سحرة وصبية نعم - ليست لدينا نيوترونات

by A.K. Dewdney

"Cold fusion" has become an oft-used synonym for science gone wrong, but as A. K. Dewdney colorfully explains in Yes, We Have No Neutrons, that bad science has a long and (un)distinguished history. Predicating his discussion on Langmuir's "Laws of Bad Science," which describe common characteristics of dubious scientific claims, Dewdney recounts such classic scientific blunders as the "discovery" of N-rays by Rene Blondlot, psychoanalysis as practiced by Sigmund Freud, and even the ill-fated Biosphere 2 experiment. (Yes, cold fusion is there too.) Dewdney's book will sharpen the mental razor of anyone who hopes to separate legitimate claims from bunk.

Genres: Science, Popular Science, Nonfiction

160 pages, Paperback

First published March 18, 1997

About the author

Alexander Keewatin (A.K.) Dewdney is a professor of computer science at the University of Western Ontario, a mathematician, environmental scientist, and author of books on diverse subjects.

Wanderers of cyberspace may discover something about my life as a mathematician and computer scientist, environmental scientist, conservationist, and author of books and articles.

The name "Keewatin" is an Ojibway word meaning "north wind."
The name ":Dewdney" is from the French/Jewish name, "Dieudonne."

Reviews

[M. I · Rating 2 out of 5]

ان التكنولوجيا تتكون من اشياء لها استعملات اما العلم فيتكون من طرق ونتائج
الكتاب يتطرأ عن فشل بعض العلماء في اكتشافات واختراعات علمية : الاندماج البارد . وبيوسيفر ٢ وهو محاولة لخلق بيئة شبيهة بالارض منعزلة عن العالم . والنظريات العنصرية ومعامل الذكاء عن طريقة قياس الرأس ووزن المخ . ونقد شديد في نظريات فرويد وتحليله النفسي

[David Rubenstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very fun book to read. I learned all sorts of interesting things...for instance, that it was Sigmund Freud who introduced cocaine to the Western World as a recreational drug. Now I understand how the cold fusion debacle came about; the circumstances made it almost unavoidable.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun for some

The clever title refers to the cold fusion delusion of 1989. Dewdney also takes apart the Biosphere 2 experiment in Arizona in 1991 where the roaches prospered while the people lost a lot of weight and would never have made it without some artificial help from a CO2 "scrubber." Freud, SETI, The Bell Curve believers and neural nets also come under attack as unscientific.

Well, Freud shouldn't even be suspected of being "scientific." In France Freud is read as literature, as is only right. And to attack SETI! Sure it's a long shot, probably a VERY long shot, but what else do we have to do that could possibly reveal anything near as interesting should it succeed? Shame on you, Dewdney. Otherwise, I tend to agree with him, especially about Biosphere 2 which ought to be done again with people who have something close to a clue as to the sort of Herculean dedication and commitment necessary. And bravo for going after the not-too-bright proponents of the antiquated notion of IQ, who think they can define "intelligence," but haven't the foggiest understanding of the real question, "Intelligence for what?" even if they could define it.

In other words, this is a fun book if your ox is not being gored.

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[Isaac · Rating 3 out of 5]

It felt more like a collection of articles than a book. The central thesis is that when the scientific process is not followed, the results are bad science. However, each example has little in common with the others besides that at some point there was a flaw in the scientific process (or even just a misguided application or promotion of a theory (e.g. supposedly in the case of SETI, neural nets, …)). Although each was an entertaining story, we do not come away with general thoughts about what makes a scientist act like an “apprentice”, or how science does or could better in the future accommodate the human nature of its practicants, or whether such an improvement is necessary or if science’s course-correcting nature is sufficient in most cases. Of course, the book does not market itself as much more than a collection of stories, so maybe it is unfair of me to dock it stars, but based on my enjoyment of it as a cohesive work, it was a 3/5.

Standout chapters were those on N-rays, cold fusion, and Freudian ideas; otherwise, I found myself disagreeing with the premise or argument (SETI; neural nets to some extent, with the benefit of 30 years of development), or agreeing with the premise but finding the author’s expertise lacking for a satisfying refutation (IQ and racial pseudoscientific theories).

[Popup-ch · Rating 3 out of 5]

Second-rate scientists sidestep scientific scrutiny.

An entertaining overview of a couple of examples of what can happen when the scientific method goes awry. It shows what happens when scientists get emotionally attached to their hypotheses and put them ahead of falsifiable truth. My only complaint is that half the examples are arguably not 'Science', but rather 'Engineering' or 'Philosophy'; SETI and Biosphere 2 never really pretended to be about hard science. (And, frankly, if he goes after SETI for being a waste of money - the same goes for pretty much all space exploration!)

Still, both the N-ray debacle and the cold fusion controversy deserve highlighting. In both cases reputable scientists got carried away by their hypotheses.

Ideally the chapters on IQ and SETI could have been replaced by chapters on phlogiston theory and phrenology, though.

Thanks James for the loan!

[Andy Holyer]

Entertaining reading, slightly wonky proof-reading, little things but reduce the pleasure.

The value of the criticism reduces in those areas in which I have specialist knowledge: very satisfying in his demolition of Freud, criticism of Commectionism reduced rather by his slightly shaky grasp of Computer Science (I'd really like to know what new ideas were being contirbuted by John von Neumann and Alan Turing, for example.

Oddly for a 1997 book, feels rather dated.

To paraphrase the Guide Michelin, not really worth a detour. But quite fun.

[Jerri Lynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

The section about neural networks has not aged very well, but overall it still makes for an entertaining read. I appreciate the author providing insight into some of the reasons why the various people featured might have made the missteps and logical leaps that they did. It isn't a mean-spirited "haha, look at this idiot" but neither is it the level of sympathy that would excuse bad science practices altogether.

[Rebekah · Rating 4 out of 5]

loved this look at misapplied science. it's a tie between the cold fusion and the iq test chapters for favorite.

[Kaethe · Rating 3 out of 5]

An entertaining tour through some of the greatest hits of really bad science.