What do you think?
Rate this book
The Death of Science: The Retreat from Reason in the Post-Modern World
The Death of Science
Science is on its death bed. Lies, specious argument and fraud abound in a variety of scientific endeavours including the treatment and vaccines for Covid-19. Managers and politicians have taken over where previously the scientists were in charge. They have been able to utilise the bizarre language and contradictory processes of political correctness, making themselves into the high priests of a new religion, one which spawns more politically correct managers and despises experts
But there is hope and possible answers are proposed.
Comments about the book
" ...alleged scientific certainty is today being scandalously exploited to serve a perception of truth….. The views expressed in this book are timely and important ….” Sir Richard Dearlove KCMG OBE
"We are following the science was the strap line that led in the UK to a national catastrophe from which we are still recovering….Issues have become battlegrounds for ideological debates rather than reasoned discussions based on scientific consensus…." Professor Karol Sikora.
This book must be read widely. The message is extremely important and is well presented
Science is on its death bed. Lies, specious argument and fraud abound in a variety of scientific endeavours including the treatment and vaccines for Covid-19. Managers and politicians have taken over where previously the scientists were in charge. They have been able to utilise the bizarre language and contradictory processes of political correctness, making themselves into the high priests of a new religion, one which spawns more politically correct managers and despises experts
But there is hope and possible answers are proposed.
Comments about the book
" ...alleged scientific certainty is today being scandalously exploited to serve a perception of truth….. The views expressed in this book are timely and important ….” Sir Richard Dearlove KCMG OBE
"We are following the science was the strap line that led in the UK to a national catastrophe from which we are still recovering….Issues have become battlegrounds for ideological debates rather than reasoned discussions based on scientific consensus…." Professor Karol Sikora.
This book must be read widely. The message is extremely important and is well presented
436 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 9, 2023
201 people are currently reading
103 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 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 3, 2024
This is essentially a collection of essays by different authors. The best chapter by far was the Origins of Life and the Cosmos by Chandra Wickramasinghe MBE closely followed by Drugs and Drug Policy by Professor David Nutt both experts in their field offering genuine insights. These are interspersed with chapters by the editors mostly about Covid-19 but others on far ranging and poorly integrated topics. Frankly some of these read like the rantings of a group of disgruntled old mates down the pub. Occasionally they make a good point but in such a superficial and biased manner it’s hard to take them seriously. The chapter on nutrition would be considered pitiful for a high school science essay. Overall the book lacks purpose, depth, cohesion or meaningful conclusions. Hardly a paragon of science.
March 4, 2025
My first impressions of this book are mixed- I love the concept but already it feels weak. The first full chapter has poor grammar and feels quite disjointed. Things are mentioned that are interesting, but I can't see where they've come from. It's understandable that a medical doctor may not be perfect at writing, it is not their specialty. However, simple editing could have prevented this (although the first chapter is written by the editors). I also find it a bit ironic that a key theme in this book is misinformation, while they make bold statements with no backing and have, from my perspective, a clear bias. As it is the introduction, I'm hoping they delve into these points later in the book. Despite this, I have found myself highlighting points of the text to come back to. The authors so far have touched on factors I wouldn't have considered otherwise, and make some very interesting points around this. They provide us with an overview of relevant history and recent topics. To conclude, I will continue to read this book, as many talented individuals have contributed to the text, although the quality of writing so far could have been improved.
Edit- I gave up. It feels like a bunch of self righteous men rattling on about some theories they think are absolute fact. Furthermore, I feel they are forgetting that by talking about COVID-19, they're not talking about distant history, they're discussing an event that affected every reader in some way or another, not so long ago. I'm sure there is some good stuff in here, but personally I just can't get there. Also, a section of one of the authors essays was featured in an early chapter, but it felt bias to quote ones own text, and was just a copy rather than an evaluation.
Edit- I gave up. It feels like a bunch of self righteous men rattling on about some theories they think are absolute fact. Furthermore, I feel they are forgetting that by talking about COVID-19, they're not talking about distant history, they're discussing an event that affected every reader in some way or another, not so long ago. I'm sure there is some good stuff in here, but personally I just can't get there. Also, a section of one of the authors essays was featured in an early chapter, but it felt bias to quote ones own text, and was just a copy rather than an evaluation.
January 20, 2025
There may be important information in this book, especially in the chapters dealing with "the Covid," but the authors' horror of anything woke or politically correct undermines, not only their arguments, but evidently their ability to think. The first chapter lays out laudable principles of good science, but then, in the very next chapter, the authors appear unable to follow their own rules. Overall, I am glad to have read the book, on the basis that it offers an insight into the flawed reasoning of the highly educated but determinedly woke-phobic mind.
August 21, 2025
an overweening and unsupported opinion piece
I admit up front I didn't read all of this.
The foreword and preface were pompous and full of unsubstantiated opinion. There seemed to be a lot of defensiveness around British history in one part, but most of all, what I read was an unsubstantiated rant against a straw man. The supposed opposition to science has always been there; the perversion of the better aspects of culture by the very rich is not new, the mass ignorance of science is perennial, and fresh, sharp and interesting scientific endeavour is probably more active now than it ever was.
I stopped reading because it was not worth reading and not well written.
I admit up front I didn't read all of this.
The foreword and preface were pompous and full of unsubstantiated opinion. There seemed to be a lot of defensiveness around British history in one part, but most of all, what I read was an unsubstantiated rant against a straw man. The supposed opposition to science has always been there; the perversion of the better aspects of culture by the very rich is not new, the mass ignorance of science is perennial, and fresh, sharp and interesting scientific endeavour is probably more active now than it ever was.
I stopped reading because it was not worth reading and not well written.
December 4, 2025
Some interesting ideas, but it seemed a little unfocused and simplistic, with far more unevidenced opinionated insistence, than I would have expected in a book about the importance of proper evidenced scientific methodologies.
The opening chapter set the scene, but it gave a simplistic and culturally narrow perspective on the problems it cited, like the rise of Postmodernism. Blaming it on literary criticism, quantum mechanics and relativity is a very Anglo-American way of looking at matters.
In Europe they also talk about disillusionment and scepticism with science and technology, especially given its role in the two horrendous wars of the twentieth century. The (atheistic) dictators often appealed to science, and whether it be Nazi eugenics or Allied Nuclear bombs, its easy to see why in the post-war years there might have been negativity about science and its appeal to rationality.
Similarly, it was suggested that Science was rekindled in Europe due to Byzantium scholars moving here during the renaissance. Yes the influx of Greek speaking scholars certainly had a big impact on the revival of Greek (and Plato). But where it the evidence to prove that it drove science? An alternative thesis might cite scientific development as due to an appeal to rationality as a way of bridging the differences evident in the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. What I would have expected in a book like this, is for the authors to present evidence and identify which explanation or theory was more or less plausible on the basis of evidence.
One of the problems which I felt ran through several chapters was that they cited contemporary issues and problems to do with funding, plagiarism, unfairness and other sharp practices. They sound wrong and they sound as if they should be called out. But are they “more” wrong than what has happened in previous centuries. We can find sharp practices in every century. If the authors are writing a book that suggests science is particularly troubled at the moment, then where is the evidence to show that things are worse, than they have always been? That case just wasn’t made.
Among the chapters there were some interesting points which were well made when they were accompanied with footnotes and citation of evidence. But there were also entire pages of opinions without a single footnote or appeal to evidence. Chapter 5 even included some citations of Wikipedia.
I think chapter 18 illustrates what I found least helpful about the book. It was entitled ‘Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology’ so I expected it to focus on the general fields. But it very quickly got bogged down in lower level specific issues, such as the interpretation of dark matter and the higgs boson. There was even a bit in the middle where the author explained his own person views about consciousness. What has any of that to do with Physics-as-a-whole? And again, all that the chapter really tells us is that there are egos and fashions which drive scientific perspectives. But is that any different than what we can read about in the classic era of eighteenth and nineteenth century science?
Overall, I thought that this was a good idea for a book, but it felt like an unfinished project. There are some good raw materials here, for a book. But it needs writing in a more “scientific” way which uses evidence to argue specific theses which show (or don’t show) that there really is a problem in modern science, as compared to how science has worked (or not worked) previously.
The opening chapter set the scene, but it gave a simplistic and culturally narrow perspective on the problems it cited, like the rise of Postmodernism. Blaming it on literary criticism, quantum mechanics and relativity is a very Anglo-American way of looking at matters.
In Europe they also talk about disillusionment and scepticism with science and technology, especially given its role in the two horrendous wars of the twentieth century. The (atheistic) dictators often appealed to science, and whether it be Nazi eugenics or Allied Nuclear bombs, its easy to see why in the post-war years there might have been negativity about science and its appeal to rationality.
Similarly, it was suggested that Science was rekindled in Europe due to Byzantium scholars moving here during the renaissance. Yes the influx of Greek speaking scholars certainly had a big impact on the revival of Greek (and Plato). But where it the evidence to prove that it drove science? An alternative thesis might cite scientific development as due to an appeal to rationality as a way of bridging the differences evident in the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. What I would have expected in a book like this, is for the authors to present evidence and identify which explanation or theory was more or less plausible on the basis of evidence.
One of the problems which I felt ran through several chapters was that they cited contemporary issues and problems to do with funding, plagiarism, unfairness and other sharp practices. They sound wrong and they sound as if they should be called out. But are they “more” wrong than what has happened in previous centuries. We can find sharp practices in every century. If the authors are writing a book that suggests science is particularly troubled at the moment, then where is the evidence to show that things are worse, than they have always been? That case just wasn’t made.
