A brilliant and funny look at the mad beliefs the human species is so regrettably addicted to. Astrology, Nostrademus, all the various human invented crazy gods, magic crystals, preposterous gurus, along with frighteningly gullible world leaders, like Reagan, Thatcher, various crazed mad mullahs, and even the dim and witless George Carey, one time archbishop of Canterbury! A brilliant demolition of dousing, homeopathy, and dopey Prince Philip's alien visitors. Trouble is, you end the book feeling some despair at the gullibility of so many people. If you take the X Files seriously, don't read this refreshing book. ( )

(First reviewed in blog at http://www.sea-of-flowers.ca/weblog/s... and Blogcritics at http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/...)

Francis Wheen, an English columnist and writer, wrote a book published in 2004 under two titles. In England it was "How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions". In the US it was: "Idiot Proof". Tim Hall reviewed it once before for Blogcritics in November 2004 - I like his review but I have a few things to say about this book myself.

It's funny and fun to read. Wheen has taken a series of stories from business, economics, politics and popular culture and brought them together in a way that makes connections. His stories are about people who persuade other people to accept dubious truths, and people who let themselves be persuaded to make bad decisions, people who obey or enrich ruthless, greedy and grandiose people, people who are drawn into mass hysteria. Part of the value in the book is the collection of stories, and part of it is the sheer glee he takes in exposing the vanities and the gullibility of the rich and powerful.

Most of Chapter 4, "The Demolition Merchants of Reality", deals with the increasing popularity of post-modernism in academic settings. He discusses Sokal's hoax and various excesses of post-modernism. He explains the intellectual weaknesses of post-modernism and the inversion of post-modernism, which has turned from being a skeptical process to a set of arguments to support pluralism of theories in the sciences. He makes (as did Wendy Kaminer in her book "Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials") a reasonable point that post-modernism has become foundational to the claims of creationists to offer "alternative theories" of geology and biology in the public schools of America. However he ends with an anachronistic discussion of the Scopes trial in Tennessee as an example of post-modernist rationalization of religion against the facts.

He has a good chapter on the public response the death of Lady Diana and the contorted efforts of various intellectual feminists to recreate her as a metaphor of repressed femininity in modern society. In that chapter, he has some insights into the absence of great unifying social myths and rituals in modern society and the fascination with celebrities and other seemingly random transient mass events. He has good opening and closing chapters which address the way Thatcher and Reagan promoted their economic policies, by sheer persistence, repetition and power, and how the media were complicit in lulling the public into accepting the logic of dishonest arguments as if they were fundamental economic truths. There is another somber chapter on the way that globalization has become a an irrational rationale for letting global economic policy be driven by the capricious and irrational mass moods of the world capital markets, which is not especially good for global justice. Wheen is well-read in politics and business, and he brings his knowledge to bear, comparing the dot.com and Enron bubbles to the South Sea bubble and other manic swings of the capital markets.

His book is driven by a powerful moral sense of truth and justice, and sense of outrage at the exploitation of human frailty by charlatans and tricksters. He identifies people who avoid the truth and moral obligations in their work. Corporate ad men and executives artists hire entertainer-writers like Thomas Peters, Stephen Covey, Deepak Chopra to facilitate corporate solidarity, sell products and raise capital. In fact these entertainers have become apologists for corporate values of consumption and self-gratification, and, like various sports and entertainment celebrities, minor deities in the pantheon of capitalism. Politicians, like corporations, dabble in the New Age and alternative practices to project an image of sensitivity and modernity - and some of them seem to let it influence policy (Nancy Reagan's astrologer, and assorted gurus tied to the Clintons and the Blairs). Advertising and entertainment are the art of illusion. Post-modernism and process philosophy have legitimized belief in improbable, artificial and illusory belief systems. People are gullible. People don't have time to learn the truth and need to defer to credible advice. People defer to authoritative stories and believe well-packaged stories that fit their feelings and preconceptions. People get caught up in mass movements. People are prone to believe myths and stories on slight evidence and to rationalize their irrational feelings.

He overreaches himself in one area. The book is about truth, bullshit, humbug, mumbo-jumbo and plain lies. He tries to discuss the problem in terms of rationality and his understanding of the central ideas of the European Enlightenment, which he describes as the revolution of reason against the repression of knowledge. He refers to a 1999 article by Roger Scruton published in City Journal for his central thesis that the Enlightenment and "our entire tradition of learning" are at risk in a counter-revolution by a coalition of post-modernists and primitivists, New Age and Old Testament. He claims reason, logic, empirical science, objective reality and a belief in moral truth as the property of the Enlightenment, and he dismisses all religious believers as irrationalists.

His thesis is pretentious and tendentious. To begin, he doesn't deal with the fact that most of the people he trashes are intelligent, rational people. The problem isn't that they are irrational. The problem is that they rationalize. In some areas they rationalize the unknowable, but in some areas they rationalize bullshit. Second, he dismisses all systems except (atheist) empiricism as a legitimate method of discerning truth and making rational moral choices. He ought to be more tolerant of other systems that value objective realism and truth over pure imagination. Third, his assessment of Romanticism as the mere emotional colour of the Enlightenment is way off. Romanticism is the moving force of the Enlightenment and the modern age. The myths of Romanticism - the noble savage, liberation from the restraints of culture and tradition, the truth of instinct and the heart, the will to power - are the central myths of modern popular culture.

He fails to address the Enlightenment's attack on authority and the Romantic movement's celebration of the irrational and the personal. The former underwrote the debasement of scientific and technical knowledge, and the latter is foundational to the erosion of reason, morality and ethics. He doesn't seem to understand that the Enlightenment has liberated the powerful, the persuasive and the dishonest from any standards of objective truth in their dealings with the public. He makes a connection between the Romantic movement and post-modernism and the New Age, but he doesn't want to see the New Age as a legitimate descendent of the Enlightenment.

It's a great entertaining book, and if read with an open mind about Wheen's flawed thesis, a useful one. ( )

About 70-80%. I don't agree with everything he says, he's awfully glib, and he makes a few logical leaps that are not really substantiated. At least he's neutral on the left-right continuum, equally critical of both sides. He's essentially a sort of intel

Francis Wheen is that curiously uncomfortable sort of liberal leftie: the sort who, possibly because it's part of the party line, agrees we are best served by a tolerant and pluralistic society, but in the same breath declares with startling certitude (if not good reason) in favour of hard-edged enlightenment values (in particular the primacy of science and logic over other modes of discourse), and who argues without apparent irony that the world would be better off without "mumbo jumbo" which, seeing as it encompasses not just astrologers, faith-healers, priests, and people who believe literally in science fiction, but also supply-side economists, Chomskyites, neo-liberals, neo-conservatives and post-modernists, appears to defy all categorisation other than "Things Francis Doesn't Like".

You can either take or leave his particular gripes: For example, it strikes me as a little arch to say the least for a devotee of Karl Marx to cast stones at other economists' glasshouses, and while one might not agree with Thomas (or Milton) Friedman's libertarian capitalism, it's difficult to see how it qualifies as "mumbo jumbo".

The pinch point with his argument is postmodernism, for it is the only philosophy which justifies the appeal to tolerance and pluralism he makes. As is customary a some relativistic straw-men are wheeled out and ridiculed (the Sokal Hoax makes yet another appearance as the sole evidence for the prosecution), but it doesn't alter the fact that tolerance and pluralism under Wheen's regime would surely be nothing more than the indulgence of the preternaturally dim: If there really is a Single Right Way To Do It, any temptation to stray from that path, however well-meaning, would be at best a wasteful distraction from the timely solution of the eternal verities. That is, Wheen ought to say there should be very little tolerance at all. But that wouldn't be very liberal: if Francis Wheen were serious about his programme (or at any rate consistent about it), he ought to be something more of an autocrat than he actually professes to be.

The postmodern view, on the other hand, is that a discourse need not be certified enlightenment-compliant for it to have value - value being, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. We all behold things differently, and thank heavens for that. What Wheen asks us to accept is the measure of beauty beheld by *his* eye. With respect, it really isn't all that beguiling.

In sum, what this book really doesn't do is what it says on the tin. It doesn't ever set out what it means by "mumbo jumbo" much less how, when, or in what way it "conquered the world" (I suppose Wheen thinks we have exited a golden age of some sort; I didn't notice anyone turning out the lights or closing any door). All this really adds up to is a Dawkins-like moan. If you fancy a grumpy old man blowing hard (and in places entertainingly, I grant you) against all the things he thinks are rubbish in the world, you'll find some value here. If you want a more thoughtful entry than that, look elsewhere. ( )

Francis Wheen hates the mumbo-jumbo that seems to dominate the world these days. In particular, he attacks "holy warriors, antiscientific relativists, economic fundamentalists, radical postmodernists, New Age mystics [and] latter-day Chicken Lickens" who oppose rationalism and reason.

Wheen's style is entertaining, especially if you agree with him. The book's a bit shallow, perhaps, some of the cases could use deeper discussion. While he hits the nail on the head many times, the book isn't quite brilliant - just good. Some people would benefit a lot from reading it, but of course it's one of those books that's mostly read by the people who already agree with it (Dawkins' The God Delusion is another example).

Sure, the book could be better, but it's a good starting point to discover all the mumbo-jumbo that's filling the world.

(Original review at my review blog) ( )