This book has an interesting concept: using marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism and applying it to modern science. This has a twofold purpose: it can allow us to understand science and interpret complex phenomena in a materialist and dialectical way and it can also allow us to make judgments regarding scientific theories.
The first purpose is perfectly fine since some theories such as quantum theory are so complex that they cannot be understood in “normal terms” as they go beyond what we are used to. There are various understandings of quantum theory such as the famous “many worlds” interpretation. Attempting to understand concepts in physics such as relativity and quantum theory from a materialist perspective does not go against science since a philosophical interpretation cannot really be “wrong” as long as it doesn’t contradict the science.
The major flaw with this book arises from the second purpose mentioned above: making judgments about scientific theories based on philosophy. Reason in Revolt details the history of many of the theories that it studies and a common theme among them is the dogmatic resistance to science offered by religion. Many religious figures rejected science because it went against their beliefs such as with Galileo. What is interesting is that the authors of the book are doing the same but with dialectical materialism. Possibly this can be an example of the negation of the negation: they are dogmatically rejecting science like the religious people did before, just on a higher level ! The authors sacrifice scientific rigour in order to push a narrative (that is not to say that many of their criticisms are wrong or that scientists don’t often do the same thing). For example, they reject the existence of black hole singularities and even the Big Bang. They also make many false claims based on misunderstandings of the theory of relativity. This clearly shows the lack of scientific experience of the authors. I don’t think one needs to be a scientist in order to criticize scientific ideas or theories; any educated person can make a valid criticism if they study the topic enough. What is wrong is making a criticism based on a philosophy and not based on the evidence. Many of the claims made in this book aged poorly since the publication date and it really puts what the authors say in question. Simply, trying to disprove a scientific theory using a philosophical argument will never work in your favour.
I have read many books that I disagree with but this is a book that is objectively wrong. I cannot agree or disagree with this book because it is not a matter of opinion. While I do appreciate the effort to demystify science using materialism, I recognize that it can be done properly to explain scientific concepts without rejecting them. If the science disagrees with Engels and one must be rejected, let it be Engels. This is also the general flaw with “orthodox” marxism that refuses to recognize flaws in the reasoning of the great gods of marxism. As a socialist, I think that it is essential to preserve the useful ideas from Marx and co. while rejecting those that have been discredited. Luckily, most of these great philosophers’ works are critiques of capitalism which are still correct. It is only their attempts at science that are misinformed. Also, dialectical materialism should not be used outside of its intended scope: it is a tool for societal analysis, not a metaphysical one. As rational people, we must do better than to reject science which will only hurt our cause in the long run. Now, one of the biggest socialist political groups in the world is openly denying well supported science and I can promise that it is not a good look. Also, the book is overly long and repetitive but that is a minor criticism. I will mot give this book the lowest rating because it is not offensive like some other books. It is just misguided and I hope that eventually Alan Woods will realize his mistakes (but probably not). 2/5