What do you think?
Rate this book
Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?
"[Gardner] zaps his targets with laserlike precision and wit."― Entertainment Weekly Martin Gardner is perhaps the wittiest, most devastating unmasker of scientific fraud and intellectual chicanery of our time. Here he muses on topics as diverse as numerology, New Age anthropology, and the late Senator Claiborne Pell's obsession with UFOs, as he mines Americans' seemingly inexhaustible appetite for bad science. Gardner's funny, brilliantly unsettling exposés of reflexology and urine therapy should be required reading for anyone interested in "alternative" medicine. In a world increasingly tilted toward superstition, Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? will give those of us who prize logic and common sense immense solace and inspiration. "Gardner is a national treasure...I wish [this] could be made compulsory reading in every high school―and in Congress."―Arthur C. Clarke "Nobody alive has done more than Gardner to spread the understanding and appreciation of mathematics, and to dispel superstition."― The New Criterion , John Derbyshire
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
18 people are currently reading
461 people want to read
About the author
Martin Gardner
492 books506 followersMartin Gardner was an American mathematics and science writer specializing in recreational mathematics, but with interests encompassing micromagic, stage magic, literature (especially the writings of Lewis Carroll), philosophy, scientific skepticism, and religion. He wrote the Mathematical Games column in Scientific American from 1956 to 1981, and published over 70 books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
December 18, 2021
I should have loved this book, as it sounded like it would fit right in with my penchant for books on obscure topics. Instead, it took me nearly a year to finish, and I only did so out of pure stubbornness. I found Gardner's attitude to be highly off-putting. Are all of the topics he discusses obviously quack theories, easily disputed? Absolutely. But the way in which he does so seemed overly mean-spirited. I felt more like I was reading the merciless teasing of a playground bully than a rational scientific discourse on pseudoscientific theories.
I was also disappointed that Gardner appears to have simply lifted each of these chapters from the columns he produced for The Skeptical Inquirer over the years and tacked an addendum onto the end, rather than taking the time to rework the material as needed.
I was also disappointed that Gardner appears to have simply lifted each of these chapters from the columns he produced for The Skeptical Inquirer over the years and tacked an addendum onto the end, rather than taking the time to rework the material as needed.
July 7, 2011
This book has the potential to be a phenomenal read, if only because of the immense amount of facts and knowledge that the author obviously has, but seriously lacks all types of conviction. The second chapter alone reads like a discourse on what apocalypic movies to watch or not watch, but offers nothing in terms of insight or opinion. Good try, but totally off the mark.
February 14, 2013
What a disappointment.
I've adored Martin Gardner since I first picked up "The Annotated Alice", and he was a one-of-a-kind historian, raconteur, critic, and general pioneer of common sense and rational thinking. I was also amazed, given he was very old at the time of writing this book, to think that he had it in him.
Instead, what I soon learned was that this book was clearly put together from essays, reviews, articles, and other miscellanea previously written. Which is fine, in and of itself. Malcolm Gladwell does the same thing. However in this case, most of these articles just don't work in this context.
Take, for instance, his chapter on the possibilities of extinction by meteor -- it falls off into a film critique of two Hollywood blockbusters! And not even a critique of the science, just of his dislike for the films in general! These may have worked in a weekly newspaper column or some such, but don't have the coherence and sting to be a major chapter in a book. By a similar notion, some of the articles that debunk or analyse heavy physics do so without providing enough information to the layman. Evidently they were first written for scientific magazines that catered to a more niche crowd.
Some chapters, even worse, don't "debunk" at all, as the title claims. Gardner just explains the issue at heart, and then maybe gives a brief precis of why people do it. His chapter on cult suicides is admittedly a tough example, since explaining that kind of situation is a complex debate. However, Gardner neither explains nor debunks. He effectively just recounts what happens, without looking at the science or psychology of cult worship and leadership, nor really debunking (beyond the obvious "it's ridiculous) the theories those people held.
I won't hold this against the memory of the late Mr. Gardner, since he was a remarkable man. But this book shouldn't have seen the light of day.
I've adored Martin Gardner since I first picked up "The Annotated Alice", and he was a one-of-a-kind historian, raconteur, critic, and general pioneer of common sense and rational thinking. I was also amazed, given he was very old at the time of writing this book, to think that he had it in him.
Instead, what I soon learned was that this book was clearly put together from essays, reviews, articles, and other miscellanea previously written. Which is fine, in and of itself. Malcolm Gladwell does the same thing. However in this case, most of these articles just don't work in this context.
