Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience

Rating:
Summary: Martin Gardner is a National Treasure
Review: At the age of 89, Martin Gardner is still debunking pseudoscience. The essays I found most enjoyable and enlightening are the two on Freudianism and the one on Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax. Perpretrated on the scientific ignoramuses of an indecipherable academic journal, physicist Sokal's hoax claimed, among many other absurdities, that "the axiom that two sets are identical if they have the same elements is a product of 'nineteenth-century liberalism.'"

Although it's hard to agree with Gardner on everything--I, most certainly, do not--I find it hard to imagine a thinking person who would not respect him and his work. He seems to have something interesting to say about almost everything. He may be a member of a vanishing breed, but I sincerely hope not.

Rating:
Summary: Martin Gardner is a National Treasure
Review: At the age of 89, Martin Gardner is still debunking pseudoscience. The essays I found most enjoyable and enlightening are the two on Freudianism and the one on Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax. Perpretrated on the scientific ignoramuses of an indecipherable academic journal, physicist Sokal's hoax claimed, among many other absurdities, that "the axiom that two sets are identical if they have the same elements is a product of 'nineteenth-century liberalism.'"

Although it's hard to agree with Gardner on everything--I, most certainly, do not--I find it hard to imagine a thinking person who would not respect him and his work. He seems to have something interesting to say about almost everything. He may be a member of a vanishing breed, but I sincerely hope not.

Rating:
Summary: Next Stop - Daytime TV
Review: Business travel sometimes lands you in a hotel with few channels, none of which have anything worth watching. So what do you do after checking email? Hoepfully you'll have something good to read with you - like this book. My fiction reading leans toward mysteries, so it is not much of a stretch for me to find a de-bunking book interesting. These are not really new pieces for the author - really a collection of previously published articles. The magazine legnth and style means each is self-contained and easy to digest - perfect after a 10-hour day at a client. What comes through is just how many whacky ideas are out there. And how a bit of science and a small measure of logic combined with a questioning attitude can help keep you sane. I don't watch daytime TV even when I am home during the day - but I doubt the author is considered a good bet for any of those shows that make their ratings based on the folks that believe that stuff.

Rating:
Summary: One word: Excellent!
Review: Half Truths (Suppressed Evidence): Any statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

I think most people would agree that in any critique being factually accurate, fair, and honest to context is important; and therefore, when quoting, summarizing, and paraphrasing from an original source one should do so accurately, fairly, and in context to assure one does not distort the original sources meaning in any way by adding or subtracting from it.

In Did Adam and Eve Have Navels on page 42 Gardner states (my emphasis):

"On page 1352 of the Urantia Book we learn that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star, which we know it didn't, and this accounts for what the supermortals call the "beautiful legend" that grew up about the "Star.""

Later Gardner refers to the Star of Bethlehem as a legend or beautiful myth, and states on page 44:

"In my not-so-humble opinion, the story of the Star is pure myth, similar to many ancient legends about the miraculous appearance of a star to herald a great event, such as the birth of Caesar, Pythagoras, Krishna (the Hindu savior), and other famous persons and deities."

As the full quotation of the paragraph below shows, this is essentially what the paragraph in question in the Urantia Book is saying; that there was no Star of Bethlehem, it was only a myth, a legend, albeit a beautiful one, and that ancient man was "continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes."

The actual and complete paragraph in the Urantia Book states:

"These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts." (Urantia Book 1352)

Gardner's statement above implies that the Urantia Book claims "the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star..." This is false and a distortion of the actual paragraph's meaning. The first sentence in the paragraph states clearly "These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem." Nowhere in the paragraph in question is it stated that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter gave the appearance of a single star. I searched the online version of the Urantia Book and could find no statement that the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction "gave the appearance of a single star." This appears to indicate that Gardner has misquoted the Urantia Book by adding information that was not in the original source and omitting information, the first sentence of the paragraph in question, which contradicts his own fallacious statement. Gardner then goes on to use his own false statement as a basis upon which to criticize the Urantia Book, by stating "which we know it didn't." I fail to see how this erroneous quotation, which falls short of even minimal accuracy and fairness, furthers the cause of good science.

In Gardner's "not-so-humble opinion" the story of the Star of Bethlehem is only a myth similar to many ancient legends about famous persons and deities. This is essentially what the Urantia Book is saying in the paragraph in question, which leads me to ask, why would Gardner overlook this and instead distort the paragraph's meaning by misquoting it and then go on to make the same point? Did he simply repeat the story of some over zealous reader without checking the facts? Whatever the reason, perhaps Gardner should exercise a little more caution by actually reading the source he is quoting, and at a minimum attempt to quote it fairly, accurately, and in context.

Rating:
Summary: Further reports on the ridiculous and the gullible
Review: Martin Gardner's fifth collection of essays on fringe topics masquerading as science ranges from the historical to the contemporary, from the dubious to the outright fraudulent.

Like his previous anthologies, this one aims its weapons at a number of very easy targets, and--for the most part--Gardner is preaching to the choir. He's at his best when he's discussing historical subjects, such as Thomas Edison's flirtations with the occult, Isaac Newton's passion for alchemy, H. G. Well's predictions for the twentieth century, or the scriptural and literary foundations for the legend of the Wandering Jew. Also interesting are his essays on more obscure topics, especially when he provides detailed technical background and biographical information: Farrakhan's bizarre fascination with the number "19," Harold Puthoff's sham research on zero-point energy, and the hilarious egg-balancing hoax peddled by Donna Henes and other charlatans to a gullible media.

Gardner has little new to say in his essays on newsworthy topics from recent years--creationism, Freudian theory, the Alan Sokal hoax, Heaven's Gate, and Jean Houston (the channeler briefly consulted by Hillary Clinton)--although Gardner does say it with his trademark scorn and humor. Two exceptions are the essay on the late Senator Claiborne Pell's support for paranormal research (New Age pork I bet most of his constituents didn't know about) and the eye-opening chapter about Temple University's "Center for Frontier Sciences," an "academic" department that should embarrass students, faculty, and alumni alike.

Not a few readers have complained that, in some cases, Gardner doesn't provide enough science to disprove the topic at hand, or that he's too busy ridiculing rather than rebutting. There is some truth to this accusation: these articles were originally written for readers of "The Skeptical Inquirer," and Gardner doesn't revise them for a more general audience. Some subjects, however, are so far out there that it's futile even to attempt a "scientific" refutation: where does one even begin, for example, to attempt to discredit the farcical "anthropology" taught by the disciples of Carlos Castaneda? The type of person to believe this type of hokum certainly won't be persuaded by a more systematic debunking--and probably couldn't be convinced to read this book in the first place. Gardner settles for reporting on these movements rather than engaging with them, to the delight of skeptics everywhere.

Rating:
Summary: Gardner keeps fighting against irrationality
Review: The book is a collection of articles published previously by Gardner in different magazines. The length of each article and the press-like style makes it an easy reading for anyone. Definitely it is not the Gardner of "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener" but it constitutes a good illustration of how far we still are from achieving a society that thinks rationaly and scientifically even in the layer of highly educated people.

Gardner recognises that in the variety of topics and outrageus ideas covered in the book not all are of the same category. I would like to see Gardner describe his opinion on which are the criteria that should be met by highly speculative theories in different fields of knowledge that would allow them to be considered scientific speculation and not pseudo-science. How can we provide an open environment that will not kill creativity and at the same time maintain a rigorous scientific approach?

For european readers, either from catholic or lutheran backgrounds, it continues to be surprising to observe how widely spread the creationist mentality is still present in North America.

The references that Gardner makes to many of his readings constitutes a great source of information for further investigation.

If you liked Gardner in "The Whys'" you will not find much value in reading this book. However you may want to give it as a gift in your campaign against irrationality, superstition and manipulation.

Rating:
Summary: The never-ending battle against pseudoscience
Review: There are certain qualities and characteristics that make a great writer. One is the ability to write well, of course, but closely related is the ability to convey clear and succinct concepts in a way that communicates with the reader. The best authors all leave me with that "ahah" moment, as they teach me something I didn't know before.

For these reasons and others, Martin Gardner is one of my favorite authors. I've enjoyed his articles over the years, and find his books both refreshing and educational. This book, "Did Adam and Eve have Navels," is consistent with Gardner's reputation as one of the best science and mathematics authors around.

Gardner's book consists of a collection of essays (there are 28), each dealing with some aspect of pseudo science (or, in some cases, I'd call it pseudo logic). The title on the front of the jacket corresponds with the subject matter of the first essay. There is something about simple questions and observations that fascinates me. They tend to be overlooked or ignored, but often lead us to deep insights. In Gardner's first essay, he explores the logic - or lack of it - in the idea of the mythical Adam and Eve and whether they actually had belly buttons. This seems like a whimsical question, and one probably best forgotten by most people. The problem is, as Gardner points out, whether you answer the question "yes," or "no," there are unexpected consequences.

This is pretty much Gardner's style throughout the rest of the book, as he picks off one after the other unsupported idea or myth. Topics include ideas about intelligent design, egg balancing, numerology, Cannibalism as a myth, Freud, and the Star of Bethlehem.

Some of the most interesting stores Gardner tells, and some of the most alarming, are those that deal with pseudo science at the academic level in some of the nations more prestigious universities. There is the example of Courtney Brown (an associate professor of political science at Emory University) who claims to be able to do SRV (scientific remote viewing, which is another word for clairvoyance) and "Yogic flying." His book has received praise from the likes of Harvard psychiatrist John Mack, who believes that aliens from a different dimension are visiting earth, kidnapping its citizens, and doing some really nasty stuff to them.

There are also stories about the influence of political extremism on science, including the following statement from ultra feminist Lucy Irigary:

"Is E=Mc^2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest ..."

In addition to these exposed escapades, I think my favorite chapter was number 14, which describes "Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax." The hoax was a paper that Sokal submitted to the editors of "Social Text," in the Spring/Summer of 1996. Sokal wrote the paper as a hoax to illustrate the foolish things the journal would print, and their failure to engage in any sort of academically meaningful peer review. Sokal began his parody by explaining that there really isn't an objective world out there, that can be studied and understood by the scientific method. As Gardner put it, "the funniest part of Sokal's paper is its conclusion that science must emancipate itself from classical mathematics before it can become a "concrete tool of progressive political praxis."

If these stories didn't portend such dreadful consequences for public policy and science education in America, they'd be so funny you'd hardly be able to stop laughing. Or crying.

About the only complaint I have with Gardner's book is his tendency to laugh off some of the examples of scientific illiteracy. For anyone remotely familiar with science, the laughing off is understandable - as in the case of Lucy Irigary calling the equation E=Mc^2 sexed. The problem is, for those who don't really know much about science (either how it works, or what it says) some of the laughing off might look like pride, or the inability to deal logically with alternative ideas.

To a certain extent, I can understand what Gardner's doing. Some ideas are simply so absurd as to lack any respect at all. [And Gardner would point out that the reason they are absurd has to do with their failure to explain the evidence. So, this is not about pre-conceived perceptions, but about allowing the evidence to lead us to conclusions, instead of following our favorite myths, political convictions, or emotional desires.] Still, there were times I found myself wishing Gardner would say a little more about why some of the ideas in his examples were silly.

Anyway, I really liked this book. I highly recommend it to anyone. It's easy to read, well written, and for anyone concerned about the proliferation of pseudoscience in modern society, it's pretty much required reading.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful collection
Review: While the prose in this book was mildly entertaining, I found the author's excessive ego shining through in several locations.

When checking many of the original sources that he quoted, I found that he had taken statements out of context. Its almost as if Mr. Gardner wasn't using the original documents at all, but second-hand interpretations of the original documents.

Several of his debunking "facts" are actually based on theories rather than proven fact ... they are just the most popular interpretations in the scientific community at the moment.

What makes entertaining reading and feeds the current theoretical scientific trends doesn't necessarily have a completely factual basis ... yet that is what Mr. Gardner purports to be, a revealer of the "truth."

The only thing this book really did was reinforce my understanding of the need to read original documentation rather than listening to a secondhand account of what is supposed to be true and a colored interpretation ... especially if it is colored by expectation of financial gain.