What do you think?
Rate this book
Nine Crazy Ideas in Science: A Few Might Even Be True
AIDS is not caused by HIV. Coal and oil are not fossil fuels. Radiation exposure is good for you. Distributing more guns reduces crime. These ideas make headlines, but most educated people scoff at them. Yet some of science's most important concepts-from gravity to evolution-have surfaced from the pool of crazy ideas. In fact, a good part of science is distinguishing between useful crazy ideas and those that are just plain nutty. In this book, a well-known physicist with an affinity for odd ideas applies his open mind to nine controversial propositions on topical subjects. Some, it turns out, are considerably lower on the cuckoo scale than others.
Robert Ehrlich evaluates, for the general reader or student, nine seemingly far-out propositions culled from physics, biology, and social science. In the process, he demonstrates in easy-to-understand terms how to weigh an argument, judge someone's use of statistics, identify underlying assumptions, and ferret out secret agendas. His conclusions are sometimes surprising. For instance, he finds that while HIV does cause AIDS and the universe almost certainly started with a big bang, our solar system could have two suns, faster-than-light particles might exist, and time travel can't be ruled out as mere science fiction.
Anyone interested in unorthodox ideas will get a kick out of this book. And, as a fun way of learning how to think like a scientist, it has enormous educational value. Of course, only time will tell whether any of these nine ideas will be the next continental drift--the now orthodox account of the Earth's geology that was for years just a crazy idea.
Robert Ehrlich evaluates, for the general reader or student, nine seemingly far-out propositions culled from physics, biology, and social science. In the process, he demonstrates in easy-to-understand terms how to weigh an argument, judge someone's use of statistics, identify underlying assumptions, and ferret out secret agendas. His conclusions are sometimes surprising. For instance, he finds that while HIV does cause AIDS and the universe almost certainly started with a big bang, our solar system could have two suns, faster-than-light particles might exist, and time travel can't be ruled out as mere science fiction.
Anyone interested in unorthodox ideas will get a kick out of this book. And, as a fun way of learning how to think like a scientist, it has enormous educational value. Of course, only time will tell whether any of these nine ideas will be the next continental drift--the now orthodox account of the Earth's geology that was for years just a crazy idea.
- GenresScience
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
7 people are currently reading
29 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
July 24, 2019
Interesting, but overly technical in parts
Do more guns result in less crime? (Or is it the other way around?) Is AIDS caused by HIV? Is sun exposure beneficial? Are low doses of nuclear radiation beneficial? Does the sun have an unseen companion star, the so-called Nemesis hypothesis? Do oil, gas and coal have abiogenetic origins? Is time travel possible? Do faster than light particles exist? Is the Big Bang a cosmologist's fiction?
These are the nine "crazy" ideas George Mason University Professor of Physics Robert Ehrlich examines. He rates the level of craziness of each idea by assigning zero to three "cuckoos." (A fourth cuckoo, meaning "certainly false" is not used.) Some of his conclusions might be surprising. For example, he likes the idea that oil, coal and gas have abiogenetic origins, a view I like as well, but one that goes against the conventional wisdom. He considers the idea that there was no Big Bang as "crazy"(a three cuckoo idea) as the idea that AIDS is not caused by HIV.
This certainly is a great idea for a book. Unfortunately I think Ehrlich spends too much time on the fine points of statistical analysis, especially in the first four chapters, and not enough on the crazy ideas themselves. For example on the possibility that low doses of radiation might be beneficial (Chapter 5) he gives us eleven graphs representing the data from various sources. The graphs require a significant involvement and effort on the part of the reader to appreciate, as does the accompanying analysis. If you are not familiar with statistical terms and ideas, this will be slow going.
At other times, Ehrlich seems unaware of what the reader would like to know. For example, on page 86 he mentions a "group of female workers" who "ingested radium while painting watch dials...when they put the small brushes in their mouths...to keep them pointed." He goes on to note that the radiation they received was "localized" and therefore "a number of them survived doses that on a whole-body basis would surely have been fatal." However he doesn't say how many women were involved or even give a ballpark figure. He doesn't say how those who did not die suffered. He only shows a graph giving a percentage of workers who had tumors.
In one case, I think that Ehrlich got lost in the data and failed to note the obvious. In the chapter on the possible benefits of sun exposure, he notes that the instance of coronary heart disease is less among people spending more rather than less time in the sun. He concludes that the idea is not crazy (zero cuckoos). I won't argue with that, but I suspect that the lower rates of coronary heart disease by those with more sun exposure is better understood as a result of those same people getting more exercise. Just being out in the sun implies getting more exercise that staying indoors. This is a factor that Ehrlich does not mention. He talks about gardeners being out in the sun more than non-gardeners, but seems unaware that gardening is good exercise!
I am also troubled by any analysis of causation based purely on statistical models. If the instance of lung cancer is twelve times higher among smokers than non-smokers, surely smoking is implicated. However, as in the analysis of violent crime stats in areas with more guns versus areas with fewer (from Chapter Two), the differences are in the order of small percentages. Putting aside statistical measurements of error, the fact is, as Ehrlich rightfully notes, there are so many other factors that are unaccounted for in such data that any conclusion must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.
Ehrlich admits he has "a strong affinity" (p. 11) for one of the ideas, namely that particles exist that travel faster than the speed of light. But I also think he has other biases that he may not be aware of. His enthusiasm for the possibility of time travel to the past allows him to gloss over and downplay some of the problems. For example on page 171 he notes that "we can say for sure" that "backward time travel that allowed you to kill grandpa is impossible," but he fails to note that this same logic forbids the time traveler from doing anything at all, period. The very physical presence of the time traveler would change something even if it's only at a microscopic level, even if it resulted only in microbial paradoxes! Also, chaos theory's "butterfly effect" might flap its mighty wings, disturbing future events in incalculable ways.
When Ehrlich goes easy on the stats and concentrates on imparting information and explaining in denotative language, he does very well. There is a lot of worthwhile and interesting information here for the general reader. I learned, for example, that the orbit of a planet around a binary star is only stable if the planet is at a great distance from the orbiting stars, or if one of the stars is at a great distance from the planet orbiting the other star (p. 102). Also the reason the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary is referred to as the "K-T" boundary and not the "C-T" is that "C" is already used for the Cambrian period (p. 104).
The latter chapters, especially the one on faster than light particles, were a little too technical for me. I had the sense that Ehrlich was addressing his colleagues rather than the general reader.
This is an interesting book with some controversial conclusions that will be of interest to many people, marred by not being as readable or as accessible as it might have been.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
Do more guns result in less crime? (Or is it the other way around?) Is AIDS caused by HIV? Is sun exposure beneficial? Are low doses of nuclear radiation beneficial? Does the sun have an unseen companion star, the so-called Nemesis hypothesis? Do oil, gas and coal have abiogenetic origins? Is time travel possible? Do faster than light particles exist? Is the Big Bang a cosmologist's fiction?
These are the nine "crazy" ideas George Mason University Professor of Physics Robert Ehrlich examines. He rates the level of craziness of each idea by assigning zero to three "cuckoos." (A fourth cuckoo, meaning "certainly false" is not used.) Some of his conclusions might be surprising. For example, he likes the idea that oil, coal and gas have abiogenetic origins, a view I like as well, but one that goes against the conventional wisdom. He considers the idea that there was no Big Bang as "crazy"(a three cuckoo idea) as the idea that AIDS is not caused by HIV.
This certainly is a great idea for a book. Unfortunately I think Ehrlich spends too much time on the fine points of statistical analysis, especially in the first four chapters, and not enough on the crazy ideas themselves. For example on the possibility that low doses of radiation might be beneficial (Chapter 5) he gives us eleven graphs representing the data from various sources. The graphs require a significant involvement and effort on the part of the reader to appreciate, as does the accompanying analysis. If you are not familiar with statistical terms and ideas, this will be slow going.
At other times, Ehrlich seems unaware of what the reader would like to know. For example, on page 86 he mentions a "group of female workers" who "ingested radium while painting watch dials...when they put the small brushes in their mouths...to keep them pointed." He goes on to note that the radiation they received was "localized" and therefore "a number of them survived doses that on a whole-body basis would surely have been fatal." However he doesn't say how many women were involved or even give a ballpark figure. He doesn't say how those who did not die suffered. He only shows a graph giving a percentage of workers who had tumors.
In one case, I think that Ehrlich got lost in the data and failed to note the obvious. In the chapter on the possible benefits of sun exposure, he notes that the instance of coronary heart disease is less among people spending more rather than less time in the sun. He concludes that the idea is not crazy (zero cuckoos). I won't argue with that, but I suspect that the lower rates of coronary heart disease by those with more sun exposure is better understood as a result of those same people getting more exercise. Just being out in the sun implies getting more exercise that staying indoors. This is a factor that Ehrlich does not mention. He talks about gardeners being out in the sun more than non-gardeners, but seems unaware that gardening is good exercise!
I am also troubled by any analysis of causation based purely on statistical models. If the instance of lung cancer is twelve times higher among smokers than non-smokers, surely smoking is implicated. However, as in the analysis of violent crime stats in areas with more guns versus areas with fewer (from Chapter Two), the differences are in the order of small percentages. Putting aside statistical measurements of error, the fact is, as Ehrlich rightfully notes, there are so many other factors that are unaccounted for in such data that any conclusion must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.
Ehrlich admits he has "a strong affinity" (p. 11) for one of the ideas, namely that particles exist that travel faster than the speed of light. But I also think he has other biases that he may not be aware of. His enthusiasm for the possibility of time travel to the past allows him to gloss over and downplay some of the problems. For example on page 171 he notes that "we can say for sure" that "backward time travel that allowed you to kill grandpa is impossible," but he fails to note that this same logic forbids the time traveler from doing anything at all, period. The very physical presence of the time traveler would change something even if it's only at a microscopic level, even if it resulted only in microbial paradoxes! Also, chaos theory's "butterfly effect" might flap its mighty wings, disturbing future events in incalculable ways.
