Yes, We Have No Neutrons: An Eye-opening Tour Through the Twists and Turns of Bad Science: Amazon.co.uk: A. K. Dewdney: Books

Product Description

An entertaining and irreverent expose of science gone wrong
In his critically acclaimed success 200% of Nothing, A.K. Dewdney revealed the alarming shenanigans of those who use "bad math" to deceive us. Now he turns his sharp–witted eye on the practitioners of "bad science" and offers an equally amusing and informative tour of the often odd, sometimes disturbing mistakes scientists make. Dewdney profiles eight notorious cases of bad science, revealing fundamental errors from the subtle to the ridiculous, including claims hailing from major research centers backed by millions of dollars of funding. We learn the inside scoop about the infamous fusion fiasco, scrutinize the strange saga of the media–hyped Biosphere, probe the appealing but flawed logic of the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence, and much more.
Written in Dewdney′s trademark humorous style and full of intriguing and eye–opening facts and figures
A.K. DEWDNEY (London, Ontario) is the author of 200% of Nothing (Wiley) as well as past author of the popular "Mathematical Recreations" column in Scientific American.
An Eye–Opening Tour Through the Twists and Turns of Bad Science A.K. Dewdney.
"We need more books like this–especially if they′re this much fun to read."–Wired.
"Written with wit and a touch of pathos–and sure to please science lovers."–Scientific American.
A deliciously irreverent expose of science gone wrong.
In his critically acclaimed book 200% of Nothing, A.K. Dewdney revealed the absurd shenanigans of those who use "bad math" to deceive us. Now he focuses his mercilessly comic perspective on the practitioners of "bad science" and offers an equally entertaining and informative tour of eight notorious cases of bad science, ranging from the subtle (the infamous cold fusion fiasco) to the ridiculous (the case of the phantom "N–rays").
A.K. Dewdney (London, Ontario) is the author of A Mathematical Mystery Tour, 200% of Nothing (both from Wiley), The Armchair Universe, and The Planiverse. He is the former Mathematical Recreations columnist for Scientific American.

From the Back Cover

Praise for A. K. Dewdney′s previous book, 200% of 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. . . . 200% of 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 200% of 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! --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Customer Reviews

5 star

1 star

3.2 out of 5 stars

Write a customer review

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Mostly good, but some confusions 19 Mar 1999

By A Customer

Format:Hardcover

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.

Comment |

Was this review helpful to you?

Yes

Dewdney's book is very popular in its tone, and deserves four stars in terms of entertainment value. Dewdney comes across as overzealous in denouncing any project that does not rigorously follow the scientific method, however, and seems to view technology (and its relationship to science) with disdain. In discussing the SETI program and Biosphere 2, for example, the author seems to write off certain questions (Are there other civilizations trying to communicate with us? Can man build a self-sustaining, self enclosed ecosystem that will support human life indefinitely?) as meaningless because they are not "scientific." Similarly, Dewdney's presentation of the IQ debate is very one-sided. Nowhere in the book is it acknowledged that some non-falsifiable hypothesis or purely technological questions are still worth thought and investigation. Yes, We Have No Neutrons is an enjoyable read, but readers should be aware of the author's bias and resist the temptation to condemn the researchers and projects in question without thought.

Save your money 17 Aug 1997

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.