Yes, We Have No Neutrons: An Eye-Opening Tour Through the Twists and Turns of Bad Science

by A.K. Dewdney

Book Overview

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... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0471295868
• ISBN13: 9780471295860
• Release Date: September 1998
• Publisher: Wiley
• Length: 192 Pages
• Weight: 0.65 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.5" x 6.1" x 9.2"

Customer Reviews

Good overview of bad science, using famous examples

This book takes a look at a number of famous and sometimes influential examples of bad scientific thinking. This book actually made me slightly more sympathetic towards Pons and Fleischmann, as it turns out that their precipitous announcement of cold fusion wasn't entirely driven by their impatience; their university bosses were guilty of pushing pretty hard, too; the book takes you through the whole tale quickly, yet comprehensively. The book also covers the Biosphere 2 story (in all its wackiness) very well in a minimum number of pages. Dewdney explains how these projects deviated from good scientific practice to lead them into disaster. Some other reviewers complain that Dewdney was unfair to the SETI folks; I think he simply was trying to explain that their project--searching for extraterrestial signals--is not really scientific in that it can never be proven wrong. If you don't find any, you just keep searching, using different methods. He might have compared it to exploration rather than to science, since SETI researchers are "exploring" the universe by way of looking for patterns in electromagnetic energy (rather than by spaceship). Dewdney also takes apart the silliness that is Freud and the concept of IQ, both of which, unfortunately, took hold with vast numbers of people to this day. Dewdney talks about how the IQ might be a measure of SOMETHING, but if we can't define "intelligence" consistently to begin with, it is at the very least a misnamed measurement that has been widely abused. Dewdney adds that IQ is a good example of the situation where many mathematical equations are often recruited to the cause of bad science; apparently, some researchers think that the more equations you publish in a paper, the more likely the concept will be accepted! Overall, this is a fast read that will give the reader a few good examples of how science can go off the rails.

Fun for some

The clever title refers to the cold fusion delusion of 1989. Dewdney also takes apart the Biosphere 2 experiment in Arizona in 1991 where the roaches prospered while the people lost a lot of weight and would never have made it without some artificial help from a CO2 "scrubber." Freud, SETI, The Bell Curve believers and neural nets also come under attack as unscientific.Well, Freud shouldn't even be suspected of being "scientific." In France Freud is read as literature, as is only right. And to attack SETI! Sure it's a long shot, probably a VERY long shot, but what else do we have to do that could possibly reveal anything near as interesting should it succeed? Shame on you, Dewdney. Otherwise, I tend to agree with him, especially about Biosphere 2 which ought to be done again with people who have something close to a clue as to the sort of Herculean dedication and commitment necessary. And bravo for going after the not-too-bright proponents of the antiquated notion of IQ, who think they can define "intelligence," but haven't the foggiest understanding of the real question, "Intelligence for what?" even if they could define it.In other words, this is a fun book if your ox is not being gored.

An edifying excursion through some "bad science"

Bravo! Dewdney has done a marvelous job of explaining the pitfalls behind the fatal flaws in a fascinating selection of "scientific developments" of dubious or no merit. In my opinion, the role of subjective influences in the pursuit of science is generally under appreciated. This point was explicitly discussed and illustrated in another excellent investigative report on bad science, William Broad and Nicholas Wade's "Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science". It boggles my mind that Broad and Wade's opus is out of print at a time when much concern is being voiced for bringing the issue of ethics to the attention of our students. As one who has witnessed bad science, both of the intentional and "honest mistake" variety, I can attest to the importance of opening the eyes of our students and the general public to the constant threat of human frailties to scientific progress. Dewdney illustrates with one example after another, how subjective factors - such as the desire not to be scooped, the desire to obtain funding, the desire to have one's ideas accepted - can derail the objective "pursuit of truth". I just ordered ten copies of the book for the edification of my graduate students in the Department of Chemistry at Case Western Reserve University. I highly recommend "Yes, We Have No Neutrons: An Eye-Opening Tour Through the Twists and Turns of Bad Science". It is interesting, informative, and very readable.

Mostly worthwhile with a few shortcomings; overpriced

Dewdney begins with a lively high-school level explanation of the scientific method, and characterizes bumbling scientists as akin to Mickey Mouse as the sorcerer's apprentice in Disney's Fantasia (while good scientists are contrasted as true sorcerers). This unfortunate metaphor persists throughout the book. He lambasts bad physics (cold fusion), bad social science (IQ testing, Freudian psychology, and "The Bell Curve"), and bad environmental science (Biosphere 2 -- or was this only bad public relations completely lacking in scientific credentials?). There also is a chapter on bad information theory (neural networks), but I lost interest before finishing it. The well-deserved criticisms of IQ and Freud were especially worthwhile, since both get far too little of it. I was unhappy with his inclusion of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Dewdney seems to miss the point that some science, like the work of the great 19th century naturalists, is purely descriptive and is not hypothesis-driven. His objections to SETI are based in his own funding priorities rather than scientific criticism. A worthwhile recreational read, also appropriate for young readers (e.g., as an introduction to scientific method), but awfully slim for the price.

An entertaining and easily digested debunking of bad science

This book covers a lot of ground, so it doesn't go into exhaustive detail, but that's probably what makes it so easy to read. The author gives you the background and debunking of several instances of sloppy science, some of which are still with us today (N-Rays have come and gone, but you may be surprised by the chapter on intelligence testing). I highly recommend this book as a vaccination against fad science.