Take, for instance, his chapter on the possibilities of extinction by meteor -- it falls off into a film critique of two Hollywood blockbusters! And not even a critique of the science, just of his dislike for the films in general! These may have worked in a weekly newspaper column or some such, but don't have the coherence and sting to be a major chapter in a book. By a similar notion, some of the articles that debunk or analyse heavy physics do so without providing enough information to the layman. Evidently they were first written for scientific magazines that catered to a more niche crowd.
Some chapters, even worse, don't "debunk" at all, as the title claims. Gardner just explains the issue at heart, and then maybe gives a brief precis of why people do it. His chapter on cult suicides is admittedly a tough example, since explaining that kind of situation is a complex debate. However, Gardner neither explains nor debunks. He effectively just recounts what happens, without looking at the science or psychology of cult worship and leadership, nor really debunking (beyond the obvious "it's ridiculous) the theories those people held.
I won't hold this against the memory of the late Mr. Gardner, since he was a remarkable man. But this book shouldn't have seen the light of day.
xx-dnf-skim-reference
December 31, 2019These debunking books by Gardner typically address stuff that nobody who I know considers plausible. But this had a couple of chapters worth reading if you're interested.
May 12, 2020
Heavy on quotes, which makes for a reading slog; and a bit dated due to it being a twenty year old compilation of even more aged columns, but interesting on the whole.
August 27, 2025
GARDNER ATTACKS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SUBJECTS AND PERSONS
Martin Gardner (1914-2010) was an American popular science writer, who wrote a column in Scientific American for twenty-five years; he was also one of the founders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2000 book, “Most of the chapters in this collection are attacks on far-out cases of pseudoscience. I am aware of the difficulties involving … the task of formulating sharp criteria for distinguishing good science from bad. Clearly no such criteria are precise. Pseudoscience is a fuzzy word that refers to a vague portion of a continuum on which there are no sharp boundaries.” (Pg. 1) He adds, “Alas, every year the flood [of pseudoscience] gets worse… you need only to visit any mall bookstore and compare the size of its New Age or metaphysical section with its science section. Books on astrology far outnumber books on astronomy. As the late Carl Sagan liked to point out, there are more professional astrologers in the United States than there are astronomers. The scene is just as dismal, if not worse, in other countries.” (Pg. 3)
Discussing a PBS program about Harold Puthoff’s ‘Zero-Point Energy’ research, he points out, “Puthoff… twenty years ago validated the psychic powers of Uri Geller. In 1976 Puthoff and his friend Russell Targ were on the staff of what was then called the Scientific Research Institute (SRI)… Prior to his work at SRI, Puthoff was an active Scientologist. He had been declared what the group calls a ‘clear’… When Puthoff married, a Scientology minister performed the ceremony. The Church of Scientology proudly published a 1970 notarized letter written by Puthoff when he was a Stanford University physicist specializing in laser research… I do not know what Puthoff now believes … about the ‘genius’ of L. Ron Hubbard… Puthoff is now on record as saying he is no longer associated with Scientology, but how much of it does he still buy?” (Pg. 60-63)
Of Jean Houston, he comments, “Outside New Age circles, the public knew little about Jean Houston until Bob Woodward, in his 1996 book ‘The Choice,’ devoted ten pages to how Houston and Hillary Rodham Clinton … had many sessions … during which, as a mental exercise, the First lady held imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and mahatma Gandhi… Houston and her husband, Robert E.L. Masters have an abiding interest in channeling… Houston and Masters began their careers by experimenting with LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs as a way of tapping the collective unconscious. Their first book, ‘Varieties of Psychedelic Experience’ (1966) created a sensation among young people then experimenting with such drugs at the urging of the late Timothy Leary… For three decades Houston and her late husband conducted thousands of pseudochanneling sessions with subjects at their Foundation for Mind Research…” (Pg.124-125) Later, he adds, “There is no doubt about her close mother-daughter relationship for many years with the elderly and ill Margaret Mead. Mead was a strong believer in psychic phenomena and the reality of visits to Earth by extraterrestrials in UFOs… Houston is also a good friend of Mead’s daughter Mary Bateson, who accompanied Houston on many of her sessions with Hillary Clinton.” (Pg. 130)