When Ehrlich goes easy on the stats and concentrates on imparting information and explaining in denotative language, he does very well. There is a lot of worthwhile and interesting information here for the general reader. I learned, for example, that the orbit of a planet around a binary star is only stable if the planet is at a great distance from the orbiting stars, or if one of the stars is at a great distance from the planet orbiting the other star (p. 102). Also the reason the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary is referred to as the "K-T" boundary and not the "C-T" is that "C" is already used for the Cambrian period (p. 104).
The latter chapters, especially the one on faster than light particles, were a little too technical for me. I had the sense that Ehrlich was addressing his colleagues rather than the general reader.
This is an interesting book with some controversial conclusions that will be of interest to many people, marred by not being as readable or as accessible as it might have been.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
March 18, 2013
I loved this book. The only thing that stopped me from giving it 5 stars is the somewhat complex physics involved. It is inspiring for anyone interested in science and scientific thinking and perfect for those who have a deep understanding of physics or are employed in the field. As a pharmacist, the single chapter involved in biology was easier to comprehend for me than others, but I still enjoyed reading the others. Erlich's "in other words" sentences do a good job elaborating some of the material that he initially writes down in a more complicated manner. I loved reading this book and I recommend it. It left me interested in googling Robert Erlich and finding out more about him...and perhaps reading one of his books at a later time.
August 16, 2020
This was an interesting book, even if somewhat out of date. I liked what the author had to say about treating ideas with a rigorous scientific approach. However, in reading the book I found the treatment of each idea didn't really follow the book's advice. Instead, the book focused on what the author thought supported his own conclusions, so that the reader never got a chance to read critically arguments both for and against each of the 9 topics covered. Ultimately, the book was interesting, but in my opinion incomplete.
March 21, 2022
Acho um livro bastante interessante, em especial em épocas de tanta fake news. Nunca é demais exercitar o pensamento científico baseado no método científico. Esse livro fala de idéias bastante malucas, mas as analisa de uma forma que acho sóbria e madura. É óbvio que a classificação final de maluquisse, fornecida pelo autor, é subjetiva, mas ele deixa isso claro e não acho um problema. Pelo contrário, o livro ensina muito mais sobre ciência do que sobre maluquisse.
January 12, 2011
Più armi in giro diminuiscono la violenza? Esporsi al sole fa male? Poche radiazioni ionizzanti fanno bene? Il petrolio è di origine organica? Il sole ha un doppio? Si può viaggiare nel tempo? Esistono i tachioni? L'HIV è la causa dell'AIDS? Il "big bang" c'è stato per davvero?
Ehrlich, professore a Princeton, affronta queste storie strane cercando di essere il più oggettivo possibile, allo scopo di insegnare come affrontare, nella scienza come nella vita, situazioni in cui si deve scegliere tra spiegazioni alternative di fenomeni. Il testo è semplice, ben argomentato e interessante quando illustra come districarsi tra le menzogne sostenute da apparenti risultati statistici. E insegna come il carattere conservatore della scienza, quando non è evidentemente segnato da male fede, può essere salutare per il successo dell'impresa scientifica.
Peccato che non prenda neanche in considerazione la "fusione fredda", che l'autore marca senza pensarci come una balla su cui non c'è da discutere.
Ehrlich, professore a Princeton, affronta queste storie strane cercando di essere il più oggettivo possibile, allo scopo di insegnare come affrontare, nella scienza come nella vita, situazioni in cui si deve scegliere tra spiegazioni alternative di fenomeni. Il testo è semplice, ben argomentato e interessante quando illustra come districarsi tra le menzogne sostenute da apparenti risultati statistici. E insegna come il carattere conservatore della scienza, quando non è evidentemente segnato da male fede, può essere salutare per il successo dell'impresa scientifica.
Peccato che non prenda neanche in considerazione la "fusione fredda", che l'autore marca senza pensarci come una balla su cui non c'è da discutere.
August 21, 2015
It was interesting to see, at first, someone in one discipline apply critical thinking to another. Ehrman is a physicist and is used to comparing data. It isn't until he gets to his own discipline that my eyes start to cross (great bedtime reading!) and I start suspecting his bias kicks in - heh!
You read so much conflicting data that it is nice to have someone to go through and point out where someone has made data lean more to their preconceptions, which is what he does with the data on guns, carry concealed laws, and violence.
You read so much conflicting data that it is nice to have someone to go through and point out where someone has made data lean more to their preconceptions, which is what he does with the data on guns, carry concealed laws, and violence.
October 18, 2016
One of the best science books to read... Especially for the science enthusiasts among the readers... It was really amazing for the author to give the reader room to develop their own rating rather than forcing his opinion on the merits of the cray ideas discussed to be true...
March 11, 2007
One of those books that makes no impact at all. I can't think of anything else to say about it, good or bad.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews