Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience [Paperback]

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.

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.