Of Carlos Castaneda, he notes, “In 1968, Carlos was an anthropology student at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) when the university’s press published his first book, ‘The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge.’ The book hit the New Age market like a bombshell… In 1972, UCLA, in a fit of self-deception, gave Carlos a doctorate in anthropology. His thesis was based on ‘Journey to Ixtlan’… mainstream anthropologists were outraged… Irate anthropologists demanded that the university withdraw Castaneda’s Ph.D. It refused… In 1999 the University of California Press, motivated by shameless greed, issued the thirtieth anniversary edition of Carlos’s first book. They promoted it not as a work of pseudo-anthropology but as a classic still relevant to readers…” (Pg. 163-164)
Of Courtney Brown’s book ‘Cosmic Voyage: A Scientific Discovery of Extraterrestrials Visiting Earth,’ he says, “My first reaction to this preposterous book was ‘It’s a hoax.’ But no, Courtney Brown really exists. An associate professor of political science at Emory University... he has written several books about social science and one on mathematics… Brown says that after TM (Transcendental Meditation) training---his wife is a TM instructor---he mastered the advanced TM-Sidhi Program, which teaches ‘Yogic flying’… and walking through walls… According to Brown, millions of years ago a race of hairless humanoids lived on Mars… A wandering comet… [rendered] the red planet unfit for habitation. The Martians were forced to move into underground caverns, where most of them live today… Brown urges our government to abandon its stupid policy of secrecy and openly seek contacts with the … Martians… It is a sad story of an intelligent, sincere man who has turned himself into a gullible dunce. It will be amusing to see how he reacts a few years from now, after the Martian probes find no traces of an advanced Martian civilization.” (Pg. 185-186, 190)
Of Marshall Appelwhite and Bonnie Lu Trousdale Nettles and their ‘Heaven’s Gate’ cult, he recounts, “[They] began calling themselves The Two. They came to believe they were the ‘two witnesses’ described in Chapter 11 of Revelation… those who attended early cult meetings, mostly on college campuses, have testified to the pair’s persuasive rhetoric… Precise details about the cult’s nomadic history remain obscure… It’s not easy to believe, but the cult received so much media attention in the late seventies that a TV series called ‘The Mysterious Two’ was planned. A pilot actually aired in 1982 featuring John Forsythe and Priscilla Pointer as The Two.” (Pg. 199-201)
He wrote, “Another piece of evidence that Temple University is sliding into absurdity involves UFOs. On Temple’s faculty as an associate professor of history is David Jacobs, one of our nation’s most energetic promoters of the reality of human abductions by extraterrestrial aliens… Although Jacobs has had no training in psychology, psychiatry, or hypnotherapy, he uses hypnotism to induce his patients… to develop strong memories of horrendous abductions even though many patients had no such memories until hypnotized… Jacobs’s patients routinely report incredible sexual molestations… You might suppose Jacobs would look favorably on other UFO researchers using hypnosis … Not so. For example, he regards John Mack, Harvard’s embarrassing psychiatrist who has also written a book about UFO abductions, as incompetent and gullible.” (Pg. 226-227)
While Gardner’s book at times is too focused on ‘ad hominem’ attacks, this is nevertheless a book that will be “must reading” for the skeptically-minded.
Martin Gardner (1914-2010) was an American popular science writer, who wrote a column in Scientific American for twenty-five years; he was also one of the founders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2000 book, “Most of the chapters in this collection are attacks on far-out cases of pseudoscience. I am aware of the difficulties involving … the task of formulating sharp criteria for distinguishing good science from bad. Clearly no such criteria are precise. Pseudoscience is a fuzzy word that refers to a vague portion of a continuum on which there are no sharp boundaries.” (Pg. 1) He adds, “Alas, every year the flood [of pseudoscience] gets worse… you need only to visit any mall bookstore and compare the size of its New Age or metaphysical section with its science section. Books on astrology far outnumber books on astronomy. As the late Carl Sagan liked to point out, there are more professional astrologers in the United States than there are astronomers. The scene is just as dismal, if not worse, in other countries.” (Pg. 3)
Discussing a PBS program about Harold Puthoff’s ‘Zero-Point Energy’ research, he points out, “Puthoff… twenty years ago validated the psychic powers of Uri Geller. In 1976 Puthoff and his friend Russell Targ were on the staff of what was then called the Scientific Research Institute (SRI)… Prior to his work at SRI, Puthoff was an active Scientologist. He had been declared what the group calls a ‘clear’… When Puthoff married, a Scientology minister performed the ceremony. The Church of Scientology proudly published a 1970 notarized letter written by Puthoff when he was a Stanford University physicist specializing in laser research… I do not know what Puthoff now believes … about the ‘genius’ of L. Ron Hubbard… Puthoff is now on record as saying he is no longer associated with Scientology, but how much of it does he still buy?” (Pg. 60-63)
Of Jean Houston, he comments, “Outside New Age circles, the public knew little about Jean Houston until Bob Woodward, in his 1996 book ‘The Choice,’ devoted ten pages to how Houston and Hillary Rodham Clinton … had many sessions … during which, as a mental exercise, the First lady held imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and mahatma Gandhi… Houston and her husband, Robert E.L. Masters have an abiding interest in channeling… Houston and Masters began their careers by experimenting with LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs as a way of tapping the collective unconscious. Their first book, ‘Varieties of Psychedelic Experience’ (1966) created a sensation among young people then experimenting with such drugs at the urging of the late Timothy Leary… For three decades Houston and her late husband conducted thousands of pseudochanneling sessions with subjects at their Foundation for Mind Research…” (Pg.124-125) Later, he adds, “There is no doubt about her close mother-daughter relationship for many years with the elderly and ill Margaret Mead. Mead was a strong believer in psychic phenomena and the reality of visits to Earth by extraterrestrials in UFOs… Houston is also a good friend of Mead’s daughter Mary Bateson, who accompanied Houston on many of her sessions with Hillary Clinton.” (Pg. 130)
Of Carlos Castaneda, he notes, “In 1968, Carlos was an anthropology student at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) when the university’s press published his first book, ‘The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge.’ The book hit the New Age market like a bombshell… In 1972, UCLA, in a fit of self-deception, gave Carlos a doctorate in anthropology. His thesis was based on ‘Journey to Ixtlan’… mainstream anthropologists were outraged… Irate anthropologists demanded that the university withdraw Castaneda’s Ph.D. It refused… In 1999 the University of California Press, motivated by shameless greed, issued the thirtieth anniversary edition of Carlos’s first book. They promoted it not as a work of pseudo-anthropology but as a classic still relevant to readers…” (Pg. 163-164)
Of Courtney Brown’s book ‘Cosmic Voyage: A Scientific Discovery of Extraterrestrials Visiting Earth,’ he says, “My first reaction to this preposterous book was ‘It’s a hoax.’ But no, Courtney Brown really exists. An associate professor of political science at Emory University... he has written several books about social science and one on mathematics… Brown says that after TM (Transcendental Meditation) training---his wife is a TM instructor---he mastered the advanced TM-Sidhi Program, which teaches ‘Yogic flying’… and walking through walls… According to Brown, millions of years ago a race of hairless humanoids lived on Mars… A wandering comet… [rendered] the red planet unfit for habitation. The Martians were forced to move into underground caverns, where most of them live today… Brown urges our government to abandon its stupid policy of secrecy and openly seek contacts with the … Martians… It is a sad story of an intelligent, sincere man who has turned himself into a gullible dunce. It will be amusing to see how he reacts a few years from now, after the Martian probes find no traces of an advanced Martian civilization.” (Pg. 185-186, 190)
Of Marshall Appelwhite and Bonnie Lu Trousdale Nettles and their ‘Heaven’s Gate’ cult, he recounts, “[They] began calling themselves The Two. They came to believe they were the ‘two witnesses’ described in Chapter 11 of Revelation… those who attended early cult meetings, mostly on college campuses, have testified to the pair’s persuasive rhetoric… Precise details about the cult’s nomadic history remain obscure… It’s not easy to believe, but the cult received so much media attention in the late seventies that a TV series called ‘The Mysterious Two’ was planned. A pilot actually aired in 1982 featuring John Forsythe and Priscilla Pointer as The Two.” (Pg. 199-201)
He wrote, “Another piece of evidence that Temple University is sliding into absurdity involves UFOs. On Temple’s faculty as an associate professor of history is David Jacobs, one of our nation’s most energetic promoters of the reality of human abductions by extraterrestrial aliens… Although Jacobs has had no training in psychology, psychiatry, or hypnotherapy, he uses hypnotism to induce his patients… to develop strong memories of horrendous abductions even though many patients had no such memories until hypnotized… Jacobs’s patients routinely report incredible sexual molestations… You might suppose Jacobs would look favorably on other UFO researchers using hypnosis … Not so. For example, he regards John Mack, Harvard’s embarrassing psychiatrist who has also written a book about UFO abductions, as incompetent and gullible.” (Pg. 226-227)
While Gardner’s book at times is too focused on ‘ad hominem’ attacks, this is nevertheless a book that will be “must reading” for the skeptically-minded.
August 26, 2017
No está mal pero me gustó muchísimo más El mundo y sus demonios de Carl Sagan, que es de 10. Martin Gardner resulta bastante denso en algunas partes, aunque soportable, pero lo que menos me ha gustado es que no aporta puntos de vista que creo necesarios.
August 13, 2022
While chock full of knowledge & factoids, most of Gardener’s opinions on the topics he discusses come off condescending & dry. This would be a prime candidate if Regina George wrote a burn book about pseudoscience.
October 20, 2014
Eclectic erudition. This is the first of Gardner's 70+ books that I've read and what blew my mind, initially, was a combination of the scope of his interests, the range of his research and knowledge and his overwhelming and abiding passion for the pursuit of reason and truth in a scientific world beset by stupidity, falsehood and outright chicanery. The book is a series of essays (and their addenda offering reactions to the original and further argumentation) loosely grouped into large categories: Evolution, Astronomy, Physics, Medicine, etc., etc. The individual pieces are of one of two structures, either a qualitative survey of previous attempts to deal with the subject (such as the book's title) or a more straightforward proposal and supporting argument, debunking others' ideas along the way.
The range of topics is, as I've said, quite wide so some may be more interesting to one than others but that doesn't diminish the fact that Gardner is one smart dude with a fascinating mind.
The range of topics is, as I've said, quite wide so some may be more interesting to one than others but that doesn't diminish the fact that Gardner is one smart dude with a fascinating mind.
February 2, 2015
Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? Una exhaustiva y sarcástica bibliografía de las más variadas y estrafalarias seudociencias y teorías conspirativas. Poca refutación científica, eso sí. Pareciera que no quisiera molestarse en hacerlo, lo que contradice el sentido del libro.
September 4, 2010
Debunking pseudoscience has never sounded better.
July 28, 2019
Another fine collection
I found this the chewiest of the four Martin Gardner collections that I have read. Once again the venerable champion of common sense assumes his role as the sorcerer's apprentice trying to sweep back the tide of pseudoscience. And once again he provides insight into just how overwhelming that task really is.
There are 28 essays in this collection, all but one from Gardner's column in the Skeptical Inquirer. They range over such matters as UFOs, religion, social science, astronomy, evolution versus creationism, etc. There is a chapter on "Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax." (I too thought it was pretty hilarious. See my review of The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy (2000).) There is one on cannibalism in which I found Gardner's skepticism understandable, especially as he points out that it is always the other culture that makes the accusation; however his essay finally suggests that the debate may be more over the extent than in any doubt about its occurrence. The Adam and Eve question is of course a joke, but the kind of joke that has been taken seriously by some for hundreds of years. For me it's similar to the question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. More germane is the chapter, "Freud's Flawed Theory of Dreams" followed by "Post-Freudian Dream Theory" in which it is demonstrated once again that Freud was, shall we say, mistaken.
The chapter on Carlos Castaneda is illuminating in what it reveals about the gullibility of some anthropologists, while the essay on the ill-fated Heaven's Gate "Bo and Peep" cult is sad. Gardner has some fun with Jean Houston, channeling master and New Age guru to Hillary Rodman Clinton. Apparently Houston's spin on channeling is that it is a kind of trance experience that allows one to come into contact with Jung's "collective unconscious" (p. 125). Notable is Gardner's accusation that Temple University "has become a center for the promulgation of some of the wildest aspects of pseudoscience" (p. 221). (Can Harvard be next?) I was amused to find that the "urine therapy" that Gardner takes apart really is predicated upon the use of human urine. I had seen the name before but naively thought it was "Your-reen therapy" after somebody's surname! The final chapter, "Science and the Unknowable" is a fine essay on the philosophy of science.
One of the very best reasons for reading Gardner is to appreciate how clear his expression is, and how readable he makes just about any subject (including the philosophy of science!). He has a gift for making the abstract concrete and the obtuse transparent. May his tribe increase.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
I found this the chewiest of the four Martin Gardner collections that I have read. Once again the venerable champion of common sense assumes his role as the sorcerer's apprentice trying to sweep back the tide of pseudoscience. And once again he provides insight into just how overwhelming that task really is.
There are 28 essays in this collection, all but one from Gardner's column in the Skeptical Inquirer. They range over such matters as UFOs, religion, social science, astronomy, evolution versus creationism, etc. There is a chapter on "Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax." (I too thought it was pretty hilarious. See my review of The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy (2000).) There is one on cannibalism in which I found Gardner's skepticism understandable, especially as he points out that it is always the other culture that makes the accusation; however his essay finally suggests that the debate may be more over the extent than in any doubt about its occurrence. The Adam and Eve question is of course a joke, but the kind of joke that has been taken seriously by some for hundreds of years. For me it's similar to the question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. More germane is the chapter, "Freud's Flawed Theory of Dreams" followed by "Post-Freudian Dream Theory" in which it is demonstrated once again that Freud was, shall we say, mistaken.
The chapter on Carlos Castaneda is illuminating in what it reveals about the gullibility of some anthropologists, while the essay on the ill-fated Heaven's Gate "Bo and Peep" cult is sad. Gardner has some fun with Jean Houston, channeling master and New Age guru to Hillary Rodman Clinton. Apparently Houston's spin on channeling is that it is a kind of trance experience that allows one to come into contact with Jung's "collective unconscious" (p. 125). Notable is Gardner's accusation that Temple University "has become a center for the promulgation of some of the wildest aspects of pseudoscience" (p. 221). (Can Harvard be next?) I was amused to find that the "urine therapy" that Gardner takes apart really is predicated upon the use of human urine. I had seen the name before but naively thought it was "Your-reen therapy" after somebody's surname! The final chapter, "Science and the Unknowable" is a fine essay on the philosophy of science.
One of the very best reasons for reading Gardner is to appreciate how clear his expression is, and how readable he makes just about any subject (including the philosophy of science!). He has a gift for making the abstract concrete and the obtuse transparent. May his tribe increase.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
August 18, 2022
This is my introduction to the late skeptic and debunker Martin Gardner. Although some of the essays are quite dated -- this book came out in 2000 and is a collection of columns written in the 90s -- I enjoyed learning about a range of pseudoscience topics that were in the milieu of the pre-9/11 world. I especially enjoyed the addenda appended to the end of some chapters, in which Gardner gives an update about new research, critical responses to his original columns, etc. If the publisher were to release a future edition (doubtful), I would like to see extensive footnotes or endnotes that correct/contextualize some of Gardner's 20+ year old claims, and maybe to provide an update about the latest research. I assume science has learned a lot about REM sleep, for example, that could inform his attack on Freudian dream theory.
November 6, 2022
Amusingly, I found this book in the Religion section at the thrift store.
I have fond STEM nerd memories of grabbing the latest issue of Scientific American and quickly flipping to Gardner's column Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions back when I was middle school age.
I'm also a big fan of his book Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions, especially the awesome hexaflexagons chapter.
I was a bit surprised at the negative tone of many of the reviews of this book. I found it witty and amusing, even when it was my ox being gored (the Creationism and Intelligent Design chapter in particular).
I especially liked the thoughtful and open-minded final chapter about the limits of science and human knowledge.
I have fond STEM nerd memories of grabbing the latest issue of Scientific American and quickly flipping to Gardner's column Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions back when I was middle school age.
I'm also a big fan of his book Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions, especially the awesome hexaflexagons chapter.
I was a bit surprised at the negative tone of many of the reviews of this book. I found it witty and amusing, even when it was my ox being gored (the Creationism and Intelligent Design chapter in particular).
I especially liked the thoughtful and open-minded final chapter about the limits of science and human knowledge.
January 20, 2022
Most of the book consists of exposing the foolishness of certain ideas that were popular (to some) forty years ago, but even if Carlos Castaneda's books and _Bible Code_ numerology are not popular today, similar pseudoscience is, or will recur. The specific bits of creationism, health fads, UFOlogy, and cult beliefs popular today may differ somewhat, but Gardner's takedown of their predecessors should be instructive.
August 4, 2022
This debunking of various bullshittery is a little aged, but it does shed some light on the early days of some of what are now popular concepts. And it's always fun to read early predictions about the internet. (Ooh, scary hardcore *pornography*!)
Spoilers: the answer to the titular question is, "Who gives a shit?"
Spoilers: the answer to the titular question is, "Who gives a shit?"
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 27, 2021
Most of this book mocks and makes fun of people with a different, spiritual perspective. Then suddenly the last chapter is very deep and pensive and admits that asking why we're here and where we came from are the ultimate questions.
September 5, 2017
Cap al final és molt repetitiu, aporta poc i presenta casos molt concrets i aïllats. Ha costat d'acabar…
January 10, 2019
Maybe not his best, but I like Martin Gardner all the time.
March 27, 2020
Some good infos, insights yes but he book is too much outdated for a read in 2020.
May 12, 2021
Martin Gardner is the man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 19, 2013
This collection of revised/updated essays from Skeptical Inquirer covers a wide range of wackiness, both historical and current (as of 1999). It deals with creationism, odd physics, medicine, social science, psychology, UFOs, and several other topics in a conversational style that makes even quantum physics quite easy to understand (relatively speaking, heh).
I am pleased to note that I now understand quantum physics much better, know who Carlos Castaneda was and why his writings were an insult to the profession of anthropology, and have a pretty good grasp of why the field of psychology has now largely disowned its father, Sigmund Freud (hint: it has nothing to do with its mother).
In my own fields of history and geography, I am well acquainted with alleged history buffs who seem to think that all North American history is somehow failing if it doesn't have lots of Vikings in it, and with people who think that geography really really needs to have had Atlantis in it. I've read about various quack theories outside my disciplines as well - the alleged medical benefits of magnetism and silver, for example (and one of these days I really want to read up on the weird notion of electricity as a general medical treatment), and I'm partial to the Bad Archaeology website. But I've never actually read a debunking book like this before.
It was illuminating. I had no idea that so many apparently intelligent people are or were so dissatisfied with the actual wonders of the world that they feel compelled to invent new, pretend wonders. I mean people who have advanced degrees in subjects sometimes related to the pseudosciences they embrace. (There are also people who have/had no discernible formal qualifications, but that's no surprise.)
As I mentioned earlier, reading this collection also brought me the realization that far-out political and economic theories (from communism to right-wing militia creeds) are really part of this continuum of anti-pragmatic invention.
There's an undercurrent running through these essays that I fully agree with: a feeling of Why? Why, when the real world and real science (and history and anthropology) are so full of amazing things and genuinely unanswered questions, do some people feel that reality is incomplete? That's the baffling question, and one that the book doesn't actually try to answer.
Neither will I. Personally, I enjoy fantasy and science fiction - as fiction. But I also love the real world and the genuine discoveries, old and new, that illumine our understanding of it. Gardner's book has reminded me of that, and I am grateful.
I am pleased to note that I now understand quantum physics much better, know who Carlos Castaneda was and why his writings were an insult to the profession of anthropology, and have a pretty good grasp of why the field of psychology has now largely disowned its father, Sigmund Freud (hint: it has nothing to do with its mother).
In my own fields of history and geography, I am well acquainted with alleged history buffs who seem to think that all North American history is somehow failing if it doesn't have lots of Vikings in it, and with people who think that geography really really needs to have had Atlantis in it. I've read about various quack theories outside my disciplines as well - the alleged medical benefits of magnetism and silver, for example (and one of these days I really want to read up on the weird notion of electricity as a general medical treatment), and I'm partial to the Bad Archaeology website. But I've never actually read a debunking book like this before.
It was illuminating. I had no idea that so many apparently intelligent people are or were so dissatisfied with the actual wonders of the world that they feel compelled to invent new, pretend wonders. I mean people who have advanced degrees in subjects sometimes related to the pseudosciences they embrace. (There are also people who have/had no discernible formal qualifications, but that's no surprise.)
As I mentioned earlier, reading this collection also brought me the realization that far-out political and economic theories (from communism to right-wing militia creeds) are really part of this continuum of anti-pragmatic invention.
There's an undercurrent running through these essays that I fully agree with: a feeling of Why? Why, when the real world and real science (and history and anthropology) are so full of amazing things and genuinely unanswered questions, do some people feel that reality is incomplete? That's the baffling question, and one that the book doesn't actually try to answer.
Neither will I. Personally, I enjoy fantasy and science fiction - as fiction. But I also love the real world and the genuine discoveries, old and new, that illumine our understanding of it. Gardner's book has reminded me of that, and I am grateful.
Read
April 6, 2012I have to stop half-way of this book (hence I will not give a rating as that would not be fair for the book).
I started off really enjoying reading it. But as I progressed, it got much more annoying as all I absorbed were critics after critics. Understanding that it was the purpose of the book, and as the author also stated in the introduction, the book is a collection of the columns he wrote for a newspaper, still I felt that it was too much to just read about criticism. I felt like I did not learn or explore anything because there were all personal opinions and thoughts. But, Gardner is a very intelligent man, and I will not deny that. One good thing I have obtained from this book is a list of more books for me to read, in order to judge Gardner's critics and opinions toward them.