Among the chapters there were some interesting points which were well made when they were accompanied with footnotes and citation of evidence. But there were also entire pages of opinions without a single footnote or appeal to evidence. Chapter 5 even included some citations of Wikipedia.
I think chapter 18 illustrates what I found least helpful about the book. It was entitled ‘Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology’ so I expected it to focus on the general fields. But it very quickly got bogged down in lower level specific issues, such as the interpretation of dark matter and the higgs boson. There was even a bit in the middle where the author explained his own person views about consciousness. What has any of that to do with Physics-as-a-whole? And again, all that the chapter really tells us is that there are egos and fashions which drive scientific perspectives. But is that any different than what we can read about in the classic era of eighteenth and nineteenth century science?
Overall, I thought that this was a good idea for a book, but it felt like an unfinished project. There are some good raw materials here, for a book. But it needs writing in a more “scientific” way which uses evidence to argue specific theses which show (or don’t show) that there really is a problem in modern science, as compared to how science has worked (or not worked) previously.
August 6, 2025
Painful
I assumed this book was about the philosophy of science. It is not that it is entirely devoid that of, more than it is not the main theme. The main theme is COVID. After the first couple of hundred pages there are a few chapters from other contributors which are interesting enough but feel a bit out of place.
I found it a difficult read pretty quickly, and don't think I've ever read a book with so many non-ironic references to "woke" or "political correctness". I read some reviews when I started to struggle, and knew I was in for a rough ride. I decided I'd like to try and finish, and be open minded. I'm afraid "the rebound effect" probably occurred which isn't what the authors were going for. I did finish it, but it took me several weeks (normally a book of this length would take me a few days, maybe a week if it was a bit hard going).
It's disjointed, ranty in places, mixed/strange register, the formatting is off (in the ebook) and the grammar is strange. It reads more like a rushed blog. If you like reading......books like this!!Then maybe this one.....will be for you. It is very distracting having sentences start without spaces.Like this.Or really heavy use of ellipses (except longer.....)!! You might expect this from a self published novel by a new writer but it seems odd from two editors who have experience in academic writing. The contents are not without any merit but it's very "up and down", and overall not worth the effort. I also don't feel entirely safe accepting some things that are stated when you look at the references (or lack of) and clear "axe to grind" the authors have, although I didn't choose to add checking every single reference to my reading experience. Reading some of the emails in the appendices was painful. I did consider giving is 2 stars as there is some interesting information in there but the reading experience is possibly the worst I've ever had so I can't bring myself to do that.
I assumed this book was about the philosophy of science. It is not that it is entirely devoid that of, more than it is not the main theme. The main theme is COVID. After the first couple of hundred pages there are a few chapters from other contributors which are interesting enough but feel a bit out of place.
I found it a difficult read pretty quickly, and don't think I've ever read a book with so many non-ironic references to "woke" or "political correctness". I read some reviews when I started to struggle, and knew I was in for a rough ride. I decided I'd like to try and finish, and be open minded. I'm afraid "the rebound effect" probably occurred which isn't what the authors were going for. I did finish it, but it took me several weeks (normally a book of this length would take me a few days, maybe a week if it was a bit hard going).
It's disjointed, ranty in places, mixed/strange register, the formatting is off (in the ebook) and the grammar is strange. It reads more like a rushed blog. If you like reading......books like this!!Then maybe this one.....will be for you. It is very distracting having sentences start without spaces.Like this.Or really heavy use of ellipses (except longer.....)!! You might expect this from a self published novel by a new writer but it seems odd from two editors who have experience in academic writing. The contents are not without any merit but it's very "up and down", and overall not worth the effort. I also don't feel entirely safe accepting some things that are stated when you look at the references (or lack of) and clear "axe to grind" the authors have, although I didn't choose to add checking every single reference to my reading experience. Reading some of the emails in the appendices was painful. I did consider giving is 2 stars as there is some interesting information in there but the reading experience is possibly the worst I've ever had so I can't bring myself to do that.
March 22, 2024
Essential reading on the decline of scientific endeavour
Written quickly, so with a few typographical blemishes but recognizing that speed is of the essence.
The modern politicization of scientific enquiry is thoroughly documented, but distinguished from historically similar activities due to the vastly greater impact current research has on the well-being of people around the world today.
Written quickly, so with a few typographical blemishes but recognizing that speed is of the essence.
The modern politicization of scientific enquiry is thoroughly documented, but distinguished from historically similar activities due to the vastly greater impact current research has on the well-being of people around the world today.
March 10, 2024
Death of Science
Generally very useful, but with a few questionable statements here and there which, along with the somewhat generous allocation of exclamation marks, tended to reduce, rather than enhance, its impact.
Generally very useful, but with a few questionable statements here and there which, along with the somewhat generous allocation of exclamation marks, tended to reduce, rather than enhance, its impact.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews