Books

After witnessing the despicable pseudo-historian David Barton on “The Daily Show,” inadequately rebutted by Jon Stewart, author Chris Rodda decided to take action. She’s giving away her book, Liars for Jesus, which carefully documents the historical revisionism of Barton and others, online as a PDF. You can download Rodda’s book here. You can also purchase a paper or Kindle copy of the book from Amazon.com. Rodda depends on income from her book, but felt it was important enough to give it away. I suspect she’ll see an increase in sales along with the free distribution. UPDATE: Rodda’s book seems to be selling well: Paperback: ...

This was a good year for getting a lot of reading done, including a number of fairly lengthy books, thanks to going back to school full-time for the fall of 2009 and spring of 2010. Books read in 2010:  David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History Daniel Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, Revised and Expanded Edition James Bamford, The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America Mark B. Brown, Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation  Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy Werner Callebaut, Taking the Naturalistic Turn, or, How Real Philosophy of Science is Done Nicholas Carr, The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy Harry Collins and Robert Evans, Rethinking Expertise Michael J. Crowe, Mechanics from Aristotle to Einstein Heather E. Douglas, Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal Peter Fenton, Eyeing the Flash: The Making of a Carnival Con Artist Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World Richards J. Heuer, Jr., Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (also on the CIA's website as HTML or PDF) Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (re-read) Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern Michael Lewis, The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine James Menn, Fatal System Error: The Hunt for the New Crime Lords Who Are Bringing Down the Internet Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming John Allen Paulos, Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up  Massimo Pigliucci, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk  Paul Provenza and Dan Dion, Satiristas!: Comedians, Contrarians, Raconteurs & Vulgarians Dave Pratt, Behind the Mic: 30 Years in Radio Benjamin Radford, Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, Vol. I Rebecca Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks David Schmidtz, Elements of Justice Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations Adrian J. Slywotski, The Upside:  The 7 Strategies for Turning Big Threats Into Growth Breakthroughs Neal Stephenson, Anathem Cass Sunstein, Why Societies Need Dissent Margaret Thaler Singer, Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace (revised and updated edition) Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts Vernor Vinge, The Collected Stories of Vernor Vinge Richard S. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics Michal Zalewski, Silence on the Wire: A Field Guide to Passive Reconnaissance and Indirect Attacks John H. Zammito, A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-Positivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour (Previously: 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.) Historical Comments Hume's Ghost (2011-01-02): I've read two of those books: - Irreligion & Mistakes were made. I own three of those books: ...

Science fiction has been a popular genre at least since Jules Verne’s 19th century work, and arguably longer still. But can it have practical value as well as be a form of escapist entertainment? Clark Miller and Ira Bennett of ASU suggest that it has potential for use in improving the capacity of the general public “to imagine and reason critically about technological futures” and for being integrated into technology assessment processes (“Thinking longer term about technology: is there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures?" Science and Public Policy 35(8), October 2008, pp. 597-606). Miller and Bennett argue that science fiction can provide a way to stimulate people to wake from “technological somnambulism” (Langdon Winner’s term for taking for granted or being oblivious to sociotechnical changes), in order to recognize such changes, realize that there may be alternative possibilities and that particular changes need not be determined, and to engage with deliberative processes and institutions that choose directions of change. Where most political planning is short-term and based on projections that simply extend current trends incrementally into the future, science fiction provides scenarios which exhibit “non-linearity” by involving multiple, major, and complex changes from current reality. While these scenarios “likely provide…little technical accuracy” about how technology and society will actually interact, they may still provide ideas about alternative possibilities, and in particular to provide “clear visions of desirable–and not so desirable–futures.” The article begins with a quote from Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute recommending that “hard science fiction” be used to aid in “long-term” (20+ year) prediction scenarios; she advises, “Don’t think of it as literature,” and focus on the technologies rather than the people. Miller and Bennett, however, argue otherwise–that not only is science fiction useful for thinking about longer-term consequences, but that the parts about the people–how technologies actually fit into society–are just as, if not more important than the ideas about the technologies themselves. It ends with some examples of use of science fiction in workshops for nanotechnology researchers which have been conducted by Bennett and suggested uses in science education and in “society’s practices and institutions for public engagement and technology assessment.” About the former suggested use, the authors write that “The National Science Foundation, which has by and large not been in the business of supporting science fiction, might be encouraged to fund training and/or networking exercises that would foster greater interaction among scientists and fiction writers.” While some steps have been taken to promote interaction between scientists and fiction writers–most notably the National Academy of Sciences’ Science and Entertainment Exchange project headed by executive director Jennifer Ouellette who spoke at last year’s The Amazing Meeting 7–this interaction is mostly one-way. The project is conceived of as a way for science to be accurately communicated to the general public through entertainment, rather than facilitating the generation of ideas for technological innovation and scientific development from the general public or the entertainment stories that are created. The SEE promotes the idea of collaboration between scientists and entertainment producers on the creative works of entertainment, but not necessarily directing creative feedback into science or building new capacities in science and technology, except indirectly by providing the general public with inspiration about science. Similarly, the Skeptrack and Science Track at the annual Dragon*Con science fiction convention in Atlanta provide ways for scientists and skeptics to interact with science fiction fans (and creators of science fiction works), but the communication is primarily in one direction via speakers and panels, with an opportunity for Q&A. (Unlike the notion of a SkeptiCamp, where all participants are potentially on an equal basis, with everyone given the opportunity to be a presenter.) [P.S. The Long Now Foundation is an organization that makes the Foresight Institute’s time horizon look short–their time frame is the next 10,000 years, with a focus on how to make extremely long-term projects work and how to create an institutional framework that can persist for extremely long periods of time. (The obligatory science fiction references are Walter M. Miller, Jr.’s A Canticle for Leibowitz and Neal Stephenson’s Anathem.)] [A slightly different version of the above was written for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. Thanks to Judd A. for his comments–he raised the concern that SkeptiCamp is connected to a rationalist form of skepticism that is concerned to “narrow the range of ‘acceptable’ beliefs” rather than widen it. While this may be true, depending on what the class of “acceptable” beliefs is prior to applying a skeptical filter, it need not be–applying scientific methodology and critical thinking can also open up possibilities for individuals. And if the initial set of beliefs includes all possibilities, converting that set to knowledge must necessarily involve narrowing rather than expanding the range, as there are many more ways to go wrong than to go right. But this criticism points out something that I’ve observed in my comparison of skepticism to Forteanism–skepticism is more concerned about avoiding Type I errors than Type II errors, while Forteans are more concerned about avoiding Type II errors than Type I errors, and these are complementary positions that both need representation in society.] ...

Once again, here’s my annual list of books I’ve read in the last year. I did much better in quantity than last year–going back to school helped a bit, even though the vast majority of reading for class was articles that aren’t reflected in this list. John Baer, James C. Kaufman, and Roy F. Baumeister, editors, Are We Free? Psychology and Free WillDan Barker, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading AtheistsJeff Benedict, Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and CourageSimon Blackburn, Truth: A GuidePaul Boghossian, Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism Fred P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Anniversary Edition Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar… Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes (not very funny, and thinks “all platypuses are mammals” is analytic and a priori, p. 67–is that what they teach at Harvard?) Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of LifeDaniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural PhenomenonPhilip K. Dick, The Man in the High CastleDouglas R. Hofstadter, I Am a Strange LoopJean-Roch Laurence and Campbell Perry, Hypnosis, Will, and Memory: A Psycho-Legal HistoryPenn Jillette, How to Cheat Your Friends at Poker: The Wisdom of Dickie RichardPaul Krassner, In Praise of Indecency: The Leading Investigative Satirist Sounds Off on Hypocrisy, Censorship, and Free ExpressionPaul Krassner, Who’s to Say What’s Obscene? Politics, Culture, and Comedy in America TodayOscar Levant, The Unimportance of Being OscarOscar Levant, A Smattering of IgnoranceBen Mezrich, Busting Vegas: A True Story of Monumental Excess, Sex, Love, Violence, and Beating the OddsChris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our FutureSteven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human NatureVincent Price, I Like What I Know: A Visual Autobiography W.V. Quine, Methods of Logic, Fourth Edition Rudy Rucker, The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul: What Gnarly Computation Taught Me About Ultimate Reality, the Meaning of Life, and How to Be Happy Oliver Sacks, Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the BrainJohn Searle, The Construction of Social RealityKyrsten Sinema, Unite and Conquer: How to Build Coalitions That Win and LastJim Steinmeyer, Charles Fort: The Man Who Invented the Supernatural Gore Vidal, Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of AmnesiaT.H. White, The Once and Future KingI also read significant parts of Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom Yaron Ezrahi, The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary DemocracyEdward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, editors, The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition Michael Hulme, Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic (5th edition) (worked through ch. 3 on number theory and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and the appendix on second-order predicate logic, along with Boolos & Jeffrey’s Computability and Logic chapter on second-order predicate logic) R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie, and M.J.S. Hodge, editors, Companion to the History of Modern ScienceSteven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life(Previously: 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.) ...

From the Young Australian Skeptics: Inspired by the annual The Open Laboratory, the Skeptical Blog Anthology is a printed anthology of blog posts voted the very best of 2009, managed by the Young Australian Skeptics in conjunction with the Critical Teaching Education Group (CTEG). The anthology is an attempt to bring a greater awareness of the skeptical content on blog sites and showcase some of the range and diversity in the blogosphere. With an aim to provide text-​​based resources to classes and readers who may be interested or intrigued by what skepticism has to offer, entries from January 1st to December 1st 2009 are eligible for submission. Both a print and Portable Document Format (pdf) will be made available for purchase via Lulu​.com, with estimated printing early in 2010. Entries can be self-​​nominated or proposed by readers of skeptical blog sites. The guidelines proposed by the popular Skeptics’ Circle are a fine indicator of the kind of content suitable for the anthology, including urban legends, the paranormal, quackery, pseudoscience, intelligent design, historical revisionism, critical thinking, skeptical parenting/​educating skeptically, superstitions, etc.There’s a submission form at the Young Aus Skeptics website. ...

I’ve begun putting old issues of The Arizona Skeptic online as PDFs, starting with the old Phoenix Skeptics News, edited by Ron Harvey. Volume 2, 1988-1989, is here. An index to all issues by title, author, and subject may be found here. Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 1, July/August 1987: Welcome!July MeetingResource Library"Cold Reading" by Jim LippardLocal Radio Talk Show Features PsychicsModem Users Take Note"Foes Turn Up Heat: Fire walking is not so hot, skeptics of seminars say" by Simon Fisher, TribunePostscript by Jim LippardBook ReviewsLocal Conference on Health FraudUpcoming Phoenix Skeptics MeetingsPhoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 2, September/October 1987: August Meeting: Hans Sebald on witchcraftSeptember Meeting: Charles Cazeau on prophecies of NostradamusSurveyor NeededRandi on Faith Healers (interviewed by Jim Lippard and Mike Norton)"Health Fraud isn't 'snake oil' anymore" by Phyllis Gillespie, Arizona Republic"Charlatans can be spotted if you know common clues" (Arizona Republic)"Proper Criticism" by Ray HymanUpcoming MeetingsPhoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 3, November/December 1987: October Meeting: Halloween party at Hans Sebald'sNovember Meeting: James Randi psychic surgery video, Randy Jones on psychic surgeryPapers ignore disclaimer request on astrology columnsFlyers neededPsychic fair"Focus on You" by Jim Lippard"Channeling: Believe It or Not" by Hans Sebald, Ph.D."Book Review: The Faith Healers by James Randi" reviewed by Jim Lippard"On the distinction between nonbelief and disbelief" by Hans Sebald, Ph.D."Book Review: The Psychology of Transcendence by Andrew Neher" reviewed by Jim LippardEditor's RamblingsUpcoming MeetingsPhoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 4, January/February 1988: December Meeting: Jim Speiser and Marge Christenson of MUFONJanuary Meeting: Robert Dietz of ASU on creationismPhilip Klass LectureSkeptics ReorganizedSkeptics subcommittees formed"Peter Popoff Came to Town" by Jim Lippard"Towards a more effective organization" by Bob Guzley"Update on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin" by Jim LippardNew Phone NumberEditor's RamblingsUpcoming MeetingsPhoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 5, March/April 1988: Important Announcement!February Meeting: Jeff Jacobsen on ScientologyPhilip Klass LectureMarch Meeting: Mike Stackpole on claimed dangers of D&DThe Organization Explained!"Frank Baranowski: Promoter of the Paranormal" by Jim Lippard"Book Review: The New Inquisition by Robert Anton Wilson" reviewed by Jim Lippard"Robert Anton Wilson and the H.E.A.D. Revolution" by Zak WoodruffEditor's RamblingsUpcoming MeetingsPhoenix Skeptics News, vol. 1, no. 6, May/June 1988: April Meeting: James Lowell on Mexican cancer clinicsMay Meeting: Jim Lippard on psychic detectivesPress coverage"Turin Shroud Update" by Jim Lippard"Dr. Stranges Lives Up to His Name" by Mike Stackpole"Near-Death Experiences and TV" by Jim Lippard"An Artistic 'Phenom'" by Ted Karren"Psychic Detectives" by Jim LippardEditor's Ramblings"TUSKS Tips" by Ken MorseUpcoming MeetingsThe last issue of this volume was the first one also distributed to the Tucson Skeptical Society (TUSKS), and prompted a change of name to The Arizona Skeptic beginning with volume 2. This was also about the time I moved to Tucson to attend graduate school at the University of Arizona (August 1988).

This afternoon I had the pleasure of hearing writer Jeff Benedict speak about his book, Little Pink House, which is the story behind the Kelo v. New London case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. That case, which ruled that New London did have the right to use eminent domain to seize private property and turn it over to another private entity–effectively retranslating the Fifth Amendment’s use of the words “public use” into the meaning “public benefit”–was a case I thought I was familiar with. But Benedict’s talk revealed that while I was aware of some of the facts relevant to the legal case, I really had no idea about the whole story. In his short talk, he conveyed some of the events and details that did not make it to the national press, but which make the story all the more interesting. The political battles between state and city government, the plan to get Pfizer to stay in Connecticut when it was looking elsewhere, and the personalities involved made for a genuinely moving talk even when we already know how the story ends. I look forward to reading his book. ...

Now that Berkley Books has just cancelled Herman Rosenblat’s Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love That Survived after the core story about how he met his wife while in a concentration camp was proven false, ABC News has put together a slide show of some other famous literary hoaxes. The list includes, in addition to Rosenblat: James Frey JT Leroy Norma Khouri Margaret B. Jones Misha Defonseca Nasdijj Anthony Godby Johnson Lauren Stratford Clifford Irving Araki Yususada Jayson Blair Binjamin Wilkomirski Forrest Carter Kaavya Viswanathan Tom Carew Janet Cooke The Hitler Diaries The Protocols of the Elders of Zion There are a few others they could have covered–there are entire genres of hoaxes, like Christian conversion stories of fake Illuminati, witches, Satanists, Jesuits, and terrorists, stories of fake undercover agents and spies, stories of mind-controlled sex slaves, and so on. The Christian conversion stories are the ones I’m most familiar with, many of which have been promoted by Jack T. Chick of Chick tract fame, or have involved film producer David Balsiger (see especially footnote 7 of the linked article). ...

Once again, here’s my annual list of books I’ve read in the last year. I did somewhat worse than last year in finishing books I started, and I found last year disappointing. The piles of started but unfinished books are growing–but perhaps I can match last year’s total by the end of the year (I’m only threetwo short at the moment). I’ve not done a good job of writing Amazon.com reviews of any of these, though I’ve put a few short comments on Facebook’s Visual Bookshelf for a few of these. I owe Guy Harrison an Amazon.com review/blog review/etc. for his excellent book, which I recommend as a nice (and less threatening) companion piece to Julian Baggini’s Atheism: A Very Short Introduction as an introduction to atheism. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, InfidelMatthew Chapman, 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin, and Other Oddities on Trial in PennsylvaniaAnderson Cooper, Dispatches from the Edge: A Memoir of War, Disasters, and SurvivalCory Doctorow, Little Brother Cory Doctorow, Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town Joseph Finder, ParanoiaGuy P. Harrison, 50 reasons people give for believing in a godGene Healy, The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Presidential Power Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil WarSusan Jacoby, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism Robert A. Levy and William Mellor, The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded FreedomMaureen McCormick, Here’s the Story: Surviving Marcia Brady and Finding My True Voice Mary Roach, Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and SexWilliam C. Speidel, Sons of the ProfitsJim Steinmeyer, Art & Artifice and Other Essays on IllusionJim Steinmeyer, Charles Fort: The Man Who Invented the Supernatural Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly ImprobableCarl Zimmer, Soul Made Flesh: The Discovery of the Brain–And How It Changed the WorldJonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet and How To Stop It (Previously: 2007, 2006, 2005.) ...

Last night at a party, a few of us were discussing some recent self-published books by crackpots that we’ve seen or had pushed on us. We noted that these books seem to have in common a few features. They seem to often have long rambling introductions that are missing key elements like thesis statements or an indication of what the book is about. They use words in non-standard ways, yet don’t bother to explain how they are being redefined. They claim that the author has some special knowledge, yet don’t provide any reason to believe it is the case. I had a dim recollection of having come across a “crackpot index” before somewhere, and a little bit of searching yielded Fred J. Gruenberger’s December 1962 publication from the RAND Corporation titled “A Measure for Crackpots” (PDF), which offers the following scoring mechanism for distinguishing the scientist from the crackpot: 1. Public verifiability (12 points) Scientists promote public verifiability; crackpots rely on revealed truth. 2. Predictability (12 points) Scientists promote predictability and track their record of failure as well as success; crackpots promote wild predictions and count only successes, not failures. 3. Controlled experiments (13 points) Scientists promote controlled experiments; crackpots avoid them. 4. Occam’s razor (5 points) Scientists prefer the simplest explanation that covers all the facts; crackpots enjoy wildly complex theories. 5. Fruitfulness (10 points) Scientists prefer theories that generate new ideas and new experiments; crackpots prefer theories that produce nothing of value for further research. 6. Authority (10 points) Scientists seek the endorsement and validation of known authorities and tend to obtain it if their work is valid; crackpots usually fail to obtain it. 7. Ability to communicate (8 points) Scientists tend to promote clear (if sometimes dull) communications through approved channels; crackpots tend to be incomprehensible and self-published. 8. Humility (5 points) Humility is a desirable (if sometimes lacking) trait in scientists; it is rare in the crackpot. 9. Open mindedness (5 points) Scientists tend to qualify and carefully couch their statements as tentative based on the current evidence; crackpots tend to make absolutely certain statements that may not be challenged. 10. The Fulton non sequitur (5 points) I’m more familiar with this as the “Galileo Gambit,” or the common crackpot claim that “They laughed at Galileo; they’re laughing at me; therefore I’m right just as Galileo was.” Gruenberger uses steamboat inventor Robert Fulton in place of Galileo. This logically invalid argument is refuted by the Bozo rejoinder, which is that “they also laughed at Bozo the clown.” This is a negative test, lack of the characteristic is 5 points, presence is 0. 11. Paranoia (5 points) Another negative test–crackpots tend to be paranoid about their ideas being actively suppressed by conspiracy. 12. The dollar complex (5 points) Another negative test. The crackpot claims immeasurable value for his discoveries as revolutionary, worthy of the Nobel prize, and world-changing. 13. Statistics compulsion (5 points) The crackpot tends to use and continuously explain statistics allegedly supporting his claim, while the scientist tends to use standard methods and assume the reader is familiar with them. Gruenberger’s index is focused on science crackpots rather than philosophy crackpots, but a number of the above features do apply to the books we were talking about. A more recent “Crackpot Index," also focused on physics, was created by John Baez, a mathematical physicist at the University of California, Riverside: ...