What do you think?
Rate this book
Is That a Fact?: Frauds, Quacks, and the Real Science of Everyday Life by Schwarcz, Joe (2014) Paperback
Excellent Book
Paperback
First published May 1, 2014
143 people are currently reading
727 people want to read
About the author
Joe Schwarcz
50 books109 followersDr. Joe Schwarcz holds a PhD in chemistry and is host of the radio program The Dr. Joe Show, directo of McGill University's Office for Science & Society and the author of fourteen bestselling books. Well known for his informative and entertaining lectures, Dr. Schwarcz has received numerous awards for teaching and deciphering science for the public.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
February 20, 2014
The rating really depends on the intended reader. If you're a skeptical science buff, odds are you are already as familiar with the material presented in Is That A Fact? as I am.
For the layman, or your gullible best friend, this would rate four stars. Pick this up for the easy-to-follow explanations on dozens of topics about which the general public is misinformed. While I read it cover to cover, the best approach may be to find a topic if personal interest and start reading. It would also make a good reference book to have around to help children and fear-mongering Fox News anchors understand what's fact and what's fiction.
For the layman, or your gullible best friend, this would rate four stars. Pick this up for the easy-to-follow explanations on dozens of topics about which the general public is misinformed. While I read it cover to cover, the best approach may be to find a topic if personal interest and start reading. It would also make a good reference book to have around to help children and fear-mongering Fox News anchors understand what's fact and what's fiction.
March 26, 2015
If I could have given this book 0, I would have. Or even less. I read the whole book only because I kept on thinking that it couldn't get worse... but it did. I would not recommend it to anyone for any reason.
I thought it would be a book with real science, not a bunch of opinion without footnotes. Incomplete research, he just pulls examples that support his opinion, without looking at both sides objectively.
Hypocritical. He complains about the emotional and exaggerated styles of Dr. Oz and Kevin Trudeau, but his style is very opinionated as well as being emotional and exaggerated.
Sadly some scientists do not have respect for the scientific method and do not have open minds in approaching new information and products. With the reasoning of Joe Schwarz, we would still be believing that the world is flat because we cannot see past the horizon... we would not believe that gravity exists because we cannot see it, as long as we allow ourselves to exclude from our evidence the fact that apples fall. We can see the apples but not the force of gravity. But to deny the force of gravity means that you need to ignore any objects that fall. He does a lot of ignoring, in my opinion.
He has excluded a lot of evidence; if he cannot find a study that proves that acupuncture meridians exist, he says they do not exist. It is a pretty bold statement to say that no study proves their existence. He can say that no study that he has read can prove their existence, but he has not read every relevant study. I have found at least two studies that show energy passing along tissue of higher density in the body that correspond to these meridians and there are instruments that measure the flow of energy at points along these meridians. And I am not a doctor or a researcher. But I have an open mind, I read a wide selection of topics, and I look for examples in real life. If it works for someone and cures a problem, even if he cannot understand the physics behind the flow of energy, he should not be discarding the method as fraudulent and ineffective. A true scientist would ask himself what is happening and why, and keep researching until he found out the answer before he decided to declare it fraudulent. We don't need to understand aerodynamics to be a passenger in a plane. But if we do not understand aerodynamics, we should not say that flight is impossible and refuse to get on the plane and try to stop others from taking a flight.
This is my overall impression of most of the analyses in this book.
Some of the examples and treatments that he says are not effective have worked for me when nothing else would. And it wasn't the placebo effect... after consulting many doctors and taking many prescriptions and supplements and medical treatments with little effect, I idly picked up a book in the bookstore about an alternative treatment, I did not want to try it because I was tired of trying, and I certainly didn't believe it would work. But I knew it would not hurt me and it could possibly help. So it was definitely not the placebo effect. If anything, I expected failure. But it worked. And this is an alternative treatment that he says is ineffective. It changed my life significantly. What if I had read his book first and decided not to try this harmless and, in my case, very effective treatment?
There are several examples in the book like this.
I almost get the impression that he is working for the medical/pharmaceutical industry... for their benefit and not for ours.
A serious researcher would not talk about steroids and other harmful things that athletes are doing to build up muscle and then say, when he watched his NHL team play, they went to the restaurant for steaks and beer and cigarettes, and they did very well.......
Either a very ignorant statement or a very tasteless joke considering the effect of smoking and alcohol on the body.
This author comes across as arrogant and ignorant.
