What do you think?
Rate this book
Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left
It's become a truism that conservatives are anti-science through and through. Pundits eagerly trot out the fact that many republicans don’t believe in evolution, don’t believe in global warming, and dislike embryonic stem cell research. If science were constituted of just those three issues, then the critics might have a point. However, as science writers Hank Campbell and Alex Berezow argue, there is much more to science. The anti-vaccine, anti-nuclear power, anti-animal research, and anti-genetic modification movements are all rooted in progressive ideology. So are the more extreme exponents of environmental movement, as well as those who oppose science education reform. The Progressive War on Science calls the left to task for the unconscious political biases that lead to dangerous fallacies, and proves definitively that anti-scientific thinking is a bipartisan phenomenon.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2012
19 people are currently reading
354 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 45 reviews
July 8, 2020
Anti-scientific narratives are by no means exclusive to the right, as Berezow and Campbell show in this book. Many on the right are certainly guilty of spreading pseudoscience and the left is far from being blameless. Among the myths dispelled in this book are that GMOs are harmful, vaccines cause autism, nuclear power is bad, and natural products are better. You might get the impression from the title that the authors are conservatives but the content shows otherwise. Berezow and Campbell made this book in response to books like The Republican War on Science because they felt that conservatives weren’t the only ones spreading junk science.
March 16, 2013
It was the worst "science" topic book I've ever read. The authors were so fixated on blaming and finger pointing progressives for everything wrong in the world, and it had such a negative connotation that you know there was no open-mindedness to other viewpoints. The book was a huge turn-off, not against progressives from my perspective, but just a poorly written book by two guys who call themselves scientists. The authors' viewpoints were unconvincing because it's a whole book full of rantings & finger pointing rather than reasonable, logical arguments. Eventhough I'm not a progressive, I felt offended and bullied to believe that all progressives are idiots.
It is truly a shame that trees were sacrificed to print this book.
It is truly a shame that trees were sacrificed to print this book.
August 13, 2013
Not horrible in most places. Some criticism of the loony progressives was justified and interesting . On the other hand discussion on vegetarianism and animal rights was often idiotic and misleading. For example, the way they framed Peter Singer felt especially unjustified. Having read Singer myself, the way his position was represented here felt like a strawman totally lacking in nuance. The section on animal rights also demonstrated, in my opinion, 2nd rate ethical thinking that collapses to absurdity under slightest inspection.
December 13, 2012
Extremely helpful book. The purpose of the book is to show that conservatives on the far right who deny evolution and climate change do not hold a monopoly on anti-scientific thought, explaining how knee-jerk beliefs that everything natural is wholesome and therefore everything unnatural is unwholesome, and failure to correctly assess risk have led to political standpoints on the left that are often unfounded on any true science (such as the backlash against vaccination).
I liked that the book provided a framework to help me understand how the history and politics of various scientific issues have contributed to the attitudes of people in different political groups, in particular, “progressives.” I’m a little embarrassed to admit it, but I didn’t really have any idea what a progressive was before I read the book. I kind of always thought “Oh progress…progress is good” …but that’s not really how the term is used politically. To understand the term as used in this book, imagine a graph, where the x-axis is a measure of belief in economic autonomy, with economic freedom to the right and economic authoritarianism to the left, and the y-axis is a measure of social freedom, with authoritarianism on the positive side and social freedom on the negative side. (You can think, in both cases of the “authoritarianism” being a bit of a person’s belief in the government’s role in regulating either economics or social behavior.) This gives you conservatives in the upper right, libertarians lower right, liberals lower left, and progressives upper left. So while liberals/left in general believes in the importance of the government to help society, progressives in particular believe in the power of government to regulate social behavior to accomplish a better world. Progressive ideals can be helpful (seat belts, national parks), but they can also go overboard (prohibiting 16-oz sodas [or for that matter, Prohibition!]). I could change my mind all day about where to draw the line (my understanding is that some smokers who were mad when NYC bars went nonsmoking are now publicly thanking Michael Bloomberg…), but it was helpful to me to understand those kinds of ideas as stemming from progressive ideals.
The problem is that progressive ideals are often positive (protect the environment, keep food safe, improve education) but some of the policies implemented to advance the ideals are not based on science and in the end can backfire. I now better understand why I have so often felt conflicted when reading about science and science policy…..I think it’s because a lot of times I sense that a policy is stupid but appreciate the ideal and it’s often hard to pinpoint how the policy is wrong, exactly, especially given how difficult it can be to find unbiased information on a topic.
There are still areas of the book that I want to research further. For example, the authors talk quite a bit about genetically modified foods and how they are completely safe for human consumption. Fine, I agree; I don’t have an issue with GMOs. But I thought the more important argument against them was about concerns for GMOs hybridizing with natural plants (this may not be the right terminology) and potentially reducing agricultural species diversity, topics which are not addressed. Are those just ‘more progressive paranoia’? I don’t know the answer. I do agree, however, that as a WORLD, it seems likely that GMOs are the best way to feed the entire world without converting more land to cropland (since organic farming is less efficient)…and if we could minimize famines and improve food access we’d have a better chance of leveling off population growth since people would feel more prosperous which typically reduces birth rate, thereby reducing potential for future famine. So, seems like a win-win. If you insist on all-natural, always organic, you are going to have to expand cropland, which is going to destroy wildlife, etc., along the way…you can’t have it both ways.
I thought that a section on Big Pharma was mostly accurate (based on my employment therein) but it had some material about ghostwriting and journals becoming “information laundering operations for the pharma industry” that seemed out of date to me. The relevant section seems based mostly on a 2011 article in the UK periodical the Guardian….and perhaps the article was reporting on the past and industry’s efforts to improve (because the issues are OLD NEWS and most pharma companies have put in elaborate policies to address these issues…), but the authors didn’t make that clear. That made me wonder about other potential inaccuracies.
In any case, it’s a very interesting book…..I recommend it highly to anyone who loves science and believes in the separation of science and state, so to speak! (Unlike the separation of church and state, in which the concern is that church will “poison” the state, the concern here is that the state is poisoning science!)
Topics covered:
• Vaccines
• Big Pharma, alternative medicine
• Animal research
• Embryonic stem cell research
• Renewable energy, nuclear energy, fossil fuels
• Issues with electric cars (the big duh has always been: well, if your electricity is still from coal, it’s not really causing less emission, now, is it?)
• GMOs, organic farming, raw food/barefoot running
• Why population growth might realistically level off at 9 billion
• Progressive ideas about (lack of) gender differences
• American dominance in science (partly because we are a free country and people are free to think crazy thoughts….good science less likely to come out of countries with dictatorships)
• Interesting info about education and how American students have improved in international comparisons since implementation of NCLB. How is it that our science education has been called dismal for years and years and years but we continue to lead the world in Nobel prizes and peer-reviewed research? Appears that a major issue on those international comparisons is that Americans tend to value teaching critical thinking over teaching facts—which is why we do well in creative endeavors but can’t find Iraq on a map. NCLB seems to be working as far as improving American students’ knowledge compared to that of students in other countries. But the educational community still hates it.
• Death of science journalism (replaced in large part with progressive activism)
• 12 issues to consider for future
I liked that the book provided a framework to help me understand how the history and politics of various scientific issues have contributed to the attitudes of people in different political groups, in particular, “progressives.” I’m a little embarrassed to admit it, but I didn’t really have any idea what a progressive was before I read the book. I kind of always thought “Oh progress…progress is good” …but that’s not really how the term is used politically. To understand the term as used in this book, imagine a graph, where the x-axis is a measure of belief in economic autonomy, with economic freedom to the right and economic authoritarianism to the left, and the y-axis is a measure of social freedom, with authoritarianism on the positive side and social freedom on the negative side. (You can think, in both cases of the “authoritarianism” being a bit of a person’s belief in the government’s role in regulating either economics or social behavior.) This gives you conservatives in the upper right, libertarians lower right, liberals lower left, and progressives upper left. So while liberals/left in general believes in the importance of the government to help society, progressives in particular believe in the power of government to regulate social behavior to accomplish a better world. Progressive ideals can be helpful (seat belts, national parks), but they can also go overboard (prohibiting 16-oz sodas [or for that matter, Prohibition!]). I could change my mind all day about where to draw the line (my understanding is that some smokers who were mad when NYC bars went nonsmoking are now publicly thanking Michael Bloomberg…), but it was helpful to me to understand those kinds of ideas as stemming from progressive ideals.
The problem is that progressive ideals are often positive (protect the environment, keep food safe, improve education) but some of the policies implemented to advance the ideals are not based on science and in the end can backfire. I now better understand why I have so often felt conflicted when reading about science and science policy…..I think it’s because a lot of times I sense that a policy is stupid but appreciate the ideal and it’s often hard to pinpoint how the policy is wrong, exactly, especially given how difficult it can be to find unbiased information on a topic.
There are still areas of the book that I want to research further. For example, the authors talk quite a bit about genetically modified foods and how they are completely safe for human consumption. Fine, I agree; I don’t have an issue with GMOs. But I thought the more important argument against them was about concerns for GMOs hybridizing with natural plants (this may not be the right terminology) and potentially reducing agricultural species diversity, topics which are not addressed. Are those just ‘more progressive paranoia’? I don’t know the answer. I do agree, however, that as a WORLD, it seems likely that GMOs are the best way to feed the entire world without converting more land to cropland (since organic farming is less efficient)…and if we could minimize famines and improve food access we’d have a better chance of leveling off population growth since people would feel more prosperous which typically reduces birth rate, thereby reducing potential for future famine. So, seems like a win-win. If you insist on all-natural, always organic, you are going to have to expand cropland, which is going to destroy wildlife, etc., along the way…you can’t have it both ways.
