Ben Goldacre and Bad Science (the book): standard preamble

Ben Goldacre of badscience.net has published a book with some intriguing observations. Bad Science is probably a very good, timely book and I might be conflicted about highlighting the flaws were it not for the derogatory remarks about humanities graduates and the fact that the shoddy editing and proof-reading are an irritating index as to the author’s respect for his readers.

Goldacre is understandably hard on writers and pundits who distort, over-simply or mangle science or scientific papers to suit their purposes. Although Goldacre’s mistakes are not of the same league, it is all the more annoying that Bad Science has a number of mistakes that reflect poor editing, lackadaisical fact-checking, sloppy writing and the absence of a suitably careful read through of the galley proofs, more than distortion. If you demand passable scholarship from others, then it is essential to be all the more meticulous in your own books.^(a)

I want to be very clear that the flaws don’t negate Goldacre’s message but they can undermine it at times. Once I’ve finished working out my irritations, I shall probably like the book more than I do now (although not if the spine falls apart on me^(b)). However, in its current state, although it will have a ready audience, it does not represent an educational or cultural epiphany for humanities graduates or the more general public.

The above should be understood to be the implied preamble to most posts about Bad Science (the book).

Notes

(a) One of the difficulties that Goldacre has is the tension between writing a readable popular science book and the difficulty of providing sufficient references and detail without it becoming an intimidating or densely-referenced text.

I have done my absolute best to keep these references to a minimum, as this is supposed to be an entertaining book, not a scholarly text. More useful than references, I would hope are the many extra materials available on www.badscience.net, including recommended reading…news stories, updated references…[pg 323]

Despite this, there are references that are conspicuous by their absence, as well as lack of supporting evidence for some statements. Eg, there are several examples of omissions; there are no references to support the statement:

[T]here are forty-year-old O-level papers which are harder than the current A-level syllabus; and there are present day-university finals papers in maths that are easier than old A-level papers. [pg 140]

Goldacre has taught his readers to expect better than to accept unsupported assertions of that importance. There are times when the lack of references prevents interested readers from following up interesting material: the references and supporting material are not yet available on badscience.net.

(b) The sticky-back plastic is already peeling off the front and back covers of this book and curling at the foot of the spine. This is unacceptably shoddy quality particularly in a book that has not been battered about in a bag during a commute. I don’t know if/how the publishers expect this quality of cover to survive the rigours of a public library.