I will definitely not be reading any other of his books.
I thought it would be a book with real science, not a bunch of opinion without footnotes. Incomplete research, he just pulls examples that support his opinion, without looking at both sides objectively.
Hypocritical. He complains about the emotional and exaggerated styles of Dr. Oz and Kevin Trudeau, but his style is very opinionated as well as being emotional and exaggerated.
Sadly some scientists do not have respect for the scientific method and do not have open minds in approaching new information and products. With the reasoning of Joe Schwarz, we would still be believing that the world is flat because we cannot see past the horizon... we would not believe that gravity exists because we cannot see it, as long as we allow ourselves to exclude from our evidence the fact that apples fall. We can see the apples but not the force of gravity. But to deny the force of gravity means that you need to ignore any objects that fall. He does a lot of ignoring, in my opinion.
He has excluded a lot of evidence; if he cannot find a study that proves that acupuncture meridians exist, he says they do not exist. It is a pretty bold statement to say that no study proves their existence. He can say that no study that he has read can prove their existence, but he has not read every relevant study. I have found at least two studies that show energy passing along tissue of higher density in the body that correspond to these meridians and there are instruments that measure the flow of energy at points along these meridians. And I am not a doctor or a researcher. But I have an open mind, I read a wide selection of topics, and I look for examples in real life. If it works for someone and cures a problem, even if he cannot understand the physics behind the flow of energy, he should not be discarding the method as fraudulent and ineffective. A true scientist would ask himself what is happening and why, and keep researching until he found out the answer before he decided to declare it fraudulent. We don't need to understand aerodynamics to be a passenger in a plane. But if we do not understand aerodynamics, we should not say that flight is impossible and refuse to get on the plane and try to stop others from taking a flight.
This is my overall impression of most of the analyses in this book.
Some of the examples and treatments that he says are not effective have worked for me when nothing else would. And it wasn't the placebo effect... after consulting many doctors and taking many prescriptions and supplements and medical treatments with little effect, I idly picked up a book in the bookstore about an alternative treatment, I did not want to try it because I was tired of trying, and I certainly didn't believe it would work. But I knew it would not hurt me and it could possibly help. So it was definitely not the placebo effect. If anything, I expected failure. But it worked. And this is an alternative treatment that he says is ineffective. It changed my life significantly. What if I had read his book first and decided not to try this harmless and, in my case, very effective treatment?
There are several examples in the book like this.
I almost get the impression that he is working for the medical/pharmaceutical industry... for their benefit and not for ours.
A serious researcher would not talk about steroids and other harmful things that athletes are doing to build up muscle and then say, when he watched his NHL team play, they went to the restaurant for steaks and beer and cigarettes, and they did very well.......
Either a very ignorant statement or a very tasteless joke considering the effect of smoking and alcohol on the body.
This author comes across as arrogant and ignorant.
I will definitely not be reading any other of his books.
August 5, 2015
I kept putting this book on the back burner but before returning it from a third renewal, I buckled down and read it. I was rewarded for my persistence as I believe I have finally found someone of integrity that I think I can build a relationship of trust with. Professor and author Dr. Joe Schwarcz is Canada's honest version of Doctor OZ.
Perhaps I have been living under a sulforaphane-producing cabbage leaf, but now that I have 'discovered him' I am excitedly following him on Twitter, have put "An Apple a Day' on hold at my local library, am on the lookout for the book "The Smart Palate" and have hours of reading ahead of me on his website. For the first time in years, I am able to put some issues to bed; GMO, homeopathy, colon cleansing and more. I only wish I could find his equivalent in the political world.
Perhaps I have been living under a sulforaphane-producing cabbage leaf, but now that I have 'discovered him' I am excitedly following him on Twitter, have put "An Apple a Day' on hold at my local library, am on the lookout for the book "The Smart Palate" and have hours of reading ahead of me on his website. For the first time in years, I am able to put some issues to bed; GMO, homeopathy, colon cleansing and more. I only wish I could find his equivalent in the political world.
January 15, 2023
Dr. Joe Schwarcz brings the excitement of debunking terrible science in this book. I borrowed it from the library due to the preponderance of fake news. The author made the title so enticing, but I can never type them out because my grammar-checking device thinks I asked a question.
The book covers homeopathy, cancer cures, colon cleanses, and more. Each case has Dr. Schwarcz going through the claims of something and then analyzing the science behind it to see if it holds water. The things people believe in this book are insane. It's terrifying when you consider that these people are allowed to vote. I focus on the United States because that is where I am from, but I can't imagine that other countries managed to stamp out ignorance.
Dr. Schwarcz goes through various claims and examines their validity, as I stated before. He sorts them into three categories; white, grey, and black.
I enjoyed the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
The book covers homeopathy, cancer cures, colon cleanses, and more. Each case has Dr. Schwarcz going through the claims of something and then analyzing the science behind it to see if it holds water. The things people believe in this book are insane. It's terrifying when you consider that these people are allowed to vote. I focus on the United States because that is where I am from, but I can't imagine that other countries managed to stamp out ignorance.
Dr. Schwarcz goes through various claims and examines their validity, as I stated before. He sorts them into three categories; white, grey, and black.
I enjoyed the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
April 22, 2016
The book explores what is bogus, what has some basis, and what has been shown to be a fact. These are labeled black, gray, and white.
The first part of the book discusses what makes for good information. Although, no gaurantee, peer-reviewed research is consider the best. And the best of these are controlled experiments, such as double-blinded drug studies with a treatment group and a nontreatment group, which neither the experimenters or the subjects no which group the subjects are in. Some other things that go into how reliable the research is is study size and independent measurements. Studies which rely on questionaires are less reliable in general.
Part two covers the black areas. These are things that are bogus with no real evidence in which to judge the reality of what is being claimed. One example is homeopathy. First through the dilution process nothing of the actual substance remains. Also, the theory behind it has no support. On top of this there has never been a contorlled study to show that homeopathic remedies fair any better than a placebo.
In part three the gray zone is examined. Here there might be a bit of evidence to go on, but under well controlled situations the claims do not stand up. Or the claims are based on extrapolations from either animal studies or small human studies. One issue discussed was antioxidants. Evidence shows that some antioxidents reduced free radicals in the lab, but failed to show any benefit during a clinical trial. Actually free radicals are use by are bodies to attack bacteria and viruses. The giving of large amount of antioxidant supplements may work to counteract this benefit that our own bodies provide.
Part four, the white zone, moves in to territory that science actually supports. Despite this there is often misinformation given about the science and what it means. In this section can be found a good explanation of dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) and some of its uses.
In discussing the hype surrounding blueberries and their ability to reduce breast cancer growth, Dr. Schwarcz says, “But for the scientifically minded, the tasty headline may trigger a bout of mental indigestion.” I definitely concur.
This happened to me. While reading this book, I saw a news story on the benefits of alternative fasting diets. The woman in the story certainly lost a significant amount of weight, but any calorie restriction diet would do the same. There was no mention in the report of the other benefits or any mention of research studies supporting any of the claims. So I took a spin on google and indulged in some actual science. Needless to say, I found very little if any benefit of this mode of diet. I even went through the abstracts that this one website provided, at least through benefit four out of ten, after which I thought there was little point in continuing, since the research referenced didn't come close to supporting the supposed health benefits. This definitely gave me a serious case of “mental indigestion.”
I enjoy this book immensely. As far as pure enjoyment is concerned, this is the best book I have read since early last year (2015). I had actually taken a free online class, Food for Thought, in which Dr Schwarcz was one of the professors. In that class I enjoyed his sense of humor, often wry and pointed. This quality was also exhibited in the book. He is also the director of the Office for Science & Society at McGill University were the class originated from. I was impressed when I posted a question on the Office's website, and Dr. Schwarcz responded that same day.
I would definitely recommend this book as a starting point in examing health claims. While Dr. Schwarcz could not cover everything (who can?), he does explain what and where to look to find information in evaluating health and other claims. And the individual entries show, at least partially, how to go about doing this kind of evaluation. I would also definitely recommend this book for its pure reading pleasure.
The first part of the book discusses what makes for good information. Although, no gaurantee, peer-reviewed research is consider the best. And the best of these are controlled experiments, such as double-blinded drug studies with a treatment group and a nontreatment group, which neither the experimenters or the subjects no which group the subjects are in. Some other things that go into how reliable the research is is study size and independent measurements. Studies which rely on questionaires are less reliable in general.
Part two covers the black areas. These are things that are bogus with no real evidence in which to judge the reality of what is being claimed. One example is homeopathy. First through the dilution process nothing of the actual substance remains. Also, the theory behind it has no support. On top of this there has never been a contorlled study to show that homeopathic remedies fair any better than a placebo.