I thought that a section on Big Pharma was mostly accurate (based on my employment therein) but it had some material about ghostwriting and journals becoming “information laundering operations for the pharma industry” that seemed out of date to me. The relevant section seems based mostly on a 2011 article in the UK periodical the Guardian….and perhaps the article was reporting on the past and industry’s efforts to improve (because the issues are OLD NEWS and most pharma companies have put in elaborate policies to address these issues…), but the authors didn’t make that clear. That made me wonder about other potential inaccuracies.
In any case, it’s a very interesting book…..I recommend it highly to anyone who loves science and believes in the separation of science and state, so to speak! (Unlike the separation of church and state, in which the concern is that church will “poison” the state, the concern here is that the state is poisoning science!)
Topics covered:
• Vaccines
• Big Pharma, alternative medicine
• Animal research
• Embryonic stem cell research
• Renewable energy, nuclear energy, fossil fuels
• Issues with electric cars (the big duh has always been: well, if your electricity is still from coal, it’s not really causing less emission, now, is it?)
• GMOs, organic farming, raw food/barefoot running
• Why population growth might realistically level off at 9 billion
• Progressive ideas about (lack of) gender differences
• American dominance in science (partly because we are a free country and people are free to think crazy thoughts….good science less likely to come out of countries with dictatorships)
• Interesting info about education and how American students have improved in international comparisons since implementation of NCLB. How is it that our science education has been called dismal for years and years and years but we continue to lead the world in Nobel prizes and peer-reviewed research? Appears that a major issue on those international comparisons is that Americans tend to value teaching critical thinking over teaching facts—which is why we do well in creative endeavors but can’t find Iraq on a map. NCLB seems to be working as far as improving American students’ knowledge compared to that of students in other countries. But the educational community still hates it.
• Death of science journalism (replaced in large part with progressive activism)
• 12 issues to consider for future
October 26, 2013
Oh, my. Where to start? While this book had some good points, I had a huge problem with the premise. What the authors define as "Progressives" (the whipping boy of this tome) most people would define as "Loony Leftwing Fringers". I think anti-vaxxers are pretty equally represented on the left and right wings (not a single mention of psycho right-wing antivax cheerleader Jenny McCarthy!). Climate change deniers are most certainly heavily represented on the Conservative side, and since that will most likely be the death of humanity on this planet I feel should have been delineated more carefully. When the authors openly praised Wacky Sen. Tom Coburn near the end, I knew they were totally in the pocket of the anti-science kooks. Coburn is the poster child for that ilk (probably the leading climate change denier in Congress). While they continually strived for a tone of reasonableness, too much psycho leaked through. Read at your own risk.
May 22, 2013
A great complement to The Republican War on Science. Both books do a good job of highlighting the anti-science tendencies of "the other side". Taken together, they demonstrate that both sides of the political spectrum respect science and the scientific method only when it comports with their previously held views. Rarely if ever will being wrong on the facts change their minds.
March 22, 2014
The book did at first have some good critiques of the psuedoscience that unfortunately a lot of progressives buy including organic foods and homeopathy.
...and then came an entire chapter trying , Instead of even considering patriarchy as a possibility, it goes into several bizarre arguments in essence saying that the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women therefore STEM is dominated by men. I stopped reading the book when it said that women go through semen withdrawls and when it started saying that all men like women with big boobs. This completely disregards the existence of gay and lesbian people, which I found offensive.
I was hoping for a good book to demonstrate some of the fallacies people on my side of the spectrum commit when it comes to science, but this is not one of them. It also painted all progressives as having whackjob belief X, even though a lot I know don't buy psuedoscience. I hope a better book than this can be written about it with much less of a conservative/patriarchal slant to it.
...and then came an entire chapter trying , Instead of even considering patriarchy as a possibility, it goes into several bizarre arguments in essence saying that the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women therefore STEM is dominated by men. I stopped reading the book when it said that women go through semen withdrawls and when it started saying that all men like women with big boobs. This completely disregards the existence of gay and lesbian people, which I found offensive.
I was hoping for a good book to demonstrate some of the fallacies people on my side of the spectrum commit when it comes to science, but this is not one of them. It also painted all progressives as having whackjob belief X, even though a lot I know don't buy psuedoscience. I hope a better book than this can be written about it with much less of a conservative/patriarchal slant to it.
June 23, 2017
I myself read this book as an open-minded independent and didn't get very far into it, so take this review with a grain of salt. My suggestion to the author is that, when writing a book that tends to degrade the Left for being judgmental in parts, do not yourself fall into the very same bitterness. I was ready to learn from this book until being judged myself as the reader for liking to shop at Whole Foods, when I myself am not a progressive. The stereotyping that all who shop there fall under the same "hippy progressive with their head in the sand" label was the first turn-off to being able to take the author as an unbiased teacher, and I personally couldn't keep reading far beyond that.
May 2, 2016
I wasn't sure what to expect with this book. I think science denial is pretty prevalent in our society and can be found among all political persuasions.
Consequently, I actually do not disagree with the majority of what the authors present. However, there are many instances where they use some weak arguments (logical fallacies) and a mocking tone to convey his point. This made the book much less enjoyable.
Consequently, I actually do not disagree with the majority of what the authors present. However, there are many instances where they use some weak arguments (logical fallacies) and a mocking tone to convey his point. This made the book much less enjoyable.
October 4, 2012
Great book on how the left distorts science from anti-vaccine to organic food as better and other science that progressives try distort from the real science in order to make them feel good. A book that needed to be written since it is always the progressives attacking conservatives as anti-science it turns out progressives are just as bad if not worse.
December 28, 2013
I don't think I can bear to finish this book. Although there are some decent points, overall it is just a whiny retort at progressives calling conservatives anti-science, I think his point could have been made in a 30 page paper and not a 300 page book. It just got annoying.
February 2, 2013
Disappointing; talks more about WHAT leftists believe than WHY what they believe is wrong.
May 16, 2015
This book would be fine in small doses but the scope is far too large for one book. There is no long-game, no depth of detail in each topic, and right when I get to the light-bulb moment of each section, we're off to the next topic.
Reading this book on a 6 hour flight really brought the formatting problem to the forefront. Each chapter is based on the format, "This is what you've been lead to believe, and this is why that is wrong/how it was spun to look different". Each topic, be it compostable diningware to stem cell research, is fascinating with how the subject gets spun in the media and how the science behind the issue gets diluted. But we never really get to revel in that topic before we're off to the next. It's quite dizzying, and it turns this fascinating book into a cup of coffee -- fine one or two cups at a time but overwhelming and counterproductive in large doses.
Green-Eyed Guide
Reading this book on a 6 hour flight really brought the formatting problem to the forefront. Each chapter is based on the format, "This is what you've been lead to believe, and this is why that is wrong/how it was spun to look different". Each topic, be it compostable diningware to stem cell research, is fascinating with how the subject gets spun in the media and how the science behind the issue gets diluted. But we never really get to revel in that topic before we're off to the next. It's quite dizzying, and it turns this fascinating book into a cup of coffee -- fine one or two cups at a time but overwhelming and counterproductive in large doses.
Green-Eyed Guide
September 14, 2012
An excellent discussion of the scientific blindness of progressives, who focus on evolution on other issues while ignoring their anti-science approach to science that truly improves human lives. The book carefully documents the progressive attack on important, life-saving science like vaccinations, using science to improve crop yields and reduce the need for pesticides and support for feel-good (but failed) technologies like solar power.
The authors, both with deep experience in science (Berezow has a PhD in microbiology), also address the failure of science education in the universities and the trend toward poor science journalism.
It is a quick, but clear read that is an important addition to the discussion about science and politics.
The authors, both with deep experience in science (Berezow has a PhD in microbiology), also address the failure of science education in the universities and the trend toward poor science journalism.
It is a quick, but clear read that is an important addition to the discussion about science and politics.
January 30, 2013
It is nice to hear someone trying to fair to both sides of the political spectrum. I didn't always agree with the authors but I can respect their opinions and in many things they are right. The progressive left does get away with being hostile to science although they can be just as bad as some of the conservatives. I would recommend this book for anyone wanting to understand how science should be treated and how it currently is treated, particularly in regards to progressives.
March 30, 2013
I think one reviewer put it best, these guys were a little sloppy maybe, their tone sounded a bit too much like they had axes to grind. Their larger point that anti-scientific thought is not limited to the right is spot on, but they seem to want to rub the lefts nose in it rather than let science do the talking. However, it's maybe the snarky tone that makes this one readable, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and have become engrossed in running down citations. Definitely food for thought.
January 24, 2014
The authors set out to prove that conservatives aren't anti-science, but in fact, progressives are anti-science. They explain the science and economics of organic food, GMO's, vaccines, clean energy, creationism, ANWR, pharmaceutical research and gender studies. I found this book very interesting, even though I don't consider myself in the science realm. Science has been co-opted by politics and that's not good for the public.
November 18, 2013
The common perception when it comes to Science is that the Progressive Left is the most informed (evolution, climate change, and stem cells). While the Libertarians and Conservatives are depicted as fearful of science (Creationists, aversion to clean energy, etc) and its implications to their religion.
Hank Campbell believes that that the Progressives do not deserve the title of being "pro science" and here is why:
1) Organic food (Don't buy that #5 dollar banana from Whole Foods). Whole Food warns against eating Genetically Modified Foods (GM). It has not been proven that someone has even gotten a stomachache after eating GM's. Why are fruits labeled Organic. Is it the lack of pesticides? No, Organic food still use pesticides--but just natural pesticides instead of synthetic pesticides. Often times Organic food requires large doses of pesticides because the natural pesticides are not as affective as synthetic pesticides. Futhermore often times the Organic food is shipped in from 1000's miles away which negates any environmental easing. Campbell recommends buying local--the Organic label is mostly political (see below).
2)Just an interesting political pattern: Find a Whole Foods (aka Organic) and you will find a community that has a strong anti-vaccination program and 81% of this county will have voted for BO. Whereas find a Cracker Barrel and that county just 36% went for BO.
