Steven Novella

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is an entertaining, interesting, and useful podcast about science and scientific skepticism (and also nerdy sci-fi references), and it's one I've enjoyed listening to for years. So I was happy to pick up this volume that marks "the skeptical rogues'" first foray into print.

I will say, I don't think the book is quite as fun as the podcast. There are plenty of little humorous asides and some personal anecdotes, but it's not nearly as lively. Which probably show more makes sense. It covers a lot of ground, and has to deal with a lot of complicated concepts carefully but concisely. It's hard to do that without being at least a little drier than the generally very breezily informal podcast.

Much of the book focuses on ways in which humans can go wrong when it comes to figuring out what's true, including cognitive biases and logical fallacies. It also talks about various specific pseudosciences and what makes them unscientific, discusses problems with science reporting and how to skeptically approach things you read online, and showcases the darker side of pseudoscience and why putting one's faith in the wrong things can be dangerous and even deadly.

I'm not sure if this is the very best book for someone to whom these concepts are totally new, as it's possible it might all be a little overwhelming, at least for some readers. And I'm not sure how necessary it is for the kind of person who's spent years listening to skeptical podcasts and reading similar books, since at some point you probably already know most of this stuff, even if it's a very good thing to be reminded of some of it. But I think it is absolutely ideal as a handbook for people who have decided they want to become good critical thinkers but are still figuring out what that means and how to develop and apply those skills. I particularly appreciate the way Novella emphasizes that the most important thing about understanding cognitive biases and logical fallacies is to use them to scrutinize and improve your own thinking, not to deploy them as gotchas to win an argument. (Indeed, as he points out, to declare "you just used a logical fallacy, therefore your entire argument is wrong" is in itself a logical fallacy!) It's a very well-taken piece of advice from someone who knows what he's talking about. Not that you should take his word for things, of course. show less

In one sense, if we’re going to accept the authors’ conclusion that humanity has a very poor track record of predicting the future—as is surely the case, since we’re not all, by now, riding around in flying cars and giving orders to robotic servants—then why would we want to read another book about the future that will almost certainly be similarly misguided?

This is a good question to ask yourself, especially when you start reading about fully conscious general AI, Matrix-like show more simulations of the universe, and uploading your mind to a computer. Given what the authors tell us in the first part of the book about the difficulties of predicting the future, it’s hard to then take whatever comes after too seriously.

There’s another concern. When predicting the future, there are, in general, two types of errors you can make: (1) failing to predict things that actually materialize, and (2) predicting things that never materialize. As a rule, committing the first type of error has the tendency to make you look a lot more boneheaded, as when Ken Olsen, the founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, said in 1977 that “there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.”

Well, it seems to me that the authors are going out of their way to avoid this type of error and, as a result, are more prone to the second type of error (e.g., predicting things like computers that will achieve consciousness). The reason is easy to see: If computers do not achieve consciousness, the authors save face because there’s always the possibility that it will happen at some point in the future. The authors will not be proven wrong, they’ll just be shown to be overly ambitious in their predictive timeline. But if they predict that computers will NOT achieve consciousness, and computers do achieve this, then the authors will be on record as being blatantly wrong. So every incentive tells them to make wilder predictions than they otherwise might.

The counter-argument is that no one a century ago would have predicted that we would all be carrying around pocket-sized supercomputers with instant access to all human knowledge and the ability to video call almost anyone anywhere in the world near-instantaneously. If we managed to do that in 100 years, maybe we can upload our consciousness to a computer in another 100 years. But I don’t think this is currently predictable, and is probably unlikely.

The bottom line is that the future is nearly impossible to predict because science and technology develop in unexpected ways, unanticipated obstacles crop up, the complexity of overcoming technological hurdles is almost always underestimated, and cultural and moral attitudes to our technology change in ways difficult to predict. All of this is good reason to not have too much confidence in any future predictions, especially as the future becomes increasingly remote.

Even so, at the very least, this book is a fascinating exploration of current technology and an interesting take on where that technology may eventually lead, especially in the short-term. You’ll have plenty to think about and plenty of material for your next science fiction novel.

Also, by analyzing all the reasons why past predictions have failed, there is a chance that the authors are in fact on more solid footing, and that the predictions they make are more likely to materialize as outlined. Either way, you’re guaranteed to get an entertaining tour of the frontiers of science, including the future prospects for genetic engineering, robotics, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, virtual reality, space travel, and more. But just keep in mind that if it’s difficult for the experts in each scientific field to make accurate predictions, it’s probably more so for an author seeking to predict the trajectory of every scientific field. show less

This is one of the best books on critical thinking and skepticism since Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World. Although you would hope, in the 21st century, that it shouldn’t have to be explained why treating eczema with turmeric infusions is a bad idea, gullibility for pseudoscience is a recurring feature of human psychology and in need of constant debunking.

The first part of the book covers the unreliability of our senses, cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and the difference between show more science and pseudoscience. This part covers the core skills of critical thinking and skepticism and reminds us that we must be constantly vigilant against the plethora of ways we can delude ourselves. In fact, the running theme throughout the book is the concept of fallibilism, and how we are all wired to engage in biased and logical fallacious thinking (even self-proclaimed skeptics or critical thinkers). As the authors constantly remind us, this is a tendency we all have to perpetually work to overcome, and that no one is immune to bias just because they identify as a skeptic.

The rest of the book covers specific cases of pseudoscience, pseudo-journalism, and instances where pseudoscience can harm or kill. The book ends with some advice on the practical application of critical thinking skills and how to engage with others persuasively when debating pseudoscientific ideas.

My only complaint: in discussing the line of demarcation between science and pseudoscience and falsifiability, the authors never mention Karl Popper once. Popper is, of course, the most prominent early advocate of falsifiability and one of the greatest philosophers of science of the twentieth century. The authors discuss falsifiability, critical rationalism, error correction, and several other ideas that were popularized by Popper without, to my mind, giving appropriate credit.

Overall, if you’re new to skepticism, this book covers the full assortment of critical thinking, psychology, logic, and science needed to navigate complex issues and engage in independent thinking. If you’re not new to the subject, it will act as a nice refresher and a welcome escape from a world filled with superficial thinking, conspiracy theories, fraud, and outright stupidity. show less

We live in a sea of freely available information, easily accessed on the internet, and this can be a very good thing, especially with medical information.

Or it can be a bad things, sometimes, especially with medical information.

Much of what we think we know is wrong, or half-true, or even, sometimes, outright lies and fraud. One excellent example of the last is the anti-vaccine movement. It started in its current form in 1998 with the publication in The Lancet of Andrew Wakefield's paper show more claiming to find a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. What Wakefield didn't disclose was that he had his own vaccine to promote, was getting paid by lawyers who wanted to bring lawsuits against the vaccine makers, or that he had, in fact, had to fake his results when he didn't get the results he wanted.

His paper was originally well-received, but once it was published, other researchers conducted the same research using the methodology he described, and could not reproduce his results. No one has ever been able to reproduce his results, because no, vaccines, whether MMR or others, don't cause autism. The link just doesn't exist. Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine in the UK, The Lancet officially withdrew that paper, something it has never done before in its history, and Wakefield still makes gobs of money promoting his anti-vaccine movement to the gullible and the vulnerable.

That's the example that ignites a burning rage in me, but it's just one small part of this audiobook. Many of the examples are honest misunderstandings (placebo effect really is all in your mind, with no real physiological effect), or have a basis in fact but are misapplied (honey really can be a good topical antibiotic, but shouldn't be used that way internally, that is, it shouldn't be used internally as an antibiotic, and yes, this means pregnant women should probably avoid it till the baby's born).

A persistent myth is about the supposed benefits of "natural" foods and herbal medications. Natural doesn't mean safe. Potatoes contain cyanide, and are perfectly safe as long as you only eat the potato, not other parts of the plant, they aren't green, they aren't spoiled, and you cut away the "eyes," or sprouts. This is why it took so long to figure out that mature, properly cooked potatoes are not only safe to eat, but quite nutritious. Almonds contain arsenic. There's a reason that people eat sweet almonds rather than bitter almonds, and it's not just because we tend to like sweet better than bitter. Sweet almonds contain a tiny amount of arsenic and are generally quite safe if you don't do something really crazy. Bitter almonds contain 42 times as much arsenic as sweet almonds, and are quite dangerous. That's why they were the source of the poison in so many mystery novels from the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Herbal medications: If it has any real pharmacological effect, it can do harm, too. And then there's the small matter of dosage, which can vary wildly between brands and even within the same brand, with no pesky FDA regulation to protect you. St. John's wort is widely touted for depression,but its measured effectiveness isn't very great. And it was being strongly promoted to AIDS patients for a while, who quite naturally can have real problems with depression and may be understandably reluctant to take more "drugs." Except St. John's wort, which may have a small effect on their depression, also interferes with the drugs that actually treat their AIDS. Oops.

Remember that herbal medicines are drugs just as much as the stuff you get from the pharmacist. And if it has any real effect, it can have bad effects, too. It can also have drug interactions as well, and if your doctor and your pharmacist don't know you're using them, they can't take them into account in planning and managing your care.

Other things may have some of the effects claimed for them, but the evidence just isn't there yet. They absolutely merit more study, but if your doctor isn't prescribing it, it's more likely because she's not persuaded by the so far minimal evidence than because she's part of a grand Big Pharma conspiracy.

Highly recommended. Steven Novella is a lot more fun to listen to talking about this than I am writing about his book. You'll learn a lot, too.

Enjoy.

I bought this audiobook. show less