than as a guide. While the number of people who are true believers in such fallacies is probably higher than ever, as a percentage of the population, it is probably lower than it has ever been.
The true believer is sometimes referred to as a crank, and Underwood Dudley has written an illuminating book, "Mathematical Cranks", which was published by The Mathematical Association of America. People who are described in that book also demonstrate the same mentality of those who started the cults described by Gardner. All have little regard for facts, are egomaniacal in the extreme and consider all of their critics to be insignificant, misguided and perhaps mentally deranged.
I have personal experience with a crank. I wrote a glowing review of the book by Dudley that was published in "Journal of Recreational Mathematics." One of the people mentioned in the book called me several times asking for my help in his lawsuit against Dudley and the MAA. All attempts to explain that I was not on his side were fruitless. He finally stopped calling when the lawsuit was thrown out of court.
All educated people must stand up and work as hard as they can to influence people away from pseudoscientific nonsense. However, while making this effort, one must be realistic. There is a core that cannot be convinced otherwise and it is a waste of effort to try. Gardner is a leader in the movement for sanity and this book is his powerful statement against those who exploit the gullible. Which is what pseudoscientific movements often are, exploitations of people desperate for something to believe in.
Rating:
Summary: A lasting influence!
Review: I first read "Fads & Fallacies", oh, about 40 years ago, not long after it was first published. The healthy scepticism which imbues the book has been with me ever since. This has got me into numerous scrapes, but I would not have it any other way!
Rating:
Summary: The classic of psychoceramics
Review: In the early fifties, an author named Martin Gardner put pen to paper to make a survey of the little lunacies of science that dotted his world. Many are no longer around today, but many -- L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics, Wilhelm Reich's orgone theories, homeopathy -- are still around, going strong long after Gardner had predicted their demise. This book is one of the first of a long list of skeptical books that review the crackpots, frauds, and self-deluded "hermit scientists" of the world, and was a seminal work in the creation of the modern Skeptic movement, of which Gardner (now well into his 80s) is a still-vital part. Even despite its age, this book is essential reading for its first chapter and its discussion of the hermit scientist, the individual who does all his work in a vacuum with little contact with or understanding of the mainstream scientific world. The individual chapters are quite fascinating as well -- the singlemindedness of many of these believers is put in context, along with the greed of those who don't believe what they're selling. Common mention is made of Charles Fort, who entertained skepticism towards all things scientific; Gardner's stated ambivalence about this man notwithstanding (Fort's rejection of scientific thinking doesn't wear well under scrutiny), Fort's constant presence in the book provides an interesting reminder of what legitimate science must strive to avoid. So... dated, yes, but still essential reading. The only truly sad part is that Gardner's predictions of a more scientific future essentialy came unraveled in the last thirty or so years of the 20th century, with the rise of the Human Potential movement in the 1970s and the resurgence of Christian fundamentalism in the late 80s and 90s.
Rating:
Summary: A classic to read and reread
Review: It's hard to believe that more than a half-century has passed since this classic study of scientific frauds and hoaxes was published. It's as indispensible now as it was then, and deserves a close reading by all those engaged in a critical view of humanity. All of us are gullible to one degree or another-- the secret is to puncture unmerited beliefs as much as possible, before they grow into full-scale dogmas that one ends up hauling around like bags of bricks. Gardner's still amusing and informative evisceration of phony "scientific" theories still holds water, and you'll howl with delight at his witty skewering of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetics (later to become Scientology), Lawsonomy (Midwesterners in particular will enjoy this part-- there are still pockets of Alfred W. Lawson's heritage in Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, and elsewhere), the flat-earthers and hollow-earthers-- there are dozens of examples of endearingly wacko schools of thought that still boast adherents. This is a fascinating snapshot of the pseudo-science scene at mid-century. You'll be surprised at how little the world has changed.