In part three the gray zone is examined. Here there might be a bit of evidence to go on, but under well controlled situations the claims do not stand up. Or the claims are based on extrapolations from either animal studies or small human studies. One issue discussed was antioxidants. Evidence shows that some antioxidents reduced free radicals in the lab, but failed to show any benefit during a clinical trial. Actually free radicals are use by are bodies to attack bacteria and viruses. The giving of large amount of antioxidant supplements may work to counteract this benefit that our own bodies provide.
Part four, the white zone, moves in to territory that science actually supports. Despite this there is often misinformation given about the science and what it means. In this section can be found a good explanation of dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) and some of its uses.
In discussing the hype surrounding blueberries and their ability to reduce breast cancer growth, Dr. Schwarcz says, “But for the scientifically minded, the tasty headline may trigger a bout of mental indigestion.” I definitely concur.
This happened to me. While reading this book, I saw a news story on the benefits of alternative fasting diets. The woman in the story certainly lost a significant amount of weight, but any calorie restriction diet would do the same. There was no mention in the report of the other benefits or any mention of research studies supporting any of the claims. So I took a spin on google and indulged in some actual science. Needless to say, I found very little if any benefit of this mode of diet. I even went through the abstracts that this one website provided, at least through benefit four out of ten, after which I thought there was little point in continuing, since the research referenced didn't come close to supporting the supposed health benefits. This definitely gave me a serious case of “mental indigestion.”
I enjoy this book immensely. As far as pure enjoyment is concerned, this is the best book I have read since early last year (2015). I had actually taken a free online class, Food for Thought, in which Dr Schwarcz was one of the professors. In that class I enjoyed his sense of humor, often wry and pointed. This quality was also exhibited in the book. He is also the director of the Office for Science & Society at McGill University were the class originated from. I was impressed when I posted a question on the Office's website, and Dr. Schwarcz responded that same day.
I would definitely recommend this book as a starting point in examing health claims. While Dr. Schwarcz could not cover everything (who can?), he does explain what and where to look to find information in evaluating health and other claims. And the individual entries show, at least partially, how to go about doing this kind of evaluation. I would also definitely recommend this book for its pure reading pleasure.
October 14, 2015
This is how the book is written: there are no chapters; the text just flows and when the author moves on to a different topic (completely unrelated to what came before it), all we get is a small one-line header telling you that. The new topic continues on the same page itself. What a haphazard presentation method. The only explanation I can think of for this is that the publisher wanted to save space. Each topic ranges from approximately 4-25 pages long.
I liked some of the topics and found them interesting and useful to know more about: e.g. homeopathy; an explanation of the "dirty dozen list" (it turns out that it lists the frequency at which pesticides are found on certain produce, and not the amount of pesticide, as I'd thought initially); various chemistry topics et al.
However, some topics I found just simply dull and more like useless trivia - stuff that won't in any way help you in your life at any point. I found it irritating that the author sometimes dedicated so many pages to such topics, and found my patience wearing thin.
While I did learn some new things, I also did not like the author's views on some of them. For instance, he accuses the organisation that drew up the "dirty dozen" list of "scare-mongering". How is the publishing of this list considered that in any way?! The public does have a right to know which foodstuffs are most likely contaminated with pesticides and which are not. I, for one, appreciate this information.
The author also talks about packaged fruit juices in another topic, and, after explaining how they are formed (flavours are added back into the juice for instance), says he is happy to drink his packaged orange juice every morning, and implies that everyone should do so as well because there's absolutely nothing wrong in that. His tone is very arrogant and condescending here.
Firstly, there's nothing wrong with people demanding "fresher" alternatives here (e.g. freshly squeezed orange juice with zero additivies). Secondly, if you want to stick to big-factory-made reconstituted and re-flavoured orange juice, that is your own choice. Do not try to impose your choice on other people or try to suggest that their reasons for rejecting such packaged juices are unjustified! The author seems to deem people idiots for saying fresh juice is better than packaged juice! And is this not so?! One taste and you can immediately tell the difference!
So my biggest gripe is the author's viewpoints and his attitude. He comes across as a big proponent of large-scale commercially produced stuff, and seems to think people who support local farmers' markets and buy organic produce are ignorant, pretentious, posh airheads. Here's a thought: if I buy organic, it's because I want less toxins in my body so my liver's load will be lighter, and not because I want more nutrients! Has anyone ever thought of that?!
I liked some of the topics and found them interesting and useful to know more about: e.g. homeopathy; an explanation of the "dirty dozen list" (it turns out that it lists the frequency at which pesticides are found on certain produce, and not the amount of pesticide, as I'd thought initially); various chemistry topics et al.
However, some topics I found just simply dull and more like useless trivia - stuff that won't in any way help you in your life at any point. I found it irritating that the author sometimes dedicated so many pages to such topics, and found my patience wearing thin.
While I did learn some new things, I also did not like the author's views on some of them. For instance, he accuses the organisation that drew up the "dirty dozen" list of "scare-mongering". How is the publishing of this list considered that in any way?! The public does have a right to know which foodstuffs are most likely contaminated with pesticides and which are not. I, for one, appreciate this information.
The author also talks about packaged fruit juices in another topic, and, after explaining how they are formed (flavours are added back into the juice for instance), says he is happy to drink his packaged orange juice every morning, and implies that everyone should do so as well because there's absolutely nothing wrong in that. His tone is very arrogant and condescending here.
Firstly, there's nothing wrong with people demanding "fresher" alternatives here (e.g. freshly squeezed orange juice with zero additivies). Secondly, if you want to stick to big-factory-made reconstituted and re-flavoured orange juice, that is your own choice. Do not try to impose your choice on other people or try to suggest that their reasons for rejecting such packaged juices are unjustified! The author seems to deem people idiots for saying fresh juice is better than packaged juice! And is this not so?! One taste and you can immediately tell the difference!
So my biggest gripe is the author's viewpoints and his attitude. He comes across as a big proponent of large-scale commercially produced stuff, and seems to think people who support local farmers' markets and buy organic produce are ignorant, pretentious, posh airheads. Here's a thought: if I buy organic, it's because I want less toxins in my body so my liver's load will be lighter, and not because I want more nutrients! Has anyone ever thought of that?!
June 28, 2014
For a book in which the introduction emphasizes critical thinking, it is littered with assumptions.
June 13, 2019
good science book but last third had a lot of less interesting facts
March 10, 2023
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
― Joe Schwarcz
A collection of facts, pseudo-science and outright not-science debunked by Joe Schwarcz. His opinions and dry (if sometimes witty) humour leaks into the text and makes for an entertaining read.
The book is divided into three: Black, for the quackery. Grey for the... hmm... right science, wrong track. And white for the solid science.
But science is ever changing. Who knows, someone might find science in some of that quackery. Perhaps the author could substantiate some of his debunking with actual research and scientific notes? For common folks like us?
― Joe Schwarcz
A collection of facts, pseudo-science and outright not-science debunked by Joe Schwarcz. His opinions and dry (if sometimes witty) humour leaks into the text and makes for an entertaining read.
The book is divided into three: Black, for the quackery. Grey for the... hmm... right science, wrong track. And white for the solid science.
But science is ever changing. Who knows, someone might find science in some of that quackery. Perhaps the author could substantiate some of his debunking with actual research and scientific notes? For common folks like us?
June 10, 2025
The first half of this book moved along and was interesting, making me think harder about the kinds of arguments and headlines I see regarding various "science-y"-sounding things. But then it felt like the Schwarcz ran out of quackery against which to rail and spent the last half of the book writing about science things he finds cool or interesting. I struggled to finish it because the writing started to feel tired.
January 30, 2023
I'm a science major focusing on medicine, so I hoped this book would be right up my ally. Unfortunately it was mostly boring, with a few interesting tidbits thrown in. It honestly felt more like a rambling on how most things are stupid and can't be proven.
November 18, 2024
Fairly well researched and interesting topics. I found the writing style to be jarring and that the author inserted himself into the book more often than necessary. The topics carry enough interest and weight on their own, I have little interest in the authors personal vs professional thoughts.
September 23, 2025
Fake news antidote
Well written and researched it oozes facts. Not a nice image but a good metaphor. This book takes you on a fascinating historical, and unfortunately, present day journey through the vagaries of alternative theories of non scientific thought.
Well written and researched it oozes facts. Not a nice image but a good metaphor. This book takes you on a fascinating historical, and unfortunately, present day journey through the vagaries of alternative theories of non scientific thought.
September 17, 2019
this is as bad as the theories he is investigating
January 27, 2021
A great audio book
November 7, 2021
The stories are interesting but the narrator of the audiobook reads them in such a way as to make it extremely boring and hard to listen to
Read
June 16, 2022Good book, interesting. I learned a few things.
July 25, 2022
It got a little too “sciency” at the end for my non-scientific brain but still a very entertaining read.
January 18, 2023
Makes the reader more curious about science. Author debunks a few popular misconceptions.
November 1, 2024
Reading this gave me a headache. The information is interesting and I absolutely believe this man knows what he's talking about. But it's clear he's more used to writing papers instead of novels.
April 18, 2025
An excellent rebuttal of the quackery people choose the believe.
July 20, 2019
While I enjoy the idea of debunking popular misconceptions and fallacies, and while I generally enjoyed this book, I found the content a bit too scattered and superficial to be truly satisfying. As one who has deep concerns about creeping anti-science attitudes bleeding into government policy, I found his attitude betrayed classic elitist assumptions: scoffing at the farcical claims of homeopathic medicine, for instance, he is quite content to say "what bunk" and move on. Dude: what do we do about the fact that this bullshit is being recognized in various official ways, as something that I am indirectly expected to pay for out of the common weal? It is not going away just because you have now shown how scientifically-unfounded it is. In terms of tone and focus I much preferred Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, although this is now far too out of date to be a good current recommendation.
The book is divided into three sections: Black, pure BS; Gray, mix of facts and BS, and White, (I guess) opposite of BS. My favorite thing I will take away comes from the White section, describing the history of mirrors and mirror-making. There was a guy named Liebig, who developed a way of making the reflective layer out of silver. (Established process at the time involved mercury, very dangerous for the mirror-makers).
The book is divided into three sections: Black, pure BS; Gray, mix of facts and BS, and White, (I guess) opposite of BS. My favorite thing I will take away comes from the White section, describing the history of mirrors and mirror-making. There was a guy named Liebig, who developed a way of making the reflective layer out of silver. (Established process at the time involved mercury, very dangerous for the mirror-makers).
"Although Liebig's process produced high-quality reflective surfaces, it also produced problems. One of the byproducts of the reaction was ammonium nitrate, an explosive! In fact, if a residue of this substance was left on the mirror, the mirror could crack at the slightest disturbance. This possibility is the origin of the notion that an ugly face can crack a mirror."I know, right? !!!
April 20, 2015
What’s attractive about book debunking urban myths and exposing frauds? It’s not just the promise of being well-informed, but very much the satisfaction of laughing at the expense of those we imagine are too stubborn or stupid to see the light. The latest book in this genre of exposé is Joe Schwarcz’s Is That a Fact? Frauds, Quacks, and the Real Science of Everyday Life.
The book starts off promising to entertain with a great introduction, stressing the need to think critically, assessing the problem of popular scientific misinformation, and discussing the limitations and difficulties that plague scientific research. But it quickly goes downhill with a rather boring review of should-be-obviously-wrong beliefs. Unlike similar debunking books that are upbeat in tone and fun to read, Schwarcz is dull. His explanations are bogged down in a lot of scientific lingo, and too often he just resorts to the “Well, it’s obviously stupid to believe this” sort of attitude. As if that’s actually going to help the reader!
When discussing things whose status is verified or yet to be determined, Schwarcz is a lot more balanced and easier to read. However, by then I was disillusioned with the book. Schwarcz just doesn’t deliver. Worse yet, he proves that even he’s not immune to quackery, eagerly taking up the banner of his favorite fad diet. Given his heavy use of science, readers with backgrounds in chemistry might appreciate Is That a Fact. However, the majority who just want to be entertained by a scientist uncovering the truth about Youngevity and Dr. Oz should probably look elsewhere.
The book starts off promising to entertain with a great introduction, stressing the need to think critically, assessing the problem of popular scientific misinformation, and discussing the limitations and difficulties that plague scientific research. But it quickly goes downhill with a rather boring review of should-be-obviously-wrong beliefs. Unlike similar debunking books that are upbeat in tone and fun to read, Schwarcz is dull. His explanations are bogged down in a lot of scientific lingo, and too often he just resorts to the “Well, it’s obviously stupid to believe this” sort of attitude. As if that’s actually going to help the reader!
When discussing things whose status is verified or yet to be determined, Schwarcz is a lot more balanced and easier to read. However, by then I was disillusioned with the book. Schwarcz just doesn’t deliver. Worse yet, he proves that even he’s not immune to quackery, eagerly taking up the banner of his favorite fad diet. Given his heavy use of science, readers with backgrounds in chemistry might appreciate Is That a Fact. However, the majority who just want to be entertained by a scientist uncovering the truth about Youngevity and Dr. Oz should probably look elsewhere.
November 30, 2015
This book was okay.
The book is divided into three parts based upon scientific merit of the topics discussed. The first part deals with highly popular pseudoscientific fads. Unfortunately, the author doesn't go into why these ideas have no merit and merely calls them hogwash, which won't help sway popular opinion to empirical-based diets, medicines, etc. The middle part deals with things that have some scientific merit. This part of the book is the strongest since it discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the topic. The last part of the book is supposed to deal with topics that have high scientific merit, but seemed pretty disjointed, rushed, and masturbatory. What confused me the most was that the unscientific part of the book was driven by a lot of health-related topics, yet there seemed to be no common theme between the empirical-based topics.
All this book really accomplishes is preaching to the choir of people who support evidence-based medicine and other health-related items. It won't convince people that their fads are really just snake oil nor will it teach people how to critically think about how products are advertised to them.
The book is divided into three parts based upon scientific merit of the topics discussed. The first part deals with highly popular pseudoscientific fads. Unfortunately, the author doesn't go into why these ideas have no merit and merely calls them hogwash, which won't help sway popular opinion to empirical-based diets, medicines, etc. The middle part deals with things that have some scientific merit. This part of the book is the strongest since it discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the topic. The last part of the book is supposed to deal with topics that have high scientific merit, but seemed pretty disjointed, rushed, and masturbatory. What confused me the most was that the unscientific part of the book was driven by a lot of health-related topics, yet there seemed to be no common theme between the empirical-based topics.
All this book really accomplishes is preaching to the choir of people who support evidence-based medicine and other health-related items. It won't convince people that their fads are really just snake oil nor will it teach people how to critically think about how products are advertised to them.
October 5, 2015
4 1/2 stars for this one. I really liked the first two sections where it talks about different popular frauds and schemes and misinformation. Topics range from the HCG diet, to Dr. Oz, pink slime, fish oil, homeopathy, colonic cleanses and much more. It was really interesting to see the "science" (or more likely, lack of science) behind each of these things. Mr. Schwarcz really makes you see the world differently and be more skeptical so as not to be drawn into these fads that will take your money but deliver very little by way of results, other than possible placebo effects. The last third of the book was about everyday science which was interesting but didn't really fit in with the first 2/3rds of the book. It included things about static electricity, how ironing works, how dry ice works etc. This section of the book felt very disjointed and didn't flow as well as the earlier sections. This was a very interesting and informative book.
March 30, 2015
Short, highly readable pieces about a vast array of issues of chemistry in modern life. Many, not surprisingly, are about how things can't possibly work, like homeopathy. Other pieces consider new science discoveries, the worthlessness of all those "miracle food" stories (and the very thin research behind them), and how to critically evaluate some forms of risk. A good introduction to the subject for those who aren't already skeptically literate, and a fun browse for those who are.
Library copy
Library copy
August 17, 2015
I enjoyed the light hearted banter and the serious commitment of the book to pass on scientific information to the consumer. From antioxidents to colonic cleanses, we are given sufficient data to make up our own minds about various hot topics. The role of protein in diets and the value of raspberry ketones are topics that are discussed and dissed. Marketers are ever ready to capitalize on the latest trends - we need to have accurate information before deciding to spend big dollars on the latest trends.
August 19, 2018
This book has three sections - Black, Grey, and White. The Black and Grey sections deal with the dicey areas of advertising, the internet, and science. The White section deals with the hows of science. The Black and Grey sections force you to start questioning what you hear and read. This was good. My favorite part of the book was the White section - the hows of science; it also deals with the history of some of the science and I'm always interested history.
August 10, 2016
Wonderful book covering many topics of everyday interest. The author goes into great depth on each scientific topic, yet the book is highly entertaining. Each section is independent so the reader can pick the book up and read one section at a time. Great summer time book to take on vacation or read at home!
April 30, 2015
Written by a clear supporter of evidence based research which is a good way to expose things that "feel right" but aren't true. The author wanders through various topics like GMOs, antibiotics, and homeopathy with a trained chemist's eye. There's a lot of misinformation out there and this book cuts through some of it. His witticism makes this an even more enjoyable read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews