Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science
1957 revised ed.
Author	Martin Gardner
Country	United States
Language	English
Subject(s)	science, pseudoscience, skepticism, quackery
Genre(s)	non-fiction
Publisher	Dover Publications
Publication date	June 1, 1957, 2nd. ed.
Media type	Paperback
Pages	373
ISBN	ISBN 0486203948 ISBN 978-0486203942
Followed by	Science: Good, Bad and Bogus (1981), Order and Surprise (1983)

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science was Martin Gardner's second book^[1], and has become a classic in the literature of entertaining scientific skepticism. It is perhaps the first modern book of scientific skepticism of pseudoscience.

The book debunks what it characterises as pseudo-science, and the pseudo-scientists who propagate it. The 1957 Dover publication is a revised and expanded version of In the Name of Science, which was published by G. P. Putnam's Sons in 1952. As of 2005 it had been reprinted at least 30 times.

Contents 1 Introduction and Summary 2 Subjects of the Case Histories, chapter by chapter 3 Criticisms 4 See also 5 References

[edit] Introduction and Summary

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science was expanded from an article first published in the Antioch Review in 1950^[2], which became the first chapter of the book.

It starts with a brief survey of the spread of the ideas of "cranks" and "pseudo-scientists", attacking the credulity of the popular press and the irresponsibility of publishing houses in helping to propagate these ideas. Cranks often refer to historical cases where ideas were rejected which are now accepted as right. Gardner acknowledges that such cases occurred, and describes some of them, but says that times have changed: "If anything, scientific journals err on the side of permitting questionable theses to be published". Gardner acknowledges that "among older scientists ... one may occasionally meet with irrational prejudice against a new point of view", but adds that "a certain degree of dogma ... is both necessary and desirable" otherwise "science would be reduced to shambles by having to examine every new-fangled notion that came along."

He goes on to list five common characteristics of pseudo-scientists.

1. The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2. He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3. He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4. Instead of side-stepping the mainstream the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
5. He coins neologisms.

These psychological traits are in varying degrees demonstrated throughout the remaining chapters of the book, in which Gardner examines particular "fads" he labels pseudo-scientific. His writing became the source book from which many later studies of pseudo-science were taken (e.g. Encyclopedia of Pseudo-science).

[edit] Subjects of the Case Histories, chapter by chapter

1. In the Name of Science: the introductory chapter.
2. Flat and Hollow: the Flat Earth theory of Wilbur Glenn Voliva; the Hollow Earth theories of John Cleves Symmes, Jr. and Cyrus Reed Teed.
3. Monsters of Doom: Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision; William Whiston’s A New Theory of the Earth; Ignatius Donnelly’s Ragnarok; Hans Hörbiger’s Welteislehre and Hörbiger’s disciple Hans Schindler Bellamy.
4. The Forteans: Charles Fort, Tiffany Thayer and the Fortean Society; also criticism of subsequent movements such as the Great Books Program.
5. Flying Saucers: Kenneth Arnold, the Mantell UFO Incident, Raymond Palmer, Richard Shaver, Donald Keyhoe, Frank Scully, Gerald Heard and the Unidentified flying object movement.
6. Zig-Zag-and-Swirl: Alfred Lawson and his “Lawsonomy”.
7. Down with Einstein!: Joseph Battell, Thomas H. Graydon, George Francis Gillette, Jeremiah J. Callahan and others.
8. Sir Isaac Babson: Roger Babson and the Gravity Research Foundation.
9. Dowsing Rods and Doodlebugs: Solcol W. Tromp and radiesthesia; Kenneth Roberts, Henry Gross and their dowsing.
10. Under the Microscope: Andrew Crosse, Henry Charlton Bastian, Charles Wentworth Littlefield and others who observed spontaneous generation of living forms.
11. Geology versus Genesis: Philip Henry Gosse and his Omphalos; George McCready Price and The New Geology; Mortimer Adler’s writings on evolution; Hilaire Belloc’s debate with H. G. Wells.
12. Lysenkoism: Lamarck and Lamarckism; Lysenko and Lysenkoism.
13. Apologists for Hate: Hans F. K. Günther and “nordicism”; Charles Carroll, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, and “scientific racism”.
14. Atlantis and Lemuria: Ignatius Donnelly (again), Lewis Spence and Atlantis; Madame Blavatsky, James Churchward and Lemuria.
15. The Great Pyramid: John Taylor, Charles Piazzi Smyth, Charles Taze Russell and others with their theories about the Great Pyramid of Giza.
16. Medical Cults: Samuel Hahnemann, The Organon of the Healing Art, and homeopathy; naturopathy, with iridiagnosis, zone therapy and Alexander technique; Andrew Taylor Still and osteopathy; Daniel D. Palmer and chiropractic.
17. Medical Quacks: Elisha Perkins; Albert Abrams and his defender Upton Sinclair; Ruth Drown; Dinshah Pestanji Framji Ghadiali; color therapy; Gurdjieff; Aleister Crowley; Edgar Cayce.
18. Food Faddists: Horace Fletcher and Fletcherism; William Howard Hay and the Dr. Hay diet; vegetarianism (“We need not be concerned here with the ethical arguments ...”); Jerome Irving Rodale and organic farming; Rudolf Steiner, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, anthroposophy and biodynamic agriculture; Gayelord Hauser; Nutrilite; Dudley J. LeBlanc and Hadacol.
19. Throw Away Your Glasses!: William Horatio Bates, the Bates method, Aldous Huxley, The Art of Seeing.
20. Eccentric Sexual Theories: Arabella Kenealy; Bernarr Macfadden; John R. Brinkley; Frank Harris; John Humphrey Noyes and the Oneida Community; Alice Bunker Stockham and “karezza”.
21. Orgonomy: Wilhelm Reich and “orgone”.
22. Dianetics: L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (The term scientology had only just been introduced when Gardner’s book was published).
23. General Semantics, Etc.: Alfred Korzybski, Samuel I. Hayakawa and “general semantics”; Jacob L. Moreno and “psychodrama”
24. From Bumps to Handwriting: Francis Joseph Gall and phrenology; physiognomy; palmistry; graphology.
25. ESP and PK: Joseph Banks Rhine, extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis; Nandor Fodor; Upton Sinclair (again) and Mental Radio; Max Freedom Long.
26. Bridey Murphy and Other Matters: Morey Bernstein and Bridey Murphy; a final plea for orthodoxy and responsibility in publishing.

[edit] Criticisms

Some have criticized Gardner claiming that, where the idea he criticizes could be taken seriously, the account given seems unfair and the critique ad hominem. General Semanticist Bruce Kodish has made this criticism, with reference to the supposed five characteristics of a pseudo-scientist:

The main problem with depending on the criteria of crankdom to determine the value of a set of formulations was noted by philosopher Morris R. Cohen: “If the premises are sufficient, they are so no matter by whom stated.” Gardner’s criteria not only do not rule out the scientific value of a set of formulations, quite the contrary, they can encourage the premature rejection of potentially useful viewpoints.

A skeptic who presumes to defend science has the duty to adopt an ‘impartial’ scientific attitude and carefully examine controversial viewpoints on their own merits. Overzealous ‘fringe watchers’ defining and guarding the borderlands of science, may make some very serious misevaluations— particularly when they become overly dependent upon, and uncritically apply, these criteria, based on presumed character traits, for detecting ‘cranks’ and ‘pseudoscientists’.

Gardner’s criteria can easily become excuses for ad hominem attacks ... ^[3]

Gardner’s own robust response to criticism is given in his preface:

The first edition of this book prompted many curious letter from irate readers. The most violent letters came from Reichians, furious because the book considered orgonomy alongside such (to them) outlandish cults as dianetics. Dianeticians, of course, felt the same about orgonomy. I heard from homeopaths who were insulted to find themselves in company with such frauds as osteopathy and chiropractic, and one chiropractor in Kentucky “pitied” me because I had turned my spine on God’s greatest gift to suffering humanity. Several admirers of Dr. Bates favored me with letters so badly typed that I suspect the writers were in urgent need of strong spectacles. Oddly enough, most of these correspondents objected to one chapter only, thinking all the others excellent.

Fifty years on, the differing views seem to be little changed.

[edit] See also

• Survivorship bias
• Quackwatch

[edit] References