Rating: 
Summary: Promoting the ideas and merits of skepticism, but ¿
Review: Michael Shermer praised this book in a recent article in his "Skeptic" column in Scientific American (March 2002) as being the skeptic classic of the past half-century. That by itself is a reason why every philosopher of science or even every PhD student should consider putting this book in their reading list. Unfortunately, while I think that some skepticism is a "correct" defense against "pseudo-science", I cannot agree that this book is supposed to be an example of "good" skepticism. As another reviewer indicated when discussing the chapter on Korzybski, some of Gardner's chapters are written in a "mud-throwing style", using several "unscientific" arguments to attack the person, instead of the work they produce. Calling people ignorant, crackpot, obsessed, quack, ... are just examples. Another technique Gardner uses is citing elements that have nothing to do with the "scientific claims". That approach makes as much sense as judging Clinton's or Kennedy's presidential work by their respect for their marriage... After critical analysis my conclusion is that where Gardner is probably right in attacking many of the theories cited in his book, the method of attack he is using is not scientific at all. At best on can call this book "fun to read", if you enjoy mud throwing and stories that destroy people. So, if you want a good course in skeptic thinking, there are other sources I will recommend today. For skeptics, I recommend "How to think straight about psychology" (Stanovich, 2001) and "How we know what isn't so" (Gilovich, 1991). For current theories on judging the scientific merits of a theory, books such as "Science and Values" by Larry Laudan (1984) or "Social and behavioral Science Research" (Krathwohl, 1985) are more useful reading. Yet, taken into account some skeptic precautions, I still believe we should give an hypothesis the benefit of the doubt until proven true or false. In my own book "7 Steps to Emotional Intelligence", I tried to find a balance between the journalistic interpretations of science and the many claims of techniques helping to improve your EQ on one hand and the lack of "scientific evidence" for many of these claims on the other had. Therefore, to compensate a bit, and avoid you fall into the trap of rationalistic "flatland" and reductionism, I also recommend reading "A Guide for the Perplexed (E.F.Schumacher, 1977) and "A brief history of everything" (Wilber, 2001).
Rating: 
Summary: Hilarious and Surprisingly Up-to-Date
Review: This book (written in 1952!) remains a classic of skepticism. It is very much the mid-20th century's answer to Charles MacKay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". Gardner amusingly debunks many forgotten pseudo-philosophies, like the flat- and hollow-earth theories. He highlights the sadly lost Iowan science of "Lawsonomy," whose founder produced a host of ludicrously egotistical books, along with perhaps the most wretched quatrain in all of English verse: "So come on folks, the past is dead,
The future is alrighty,
And by the will, we'll win the till,
With strength from the ALMIGHTY." But what gives the book surprising and continuing relevance is its treatment of many still-popular belief systems. These include Scientology, Creationism, Velikovsky, UFO's, chiropractic, Nostradamus, and the ancestors of today's holistic medicine faddists. If you are a believer in any (or God forbid, all) of these, you will be challenged, and probably offended. Good, I say. It's true that a few of the ideas Gardner poked at have, over the last 50 years, moved from the fringes to a reasonable respectability. The Big Bang and continental drift are by now mainstream. I am sure that Gardner would treat these subjects differently if he were writing the book today. But in a way, that only adds to the value of this book. It prompts us to ask ourselves: Why do we believe what we believe? What role does evidence play? How much of our beliefs are due to family upbringing, and how much to what William James called (not disparagingly) the Will to Believe?
Rating:
Summary: A classic of debunkology, endlessly entertaining
Review: This book is, even in its second edition, half a century old, and sometimes that shows. Lysenko is long dead, and in fact the Soviet Union in which he did his crackpot biology doesn't exist anymore. Several other kooks that Gardner writes about have long been forgotten. On the other hand, Dianetics is still around, and crackpot science in general is alive and well -- do I have to remind the reader of the Alien Autopsy on tv?
In a general sense, then, this book is still very much relevant in that it shows how pseudo science and pseudo scientists work by blithely ignoring facts, expounding theories with more support in rethoric than in actual facts.
My favourite chapter is the one about Alfred Lawson. Who? It doesn't matter. The man is so hilarious that he would have to be invented, if he hadn't invented himself first. "When I look into the vastness of space and see the marvelous workings of its contents, I sometimes think that I was born ten or twenty thousand years ahead of time" according the great man's autobiography. And Gardner quotes this with a straight face, even where possible defending his silly theories.
That is in fact what I like most about this book. Gardner does a good job of debunking, but he is never malicious towards his subjects, regarding them almost lovingly as wayward children. Thus this book stands as a classic of science writing, and is worth reading regardless the importance of its immediate subjects.
Rating:
Summary: My last review was a joke
Review: This is a classic book really, I recommend it along with "On the Wild Side," "The New Age," and "Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic" by the same author.
|