At some point, Gardner's opinions were very logical and well-thought. At some other point, it involves too much personal feelings from his side without him knowing.
May be it just happened that I picked a wrong book to read (this book, really is a REVIEW BOOK), and I don't tend to like reading what others think about something. It's nice to discuss about what you and I think about something. But if I will just sit there and read about your thoughts, I will risk myself for having my own thoughts interfered by yours.
I started off really enjoying reading it. But as I progressed, it got much more annoying as all I absorbed were critics after critics. Understanding that it was the purpose of the book, and as the author also stated in the introduction, the book is a collection of the columns he wrote for a newspaper, still I felt that it was too much to just read about criticism. I felt like I did not learn or explore anything because there were all personal opinions and thoughts. But, Gardner is a very intelligent man, and I will not deny that. One good thing I have obtained from this book is a list of more books for me to read, in order to judge Gardner's critics and opinions toward them.
At some point, Gardner's opinions were very logical and well-thought. At some other point, it involves too much personal feelings from his side without him knowing.
May be it just happened that I picked a wrong book to read (this book, really is a REVIEW BOOK), and I don't tend to like reading what others think about something. It's nice to discuss about what you and I think about something. But if I will just sit there and read about your thoughts, I will risk myself for having my own thoughts interfered by yours.
August 7, 2014
Martín Gardner es más conocido como un divulgador de las matemáticas (en las famosas columnas Matemáticas Recreativas de la revista Scientific American). Sin embargo, es también conocida sus elegantes denuncias de las pseudo ciencias. Este libro es una colección de ensayos en donde Gardner denuncia como hay mucha basura llena de lenguaje científico hasta sencillamente basura a secas. Desde la orinoterapia, el aura, los extraterrestres... Ni Freud se salva (el capítulo sobre Freud y el psicoanálisis es francamente genial). Muy recomendable.
January 21, 2016
Readability 6. Rating 5. This is a hard one to rate. At the end, I give it a mediocre rating because some of the information felt dated and repetitive, and I also had a hard time even wading through some of the crap. This is totally unfair to Gardner. We need more like him to do just what he’s doing – stand up to the idiots, the zealots, the crazy people and shine a light of reason and scientific method. I’ll pay to have him keep it up, but I’m not sure I want to be on the front lines with him.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 10, 2009
I guess everything depends on your point of view. This book is a collection of discourses on things that really don't matter to anyone who has a life outside of questions that make very little difference. The author is a skeptic, and a very close-minded one at that. I'd only recommend this book to those people who love to read overly detailed essays written by an ignorant genius. Good luck wading through the muck.
December 21, 2012
Certainly not one of Gardner's best. This book collects a bunch of essays about pseudoscience and such, but it's just general 'he did this, they wrote that...' There's no charm or witticism. And why is he so cranky at religious people in this volume? I mean, poking fun at religious fundamentalism is pretty standard for Gardner, but here he's got an attitude about people trying to make scientific sense out of religious matters, too. I think maybe he's just getting grumpy in his old age?
May 16, 2008
Yes, they did.
Martin Gardner writes for the Skeptical Inquirer and has gathered some pieces to publish as a book. He debunks some of the more prominent charlatans of our time. It is a good selection of his writing. I especially liked his discussion of Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould's religious beliefs.
Martin Gardner writes for the Skeptical Inquirer and has gathered some pieces to publish as a book. He debunks some of the more prominent charlatans of our time. It is a good selection of his writing. I especially liked his discussion of Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould's religious beliefs.
November 28, 2009
500 G Interesting and amusing essays debunking things like UFOs, intelligent design, reflexology, etc. Some of this we all know but he brings alot more to the discussion plus some things I didn't realize. For instance, I never knew there was discussion about whether tribes that practiced cannibalism existed or not. This author puts out debunking books every few years...
May 31, 2013
Decepción Total
NO tengo nada nuevo que añadir al resto de reviews. Me las prometía con un libro de explicaciones científicas a ciertos aspectos curiosos, y no es más que una recopilación de artículos que divagan sobre unos temas, aportando muchas fuentes y referencias sin incluir ningún tipo de discurso.
No lo he acabado, pero el 50% es más que suficiente.
NO tengo nada nuevo que añadir al resto de reviews. Me las prometía con un libro de explicaciones científicas a ciertos aspectos curiosos, y no es más que una recopilación de artículos que divagan sobre unos temas, aportando muchas fuentes y referencias sin incluir ningún tipo de discurso.
No lo he acabado, pero el 50% es más que suficiente.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews