Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality [Hardcover]

I'm very comfortable admitting that science has always been an area that I've personally struggled with. It was never a `strong suit' of mine in school, and I think that's because science - by its very nature - requires a very specific kind of `perceiving' the world. It requires the amassing of tremendous evidence before the scientist can postulate a hypothesis that turns into a theory before the theory itself can be established as fact ... or, at least, that's always been my understanding. Maintaining a brain of such voluminous facts was always beyond my reach; but, as I've grown much more attached to reading non-fiction in the last decade (or so), I've always tried to read a handful of science-related books each year. I've actively sought out recommendations from friends and family about which authors to read, and one name that's come up again and again in certain circles has been John Grant. DENYING SCIENCE was my first experience with the author's learned perspective, and, for better or worse, I wanted to convey my humble impressions on the book.

To the completely uniformed, Grant may at first appear to have a massive chip on his shoulder. Pick your target. Pseudoscientists. Politicians. Clergy. Moral extremists. No one escapes the wrath of his prolific ire. (Thankfully, I had been given a bit of a `heads up' as to what to expect.) But, reading between the lines, I think the discerning mind can understand and appreciate the man's obvious frustration with a world that seems to have turned its back on not only science but also clear, logical thinking.

Topics such as evolution and medicines and global warming aren't the kinds of subjects that can be communicated and absorbed quickly. The underlying science is given short shrift in much of the mainstream, ten-second-sound-bite media. As a consequence, much of the intellectual pursuits that goes hand-in-hand with establishing sound judgment gets convenient lip service if any exploration whatsoever in most popular publications of the day. Either that, or the real scientific back-up is ignored completely in favor of contradicting pseudo-science or featuring `prominent experts' who have no legitimate background in their supposed area of expertise.

As the book's subtitle suggests, these media tactics provide the foundation for misinformed "conspiracy theories" which get more exposure because they might appease a certain political persuasion or they might - dare I say? - be even more sensational than what documented evidence supports. Reality is no longer the accepted end product of news or information that's bought and sold on behalf of the distorter's bottom line profitability or marketplace reputation. Science has become a commodity, bought and sold to the highest bidder, and the consequence is that our world may be going to hell in a hand-basket but no one will notice until solutions are, simply, just too late to do any good.

That's what I take away from a book like DENYING SCIENCE. Sure, the author can throw down `snark' like nobody's business, but the far more meaningful conclusion here for me is that money corrupts, it corrupts absolutely, and who is left to look out for the uninformed masses when the last bastion of sanity - the world of science - has given way to commercial, theological, and political influence? Scientists are supposed to be scientists, not economists speaking on behalf of their own personal interest in meteorology; not representatives and senators with law degrees deciding they know more about cardiology than does a cardiologist; not lobbyists representing the needs of their corporations in matters best left to the best-trained, best-disciplined climatologists.

Does Grant go overboard in his criticisms of the media? Well, sure, there are those of us who do strive for some kind of balance in our influences, but balance isn't a desire necessarily sought by any singular political or ideological position. Of course, I'm not talking about "let's balance bad science with good science." Actually, I'm referring to the last significant section of DENYING SCIENCE where Grant goes to great lengths to point out specific science-deniers or science-manipulators in the media. I have absolutely no problem with these folks being called out; what I would've liked to see, however, is a following section specifically highlighting the best places to go for reasoned and accurate scientific information on the web, in magazines, in newspapers, etc. As I mentioned at the start of this review, science has never been my forte; I need to pointed and prodded in the right direction sometimes, and having a resource of outlets Grant feels strongly qualified would've been a nice addition. Sure, I can uncover many of them through careful and deliberate rereading of his book or his citations; I only offer it as a suggestion hoping that perhaps others, like myself, might post suggestions in the `comments thread' accompanying my review.

It's a meaty book that, quite frankly, is properly not for the uniformed. Rather, it's a grand expose (with facts included) in some of the most controversial subjects facing and influencing society today. Faith. The law. Medicines and healthcare. AIDS. Global warming. Education. Evolution. Eugenics. Parts of it were a bit treacherous for my unscientific mind, but, as I said, Grant's central theme - the pitfalls of having the truly uniformed leading the masses - comes through loud and clear. His passion for clear thinking wins the day ... maybe not the `war with words' yet ... but it's certainly an impressive opening salvo.

Highly recommended.

In the interests of fairness, I'm pleased to disclose that the folks at Prometheus Books provided me with a press copy of DENYING SCIENCE for the purposes of this review.

John Grant here takes aim at a wide spectrum of anti-science, pseudo-science, biased science and fraudulent science topics: "Intelligent Design," tobacco industry cover-ups, the anti-vaccination campaign, the trumped-up AIDS "controversy," Self-Help, Social Darwinism, eugenics, and, most prominently, climate-change denial, to name the biggies. And he blasts away with a mighty arsenal of facts supported by 38 pages of citations and a 9-page bibliography. One tends to think he has an encyclopedic memory or a busy team of researchers, or both. Moreover, nearly every fact he uses is germane to the topics--no wasted words here.

I read this book faster than any other nonfiction book of this length I've ever picked up. I enjoyed it to the extent it buttressed just about every opinion I already had, and furnished me with the kind of ammunition on such topics as climate change I could use to counter the prevailing ignorance on most science-related issues of the day.

However, my enjoyment was tainted with the awareness that I was only too willing to revel in the scorn and satire which John Grant heaps on every source with whom he disagrees. Several time he dismisses a contrary view as having been "demolished," without explaining how the demolition worked. He takes satisfaction in ridiculing statements so moronic as to be beneath notice except for humorous effect--such as a blogger who asks why it is the greenhouse gases haven't escaped "through the giant hole [the ozone hole] they swore up and down existed? You can't have it both ways--either there is a hole, or the gases are trapped." Sure I got a laugh out of this, but at the same time I felt it unfair to imply that the American public in general is that ignorant. If it is, I really need a big rock to crawl under. With such heavy doses of sarcasm, amounting to outright contempt, the author eventually began to put me off.

"Denying Science" is fun for those us who like to have our own biases confirmed with smart, punchy, erudite, humorous, information-chocked fare supplied by the likes of John Grant. But by the book's conclusion I wondered if I had learned anything really new--in the sense of expanding my view of the world or getting a deeper understanding of what the hell is going on in our troubled, fractured, bitterly contentious society. Where did the anti-science bias among the Far (and not-so-far) Right come from, and how can we deal with it? Is it just an ugly Fact of Life, in a category with communicable disease or earthquakes? Maybe, but... I hate to say it, but there's a shallowness in this book that reflects a failure of many of our best minds to come to grips with the most critical issues of our day, whether it concerns science or economic inequity. I feel that John Grant's considerable talents are squandered in simply hammering at obvious targets without probing behind appearances.

In a battle between liberal science and republican Ann Coulter I wrote a dueling review pitting this book against Ann Coulter's Demonic here: [...]

This book is a great way to hear the other side of popular scientific topics that have hit the news in the last 5 years. With FOX news and media outlets focusing on the big controversial story over actual scientific fact, this book is a necessary response everyone should read.

The greenhouse effect, autism linked to vaccinations, creationism and AIDS controversies to name a few. With 38 pages of citations and a huge bibliography the book has its fair share of sources and proof. The book reads like a very good essay on each subject that culls together many bits and pieces to strengthen the authors arguments. This tends to read as if the author doesn't know much for himself, but it's necessary in order to speak towards such edgy issues of today.

This is a quick read that doesn't spend much time on issues, but rather lays down an argument and slam dunks it. At times this can read a bit slanted, something similar to a politicians take on an issue, but many of the points made in this book I was unaware of. I think this book shouldn't be read as an end all be all on every issue, but it makes some very interesting connections and brings up some great points many are unaware of.

Much like "The Wrecking Crew" or other political spin books, this book does ridicule and make fun of those that go against the books arguments. I tended to read them as funny knocks for entertainment value than debasing comments to strengthen the argument. That said because it strays from fact with opinion in this regard the book loses some of its argumentative strength. Be it as it may, the facts remain the same, and I'd be hard pressed to not recommend this book.