3) Water Conservation (How Progressives killed your toilet). We are encouraged to turn the water off when we are brushing our teeth and to have low flush toilets (that really create a toilet that clogs itself with excrement) to conserve water. Only 11% of the water we use is domestic (over 80% of water use is for agriculture and power plants). Encouraging more efficiency in agriculture and power plant use is a better way to conserve water.
4)ANWR--its not a prestine place as progressive suggests. It looks like the moon. 80% of Alaskans are for drilling. 20 million acres and all that is needed is the space of a regional airport. The Caribuou population is 9 times larger than it was in the 1970's (when Oil was discovered).
5) Progressives had the big Buzz on ethanol which uses corn to create oil in which we can put in our cars. What a disaster. The price of corn when sky high in underveloped countries which need corn to feed their people. Rainforrests were cut down to grow more cown. The environmental impact of creating ethanol is much worse than drilling for fossil fuels.
6) What's wrong with the Keystone Pipeline. It would create 130,000 jobs and delivery 1 million of barrels of oil a day to our refineries in Texas (cutting our need for foreign oil from crazy dictatoros to 15%). We refine it much cleaner than the Chinese or Russians. Pipelines are far safer transportation options than tankers or railroads.
7) All Electric Cars (Chevy Volt) has a lithium battery (requires mining of rare earth metals) that weighs 435 pounds and needs to be replaced every 100,000 miles. Futhermore the cars have nicel Foam and NETF.
8) Solyndra--don't have to say anything else.
9) Education- Waldorf school's often listed as most progressive have about a 20% vaccination rate of their students due to their philosophies. Why do you think in the past 50 years of successful vaccinations have the top threats of death shifted from infectious diseases (polio, typhoid) to lifestyle diseases (diabetes, CAD).
10) Alternative Medicine (95% of treatments are indistinguishable from a placebo) This profitable industry takes in 34 billion. The worst being Homeopathy--Quackery that "like cures like" with extremely diluted chemicals. The NIH has an entire agency to study Homeopathy supported by Sen Tom Harkin (d).
Campbell goes with further examples supporting the US and its strong education (most of the top Universities in the world), high level of patents, most money spent on basic science R& D. He criticizes the progressive left of Europe for turning away from Nuclear Power (except France) and banning x-rays in airports. Futhermore Campbell goes on to attack the far left (Al Gore, Peter Singer, and PETA) which are easy straw house arguments.
5 stars. Campbell speaks a lot of sense. His one fault....Maybe he should not stereotype either persuasion (not all progressives are part of PETA, and not all conservatives are Young Earth Creationists.) But I wish we all could be for common sense things like vaccinations, Flouride Therapy, and safe Nuclear Power.
Hank Campbell believes that that the Progressives do not deserve the title of being "pro science" and here is why:
1) Organic food (Don't buy that #5 dollar banana from Whole Foods). Whole Food warns against eating Genetically Modified Foods (GM). It has not been proven that someone has even gotten a stomachache after eating GM's. Why are fruits labeled Organic. Is it the lack of pesticides? No, Organic food still use pesticides--but just natural pesticides instead of synthetic pesticides. Often times Organic food requires large doses of pesticides because the natural pesticides are not as affective as synthetic pesticides. Futhermore often times the Organic food is shipped in from 1000's miles away which negates any environmental easing. Campbell recommends buying local--the Organic label is mostly political (see below).
2)Just an interesting political pattern: Find a Whole Foods (aka Organic) and you will find a community that has a strong anti-vaccination program and 81% of this county will have voted for BO. Whereas find a Cracker Barrel and that county just 36% went for BO.
3) Water Conservation (How Progressives killed your toilet). We are encouraged to turn the water off when we are brushing our teeth and to have low flush toilets (that really create a toilet that clogs itself with excrement) to conserve water. Only 11% of the water we use is domestic (over 80% of water use is for agriculture and power plants). Encouraging more efficiency in agriculture and power plant use is a better way to conserve water.
4)ANWR--its not a prestine place as progressive suggests. It looks like the moon. 80% of Alaskans are for drilling. 20 million acres and all that is needed is the space of a regional airport. The Caribuou population is 9 times larger than it was in the 1970's (when Oil was discovered).
5) Progressives had the big Buzz on ethanol which uses corn to create oil in which we can put in our cars. What a disaster. The price of corn when sky high in underveloped countries which need corn to feed their people. Rainforrests were cut down to grow more cown. The environmental impact of creating ethanol is much worse than drilling for fossil fuels.
6) What's wrong with the Keystone Pipeline. It would create 130,000 jobs and delivery 1 million of barrels of oil a day to our refineries in Texas (cutting our need for foreign oil from crazy dictatoros to 15%). We refine it much cleaner than the Chinese or Russians. Pipelines are far safer transportation options than tankers or railroads.
7) All Electric Cars (Chevy Volt) has a lithium battery (requires mining of rare earth metals) that weighs 435 pounds and needs to be replaced every 100,000 miles. Futhermore the cars have nicel Foam and NETF.
8) Solyndra--don't have to say anything else.
9) Education- Waldorf school's often listed as most progressive have about a 20% vaccination rate of their students due to their philosophies. Why do you think in the past 50 years of successful vaccinations have the top threats of death shifted from infectious diseases (polio, typhoid) to lifestyle diseases (diabetes, CAD).
10) Alternative Medicine (95% of treatments are indistinguishable from a placebo) This profitable industry takes in 34 billion. The worst being Homeopathy--Quackery that "like cures like" with extremely diluted chemicals. The NIH has an entire agency to study Homeopathy supported by Sen Tom Harkin (d).
Campbell goes with further examples supporting the US and its strong education (most of the top Universities in the world), high level of patents, most money spent on basic science R& D. He criticizes the progressive left of Europe for turning away from Nuclear Power (except France) and banning x-rays in airports. Futhermore Campbell goes on to attack the far left (Al Gore, Peter Singer, and PETA) which are easy straw house arguments.
5 stars. Campbell speaks a lot of sense. His one fault....Maybe he should not stereotype either persuasion (not all progressives are part of PETA, and not all conservatives are Young Earth Creationists.) But I wish we all could be for common sense things like vaccinations, Flouride Therapy, and safe Nuclear Power.
December 6, 2013
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Never has this been more true than in the progressive Green movement, thanks to whose good intentions solar energy and other alternative energy projects are routinely scuttled, modern farming practices that are far more efficient and less environmentally harmful than "organic" ones are often sued out of existence, and one of the best protections we have against potentially lethal infectious epidemics, i.e., vaccinations are rejected by scientifically ignorant people who thereby put their own lives and those of their children in deadly danger. For many years, activists, journalists, and talking heads have maintained that scientifically speaking, the Left knows best. In their view, the rejection of evolution, stem cells, and climate change comprise the three worst sins against reason, and the worst heretics against the great holy Church of Science are conservatives and libertarians -- all the while ignoring the fact, or oblivious of it, that those on the Left cling to a far greater number of anti-scientific beliefs.
Science Left Behind exposes the Left's fear and ignorance of real science. It shows how vague, half-baked ideas about the "goodness" of all things "natural", the "badness" of the "unnatural," and numerous other seductive fallacies have led to a dangerous epidemic of misinformation concerning scientific subjects and the relevance -- or irrelevance -- they have to progressive ideas. The aversion of the progressive Left to clean energy programs, fundamental biological and other scientific research, and life-saving vaccines come naturally to them, though such positions are supported by little more than junk science, paranoid thinking, and the great rumor mills of the marginal press and the world wide web.
Partisanship inhibited objective scientific research and side-railed the application of its fruits for too long, causing debate on such subjects to become constricted by both the politicization of science of and the parallel process of the "scientization" of politics. Contrary to popular belief that any one political party deserves the label of being pro-science, authors Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell show, in exquisite detail, that the contrary is true, and that adherence to truly stupid positions on science, especially with respect to Green issues, is far more the provenance of the progressive Left than any other group.
Exploring such topics as "What's a Progressive?", "Crappy Conservation and Clean Energy Chaos," and "PETA: Professional Experimenters Testing on Animals," the authors turn a pitiless eye on the many stupidities promulgated in the name of feel-good anti-science causes, exhorting Americans on all sides of the political spectrum to look more closely at the issues so many of us take for granted, to avoid becoming embroiled in a new culture war over basic scientific facts.
I do disagree with a few things in this book, such as an anti-space bias one or both authors seem to have, but overall I applaud the painstaking, exquisitely pointed care with which the authors disembowel all the favorite sacred cows of the Left, showing them up for the pitiful excuses for reason and intelligence they are. I recommend this book to every thinking American -- and as many of the unthinking ones as can be tempted into giving it a try in spite of themselves. It makes very clear how much of the current political and economic mess in which America is currently embroiled is due to the sort of purblind, ignorant, stupid thinking into which the progressive Left has fallen because of half-psychotic wishful thinking coupled with profound scientific ignorance.
Never has this been more true than in the progressive Green movement, thanks to whose good intentions solar energy and other alternative energy projects are routinely scuttled, modern farming practices that are far more efficient and less environmentally harmful than "organic" ones are often sued out of existence, and one of the best protections we have against potentially lethal infectious epidemics, i.e., vaccinations are rejected by scientifically ignorant people who thereby put their own lives and those of their children in deadly danger. For many years, activists, journalists, and talking heads have maintained that scientifically speaking, the Left knows best. In their view, the rejection of evolution, stem cells, and climate change comprise the three worst sins against reason, and the worst heretics against the great holy Church of Science are conservatives and libertarians -- all the while ignoring the fact, or oblivious of it, that those on the Left cling to a far greater number of anti-scientific beliefs.
Science Left Behind exposes the Left's fear and ignorance of real science. It shows how vague, half-baked ideas about the "goodness" of all things "natural", the "badness" of the "unnatural," and numerous other seductive fallacies have led to a dangerous epidemic of misinformation concerning scientific subjects and the relevance -- or irrelevance -- they have to progressive ideas. The aversion of the progressive Left to clean energy programs, fundamental biological and other scientific research, and life-saving vaccines come naturally to them, though such positions are supported by little more than junk science, paranoid thinking, and the great rumor mills of the marginal press and the world wide web.
Partisanship inhibited objective scientific research and side-railed the application of its fruits for too long, causing debate on such subjects to become constricted by both the politicization of science of and the parallel process of the "scientization" of politics. Contrary to popular belief that any one political party deserves the label of being pro-science, authors Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell show, in exquisite detail, that the contrary is true, and that adherence to truly stupid positions on science, especially with respect to Green issues, is far more the provenance of the progressive Left than any other group.
Exploring such topics as "What's a Progressive?", "Crappy Conservation and Clean Energy Chaos," and "PETA: Professional Experimenters Testing on Animals," the authors turn a pitiless eye on the many stupidities promulgated in the name of feel-good anti-science causes, exhorting Americans on all sides of the political spectrum to look more closely at the issues so many of us take for granted, to avoid becoming embroiled in a new culture war over basic scientific facts.
I do disagree with a few things in this book, such as an anti-space bias one or both authors seem to have, but overall I applaud the painstaking, exquisitely pointed care with which the authors disembowel all the favorite sacred cows of the Left, showing them up for the pitiful excuses for reason and intelligence they are. I recommend this book to every thinking American -- and as many of the unthinking ones as can be tempted into giving it a try in spite of themselves. It makes very clear how much of the current political and economic mess in which America is currently embroiled is due to the sort of purblind, ignorant, stupid thinking into which the progressive Left has fallen because of half-psychotic wishful thinking coupled with profound scientific ignorance.
March 29, 2020
Should have stopped after reading the first chapter...
Based on the title I was hoping this book would delve into the psychological motivations of individuals and how our reasoning may be flawed at times (because we are human after all), but in knowing what motivates us we should be able to reflect and better rationalize our own decisions.
I was terribly disappointed and couldn't make it past the halfway point. I agree with some other reviewers that this ultimately felt like an upright attack on progressives, but those attacks at times felt hollow and never quite delved into the nuances that motivate progressives to value or think a certain practice, innovation, etc. is dangerous.
Albeit, the warning that there is a danger to politicizing science and having one party claim its authority is valid, but they way it is presented makes it feel as though progressives are being villainized and their concerns oversimplified just as conservatives have been.
Overall, this feels like a diatribe instead of a rationalized, logical argument as much as it tries to pose as one. Furthermore, there's a strong bitter tone to the language making it hard to believe that the authors remain truly unbiased in their criticisms and reasoning.
Based on the title I was hoping this book would delve into the psychological motivations of individuals and how our reasoning may be flawed at times (because we are human after all), but in knowing what motivates us we should be able to reflect and better rationalize our own decisions.
I was terribly disappointed and couldn't make it past the halfway point. I agree with some other reviewers that this ultimately felt like an upright attack on progressives, but those attacks at times felt hollow and never quite delved into the nuances that motivate progressives to value or think a certain practice, innovation, etc. is dangerous.
Albeit, the warning that there is a danger to politicizing science and having one party claim its authority is valid, but they way it is presented makes it feel as though progressives are being villainized and their concerns oversimplified just as conservatives have been.
Overall, this feels like a diatribe instead of a rationalized, logical argument as much as it tries to pose as one. Furthermore, there's a strong bitter tone to the language making it hard to believe that the authors remain truly unbiased in their criticisms and reasoning.
September 2, 2020
While the far right is overtly anti-science and makes no apologies for it, it is not so obvious that the far left is also anti-science in their policies, beliefs, and behaviors. In Science Left Behind, Berezow and Campbell outline the many anti-scientific pillars of the progressive left.
They cover everything from the anti-GMO beliefs to the anti-nuclear power positions of the progressive left. There is some good discussion of the anti-science policies from recent Democratic presidents and their Republican counterparts.
My only criticisms are that the authors get nitpicky about things that don't matter whole lot (barefoot running?). They also tend to come off as overly defense of attacks on the right.
In spite of those shortcomings, this is an important read for the scientific mind. All of us need to be especially vigilant of unscientific policy masquerading as scientifically backed, and beware of media spin on just about everything in the field. If we can one day divorce our politics from our reason, we may stand a chance creating a much brighter future.
They cover everything from the anti-GMO beliefs to the anti-nuclear power positions of the progressive left. There is some good discussion of the anti-science policies from recent Democratic presidents and their Republican counterparts.
My only criticisms are that the authors get nitpicky about things that don't matter whole lot (barefoot running?). They also tend to come off as overly defense of attacks on the right.
In spite of those shortcomings, this is an important read for the scientific mind. All of us need to be especially vigilant of unscientific policy masquerading as scientifically backed, and beware of media spin on just about everything in the field. If we can one day divorce our politics from our reason, we may stand a chance creating a much brighter future.
June 6, 2013
"The right is not more anti-science than the left; it just has terrible public relations."
"... accusations are founded on a handful of scientific topics on which slightly more conservatives hold slightly more uninformed beliefs than those on the other side. It blatantly ignores all of the uninformed beliefs that those who aren't conservative hang onto."
The authors do a good job of bringing out all the ways in which the left tramples science when it disagrees with ideology, while posturing as "pro-science".
Unfortunately, they too often fall into just the sort of sneer-and-snark that their targets resort to. At times it becomes downright loony, such as dismissing birds -- all birds -- as "pests" and "feathered rodents". And they fall into the leftist trap by equating "stem cells" with "embryonic stem cells". It aint so nohow.
"... accusations are founded on a handful of scientific topics on which slightly more conservatives hold slightly more uninformed beliefs than those on the other side. It blatantly ignores all of the uninformed beliefs that those who aren't conservative hang onto."
The authors do a good job of bringing out all the ways in which the left tramples science when it disagrees with ideology, while posturing as "pro-science".
Unfortunately, they too often fall into just the sort of sneer-and-snark that their targets resort to. At times it becomes downright loony, such as dismissing birds -- all birds -- as "pests" and "feathered rodents". And they fall into the leftist trap by equating "stem cells" with "embryonic stem cells". It aint so nohow.
April 10, 2013
A good read and VERY informative. Well written and researched as well, there are plenty of citations for checking in on data. The one problem I had with the books is that it was VERY outright political bashing at some points, which is ok, they stated their intentions in the Introduction and they did just as they said. However, at some points I think there could have been more neutral positioning. It was a turn-off to feel stupid of thinking that perhaps there may be a point to some of the arguments that Progressives make. Make sure to read with an open mind, very good, very well written and honestly informative and scary.
January 22, 2013
A really interesting book in which the authors make some excellent points about science and scientific thought on the left side of the political spectrum. They do, however, create and destroy a good many straw men in route to their conclusions. They are also prone to glossing over the omissions and commissions of the right side of the spectrum. Interesting read that causes one to examine beliefs, and opinions that are often taken for granted. Any book that arouses strong passions is a good book.
February 27, 2018
I read this with interest, because I believe that a lot of science is distorted by special interest groups. I continued reading because I was faced with many ideas I disagree on and wanted to get a full picture. However, more than 3/4 of the way into it, I can’t stand it any longer. The author seems intent on generalizing and the book is basically just one long rant. I gave it 2 stars because there are a few cogent facts buried amidst a sea of divisiveness.
Want to read
May 18, 2017#
CompNtBk
Own in hardback.
FS: "Feel-good fallacies about spoons made from corn are great for outrage radio, but compared to some other progressive myths, they are not really harmful."
LS: "For our part, if even one progressive has read this book and stopped worrying that the earth will deflate due to natural gas extraction, it's all been worthwhile."
CompNtBk
Own in hardback.
FS: "Feel-good fallacies about spoons made from corn are great for outrage radio, but compared to some other progressive myths, they are not really harmful."
LS: "For our part, if even one progressive has read this book and stopped worrying that the earth will deflate due to natural gas extraction, it's all been worthwhile."
August 21, 2015
A pretty good debunking of all of the non-science presented by the progressives. They present several areas where progressives and conservatives both abuse science to support their own personal beliefs. As a rational human being, I found this very refreshing.
February 12, 2013
More science in a science book would have been helpful.
July 2, 2022
Tips for reading this book:
Don't be so stuck on your beliefs that you can't read it. There are things in here that I disagree with what they presented in my field (agriculture) such as raw milk. Back in the 80s it might have been dangerous, but clearly the writers haven't heard of the automatic milking machines that even self-clean themselves. They are fantastic -- and make me want a cow since I'd no longer have to get up super early to milk.
Beyond that, though, this book is irreverent for any side of the political spectrum. Conservative? They will piss you off. Progressive? Direct attack at your misguided and ill-founded beliefs. Democrat? They'll slight you too. Hell, even Libertarians aren't safe.
This irreverence is what I liked about the book. It might be dated, but there are many good points to chew on. It isn't for everyone, but anyone that puts activism before data should read this. Not all things that feel good are good. We are human, and we fall for a lot of shit that sounds too good to be true.
And that's what the author's point out. We're gullible. All of us. We all want awesome things for this world. Data doesn't support the grand, idealistic concepts.
Don't be so stuck on your beliefs that you can't read it. There are things in here that I disagree with what they presented in my field (agriculture) such as raw milk. Back in the 80s it might have been dangerous, but clearly the writers haven't heard of the automatic milking machines that even self-clean themselves. They are fantastic -- and make me want a cow since I'd no longer have to get up super early to milk.
Beyond that, though, this book is irreverent for any side of the political spectrum. Conservative? They will piss you off. Progressive? Direct attack at your misguided and ill-founded beliefs. Democrat? They'll slight you too. Hell, even Libertarians aren't safe.
This irreverence is what I liked about the book. It might be dated, but there are many good points to chew on. It isn't for everyone, but anyone that puts activism before data should read this. Not all things that feel good are good. We are human, and we fall for a lot of shit that sounds too good to be true.
And that's what the author's point out. We're gullible. All of us. We all want awesome things for this world. Data doesn't support the grand, idealistic concepts.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 45 reviews