What do you think?
Rate this book
Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us and How to Know When Not to Trust Them
Our investments are devastated, obesity is epidemic, test scores are in decline, blue-chip companies circle the drain, and popular medications turn out to be ineffective and even dangerous. What happened? Didn't we listen to the scientists, economists and other experts who promised us that if we followed their advice all would be well? Actually, those experts are a big reason we're in this mess. And, according to acclaimed business and science writer David H. Freedman, such expert counsel usually turns out to be wrong -- often wildly so. Wrong reveals the dangerously distorted ways experts come up with their advice, and why the most heavily flawed conclusions end up getting the most attention-all the more so in the online era. But there's Wrong spells out the means by which every individual and organization can do a better job of unearthing the crucial bits of right within a vast avalanche of misleading pronouncements.
316 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2010
24 people are currently reading
642 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 - 30 of 72 reviews
September 28, 2011
I gave this title three stars because, in my opinion, it fulfilled only half of its promise: Why experts keep failing us -- and how to know when not to trust them. It did a great job explaining why experts keep failing us, but when it comes to figuring out when not to trust them...well, the author doesn't have a clue either. The bottom line is, the odds of the "experts" being right are about the same as winning a crap shoot.
This book is worth reading to the extent that most people actually believe that the "experts" are right most of the time. I once had a blog argument with a dreamer who chided me for daring to suggest that scientists taking government grant money would be bias toward the government's preconcieved conclusions. (Silly me!) Turns out, this happens a lot more than you think, according to Freedman's research.
After two weeks of reading, however, I'm still pretty much on my own when it comes to figuring out what to believe and what not to believe... failed, yet again, by another "expert" claiming to know the answer!
This book is worth reading to the extent that most people actually believe that the "experts" are right most of the time. I once had a blog argument with a dreamer who chided me for daring to suggest that scientists taking government grant money would be bias toward the government's preconcieved conclusions. (Silly me!) Turns out, this happens a lot more than you think, according to Freedman's research.
After two weeks of reading, however, I'm still pretty much on my own when it comes to figuring out what to believe and what not to believe... failed, yet again, by another "expert" claiming to know the answer!
May 24, 2014
The title and chapter-length subtitle are enough to give you an idea of what this book is about. It's a treatise on how so-called experts can disagree with one another and give out advise that is less than advisable. David H. Freedman trots out examples of fraud, laziness, greed, pride, funding, poor research, and hasty conclusions to support his point. One is encouraged to be highly suspicious of research papers, television pundits and online reviews alike.
I had mixed feelings while reading this. Learning to view expert opinion with suspicion is one of the basic lessons of critical thinking and skepticism, and these are lessons I'm already abundantly aware of. So, on one hand, what's the point? The entire time I was wondering what exactly Freedman proposed to fix these issues. On the other hand, for people who aren't aware that expert advise should be suspect, this could be a helpful primer. Even in that case, however, this book might be misleading and leave someone paralyzed to a point where they don't know who or what to listen to. In the hands of a science denier, the book could simply serve as out-of context fuel to dismiss genuine evidence and expertise, and try to establish equivalency between all viewpoints.
I kept waiting for Freedman to address the obvious point: the only reason he could say that these experts were wrong is because other experts/scientists came along and demonstrated exactly that. While he never fully addresses that point, Freedman does eventually give some advice about warning signs to watch out for, as well as the hallmarks of good advice.
The best thing I can say about this book is that it goes quickly. Since the concepts are broad and the details of the examples aren't particularly important, one can breeze through this in a few days (at least, I did). Freedman might have re-ordered things to place the examples in context before he gives them, and not toward the end as he does. He could have easily had at least one appendix removed, as there are four of them. One is a list of contradictory quotes from various experts on specific issues. Another gives his personal recounting of the history of expertise, which is a brief history of human invention and the scientific method - which might be helpful to someone who is not familiar with the history of science (I'd sooner recommend Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything, or James Burke's Connections, or the Neil de Grasse Tyson Cosmos series). The third is a collection of scientific fraud. The fourth appendix is an unnecessarily long-winded and self-indulgent answer to the flippant question, "Well what if THIS book is wrong?"
I'll end with my favorite paragraph from the book, which I wish was more indicative of the work as a whole and should have come much sooner than half-way: "I truly don't mean to convince people that they should hold science in low regard, particularly compared to other types of expertise. I think scientists ARE our most trustworthy experts, and the basic methods of science are exactly the right way to approach the problems and mysteries that face us in the world. In short, when it comes to experts, scientists ought to be seen as perching at the top of the heap. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a good understanding of how modest a compliment it may be to say so." Hear, hear.
I had mixed feelings while reading this. Learning to view expert opinion with suspicion is one of the basic lessons of critical thinking and skepticism, and these are lessons I'm already abundantly aware of. So, on one hand, what's the point? The entire time I was wondering what exactly Freedman proposed to fix these issues. On the other hand, for people who aren't aware that expert advise should be suspect, this could be a helpful primer. Even in that case, however, this book might be misleading and leave someone paralyzed to a point where they don't know who or what to listen to. In the hands of a science denier, the book could simply serve as out-of context fuel to dismiss genuine evidence and expertise, and try to establish equivalency between all viewpoints.
I kept waiting for Freedman to address the obvious point: the only reason he could say that these experts were wrong is because other experts/scientists came along and demonstrated exactly that. While he never fully addresses that point, Freedman does eventually give some advice about warning signs to watch out for, as well as the hallmarks of good advice.
The best thing I can say about this book is that it goes quickly. Since the concepts are broad and the details of the examples aren't particularly important, one can breeze through this in a few days (at least, I did). Freedman might have re-ordered things to place the examples in context before he gives them, and not toward the end as he does. He could have easily had at least one appendix removed, as there are four of them. One is a list of contradictory quotes from various experts on specific issues. Another gives his personal recounting of the history of expertise, which is a brief history of human invention and the scientific method - which might be helpful to someone who is not familiar with the history of science (I'd sooner recommend Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything, or James Burke's Connections, or the Neil de Grasse Tyson Cosmos series). The third is a collection of scientific fraud. The fourth appendix is an unnecessarily long-winded and self-indulgent answer to the flippant question, "Well what if THIS book is wrong?"
I'll end with my favorite paragraph from the book, which I wish was more indicative of the work as a whole and should have come much sooner than half-way: "I truly don't mean to convince people that they should hold science in low regard, particularly compared to other types of expertise. I think scientists ARE our most trustworthy experts, and the basic methods of science are exactly the right way to approach the problems and mysteries that face us in the world. In short, when it comes to experts, scientists ought to be seen as perching at the top of the heap. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a good understanding of how modest a compliment it may be to say so." Hear, hear.
May 25, 2020
The one expert who is never wrong
God. His transcendent word is never wrong and His universal moral laws are never wrong. Freedman's book only highlights the importance of having a biblical epistemology. In the beginning was Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was/is God. Human foundations for knowledge are inadequate. Freedman ignores the question of WHY scientists should bother with ethics. Certainly, ethics are foundational to science. Ironically, that is a question science cannot answer.
God. His transcendent word is never wrong and His universal moral laws are never wrong. Freedman's book only highlights the importance of having a biblical epistemology. In the beginning was Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was/is God. Human foundations for knowledge are inadequate. Freedman ignores the question of WHY scientists should bother with ethics. Certainly, ethics are foundational to science. Ironically, that is a question science cannot answer.
June 26, 2014
Медицината е супер важна дисциплина и милиарди всяка година се харчат за медицински изследвания - за да бъде изучено както човешкото тяло и неговите функции, така и действието на различните храни, вещества и лекарства върху него.
Супер много ме дразнят разните му там антиваксъри, конспиративни ненормалници и други дебили, които обявяват медицината за "корумпирана", че "големите корпорации" опорочили всичко, че имало измислено лекарство за рак, но "го крият, за да печелят от поддържащата терапия" и после предлагат да се лекуваме с кристали хомеопатия. Тази книга изобщо не е от тях.
Авторът е учен в най-добрия смисъл. Застъпник на строгия научен подход, безпристрасността и двойно слепите експерименти. Посветил е кариерата си на изследване на ... медицинските изследвания и това да открива къде те грешат, къде има човешки грешки в експериментите и изводите им.
Той всъщност е доста известен и уважаван в медицинската общност точно с това, защото безпардонното му придържане към научния протокол е неоспоримо, а резултатите от проучванията му... шокиращи.
Оказва се, че човешкият фактор при провеждането на медицински експерименти е доста голям, което доста ... изкривява резултатите. Дотолкова всъщност, че по-голямата част от резултатите на медицинските изследвания биват оборени в последствие. Дори т.н. златен стандарт, най-най-елитните, най-научни и сериозни изследвания, публикувани в най-реномираните медицински издания, авторът открива, не отговаря на научните критерии за експериментиране и интерпретация на данните в над 50% от случаите. Единствено т.н. платинен стандарт - не повече от 1000 изследвания които вече са най-най-най-най, имат само 25% грешка.
Това не е конспиративна, хипи книга, знаете ги тия. Това е строго научна книга за научния подход в медицината и като цяло в науката, която показва как учените не са непогрешими богове, а се влияят от собствените си мнения, предразсъдъци, а и личен интерес при извършването и публикуване на експерименти и интерпретиране на резултати. Един трезв поглед върху научната общност.
Книгата няма нищо общо с глобалното затопляне, но като я четях не можех да не правя паралели с това как личните интереси на учените за кариерно развитие, популярност и преследване на финансиране могат да изкривят резултатите и изследванията им в определена насока.
Супер много ме дразнят разните му там антиваксъри, конспиративни ненормалници и други дебили, които обявяват медицината за "корумпирана", че "големите корпорации" опорочили всичко, че имало измислено лекарство за рак, но "го крият, за да печелят от поддържащата терапия" и после предлагат да се лекуваме с кристали хомеопатия. Тази книга изобщо не е от тях.
Авторът е учен в най-добрия смисъл. Застъпник на строгия научен подход, безпристрасността и двойно слепите експерименти. Посветил е кариерата си на изследване на ... медицинските изследвания и това да открива къде те грешат, къде има човешки грешки в експериментите и изводите им.
Той всъщност е доста известен и уважаван в медицинската общност точно с това, защото безпардонното му придържане към научния протокол е неоспоримо, а резултатите от проучванията му... шокиращи.
Оказва се, че човешкият фактор при провеждането на медицински експерименти е доста голям, което доста ... изкривява резултатите. Дотолкова всъщност, че по-голямата част от резултатите на медицинските изследвания биват оборени в последствие. Дори т.н. златен стандарт, най-най-елитните, най-научни и сериозни изследвания, публикувани в най-реномираните медицински издания, авторът открива, не отговаря на научните критерии за експериментиране и интерпретация на данните в над 50% от случаите. Единствено т.н. платинен стандарт - не повече от 1000 изследвания които вече са най-най-най-най, имат само 25% грешка.
Това не е конспиративна, хипи книга, знаете ги тия. Това е строго научна книга за научния подход в медицината и като цяло в науката, която показва как учените не са непогрешими богове, а се влияят от собствените си мнения, предразсъдъци, а и личен интерес при извършването и публикуване на експерименти и интерпретиране на резултати. Един трезв поглед върху научната общност.
Книгата няма нищо общо с глобалното затопляне, но като я четях не можех да не правя паралели с това как личните интереси на учените за кариерно развитие, популярност и преследване на финансиране могат да изкривят резултатите и изследванията им в определена насока.
September 20, 2023
Good read, enough areas to skim. Published in 2010. I wonder how author feels about whole issues relating to Covid shots and treatments.
P. 114
…the beliefs of researchers are shaped by all of the vanities, vested interests, hunches, experiences, politics careerism, grantsmanship tactics, competing cadres of collaborators, imperfections, and backgrounds of the scientists investigating problems at any time. If a scientist wants to or expects to end up with certain results, he will likely achieve them, often through some form of fudging, whether conscious or not-bias exerts a sort of gravity over error, pulling the glitches in one direction, so that the errors tend to add up rather than cancel out.
….preconceived ideas shape observation, causing people to take special notice of phenomena and measurements that confirm a belief while ignoring those that contradict it.
…what scientists choose to measure , how they measure it, which measurements they keep, and what they conclude, are all shaped by their own and their colleagues’ ideas and beliefs.
…once an expert jumps to a dubious conclusion, she will simply tend to ignore or explain away conflicting evidence.
P. 115
…some people have a nose for sniffing out the right answers…they manage to adopt the right biases and can correctly intuit which ideas are likely to hold up.
…good and bad biases look alike. You find out 80 years later who was right.
P. 115
…thee is reason to believe that the entire scientific community at times seems incapable of, or unwilling to call out potential fraud even when it should be glaringly obvious that something is amiss.
May 5, 2024
For the longest time, I've had two podcast interviews about young researchers who had an idealistic mind, had entered "the lab" and were utterly disappointed by the politics, the bickering, the cherry-picking and the downright fraud in their respective fields.
I had gotten "The Death of Expertise" hoping it would expand on what those two young gentlemen had been sharing in those interviews, but that was an utter disappointment. "Wrong" by David H. Freedman is a breath of fresh air which simply points out that scientists, researchers and 'experts' are nothing more than human, and are thus prone to error, miscalculation, preferential selection, sabotage, fraud and all those other lovely human traits what color the spectrum of human behavior.
You're welcome to label me "right-wing" or a "science denier" but I'd wager that Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Descartes, Newton, and even Popper are flipping in their graves seeing what the collective scientific community is doing nowadays, given that last year (2023) there were record 10.000 retractions globally of scientific publications!
It'd be a good time for the author to do a 2nd edition of this book, especially with the whole "SOME-CHANNEL news brought to you by THIS-ONE-PHARMACEUTICAL-COMPANY" saga, but until then, it'd be a good idea for you reading this 'review' to read this book for yourself. It's well worth it!
I had gotten "The Death of Expertise" hoping it would expand on what those two young gentlemen had been sharing in those interviews, but that was an utter disappointment. "Wrong" by David H. Freedman is a breath of fresh air which simply points out that scientists, researchers and 'experts' are nothing more than human, and are thus prone to error, miscalculation, preferential selection, sabotage, fraud and all those other lovely human traits what color the spectrum of human behavior.
You're welcome to label me "right-wing" or a "science denier" but I'd wager that Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Descartes, Newton, and even Popper are flipping in their graves seeing what the collective scientific community is doing nowadays, given that last year (2023) there were record 10.000 retractions globally of scientific publications!
It'd be a good time for the author to do a 2nd edition of this book, especially with the whole "SOME-CHANNEL news brought to you by THIS-ONE-PHARMACEUTICAL-COMPANY" saga, but until then, it'd be a good idea for you reading this 'review' to read this book for yourself. It's well worth it!
January 15, 2011
I picked up Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us and How to Know When not to Trust Them by David Freedman on a whim. The book really offered very little that was new or particularly enlightening; it was more useful as a reminder of how even well-meaning and well-constructed research can go wrong as well the realities of publishing and the ways in which the need for new and compelling materials magnifies the problem. All of this is interesting but not interesting enough to fill an entire book, a book that basically tells the reader to trust his or her own common sense and approach expert information with a healthy dose of skepticism.
The simple truth is that we are all overwhelmed with too much information and too much media all competing to win our attention and loyalty. We want simple answers and are too willing to accept them simply because it makes life easier and less frightening. I think this book is appealing to that all too human desire to know how to know who you should believe and how to discern the difference, but of course any simple answer to that question would probably be wrong
The simple truth is that we are all overwhelmed with too much information and too much media all competing to win our attention and loyalty. We want simple answers and are too willing to accept them simply because it makes life easier and less frightening. I think this book is appealing to that all too human desire to know how to know who you should believe and how to discern the difference, but of course any simple answer to that question would probably be wrong
July 1, 2022
What a necessary book for our confused modern age! Just wish it was a bit newer (pub. 2010), because the examples of 'experts' failing us were never on a more grand display than during the travesty that began in early 2020 and continues to this day. But this volume has plenty of ammunition to make his points and they are laid out in fairly convincing fashion. Of course 'science' is the chief source of expertise in our society so much of the analysis concerns how science is actually practiced in the West. In chapters on 'The Trouble with Scientists' many of the research practices that lead to systematic error and distortion are discussed, often with amusing anecdotes. From measuring the wrong thing, mismeasuring, tossing out inconvenient data, 'moving the goalposts' and plain old personal bias. Economists and their terrible track record of predicting economic trends come in for plenty of scrutiny, as this book was written in the wake of the housing crash and recession of 2008-2010. Sound familiar? 'This inflation is transitory!' (Yellen and Powell in 2021). Such sacred cows as randomized, double-blind trials and the lauded peer review process are both shown to have serious flaws in execution. The chapter on the 'Idiocy of Crowds' was truly eye-opening and he skewers many of the most popular myths about the effectiveness of Teams and dangers of group-think. And after demonstrating the myriad ways in which Big Science is prone to often getting things wrong (especially at first), or at least not quite right he rightly points out that an even bigger problem is actually the messenger. And that is our modern media complex (which consists of just a few mega-corporations controlling nearly all 'mass-media'). Untrained and often agenda-drive journalists are usually the one doing the interviews and often misinterpreting scientific papers. Of course one problem is the sheer volume of technical research carried out in just this country. It is literally a tsunami of information in nearly every field of endeavor and the challenge for society and individuals to make sense of it is immense. One critical issue he does not deal with is the increasing tendency of governments and their Big Tech allies to suppress and censor information. That has to with how far we have come (or gone down) since 2010 in this arena. From reading this book it is utterly clear that 'misinformation' has always existed in nearly every endeavor in which humans are involved, experts or not. The idea that government boards and Big Tech monitors are capable of accurately (and fairly) managing this flow of information to root out what they consider wrong information is far more than laughable, it is terrifying. And it has already occurred in massive quantities since 2020 across social media platforms to the detriment mainly of political enemies of an increasingly totalitarian state. Mr. Freedman could easily write a best-seller on the topic if he was able to maintain a reasonably objective stance, which I sort of doubt considering his pedigree. Too bad.
August 25, 2011
This book is an all out assault on "authoritarianism." It encourages you to evaluate alternative sources for persepective in life, & even to conduct your own research/experiments. This books get right at the HEART of what motivates todays scientists/business analysts. Reading this you will see just how far from "exact" the scientific method can be. You will se why you can be told conflicting things about the same foods. You will learn the MANY ways in which scientist can alter data and misinterpret findings as well as their motivation for doing so. This book was reccomended to me by a guy who taught PHYSICS classes at MIT at the age of 16! Genius material for sure. One of the best books i have ever read! The people who criticize this book likely do so because the author is unable to give them concrete answers on how to obtain the truth(& this is why they read the book). This is because everyones path for finding it can be different. He gives you the tools you need and what to look out for. Knowing who to NOT to trust is simply more of a pressing problem than finding one of the few truth-tellers in our day and age.
November 2, 2010
Disappointing, not because it's a bad book, but because I have always had more faith in Science! than is apparently justified. Freedman makes a strong case for why even meticulous science is frequently dead wrong, never mind all the management fads and junk science that clutter up the media.
Freedman doesn't have a solution for the problem, just an approach for living with it. The best defense against experts turns out to be common sense and critical thinking skills, and a little healthy skepticism can go a long way.
Freedman doesn't have a solution for the problem, just an approach for living with it. The best defense against experts turns out to be common sense and critical thinking skills, and a little healthy skepticism can go a long way.
June 24, 2010
There is so much information in this book that make you really start to think about what "experts" say. I have always been leery about the information I receive from doctors and other professionals. Like so many things in life, there is never a clear cut answer. It all depends on interpretation. I liked having my thoughts reinforced with David's book.
Read
November 18, 2019The library wanted it back, and with some background in data analysis, I was struggling a bit. The urge to separate and sort the data into usable, questionable, anecdotal, columns was slowing up progress. It's good information. Just a bit jumbled.
Also, preaching to the choir, so to speak. I already know how much nonsense gets tossed out for consumption. I don't need it demonstrated. It was fun for a bit, but I have other reading to do.
I might borrow it back. I might not. Wrote down the page number I stopped on just in case.
Did skim the massive post-book segments before handing it over. Particularly enjoyed the collection of directly conflicting advice from "expert" sources.
Statistics. Most of them are pretty close to half right, with some scattered opinions and a few wild outliers. Most of them are guessing. Most are invested in funding rather than fact. And politics play too great a part in the lot; the earth is flat, and it'll cost you your family, fortune, maybe life, to deny it. And the Earth is the center of the universe. Obviously.
I know.
I can't rate it without finishing it, so there's an impasse for the nonce.
3 stars, though, decent/par.
Also, preaching to the choir, so to speak. I already know how much nonsense gets tossed out for consumption. I don't need it demonstrated. It was fun for a bit, but I have other reading to do.
I might borrow it back. I might not. Wrote down the page number I stopped on just in case.
Did skim the massive post-book segments before handing it over. Particularly enjoyed the collection of directly conflicting advice from "expert" sources.
Statistics. Most of them are pretty close to half right, with some scattered opinions and a few wild outliers. Most of them are guessing. Most are invested in funding rather than fact. And politics play too great a part in the lot; the earth is flat, and it'll cost you your family, fortune, maybe life, to deny it. And the Earth is the center of the universe. Obviously.
I know.
I can't rate it without finishing it, so there's an impasse for the nonce.
3 stars, though, decent/par.
July 14, 2018
I read this book only because a neighbor thrust it upon me. She's a tea party fan so I was immediately suspect about the book. But I tried to be fair-minded as I read/skimmed/flipped. The best I can say is that this book might be useful to someone who believes headlines he/she sees in the grocery store line -- tabloids I mean. Or even those who believe that the latest scientific finding about xyz is the final word on xyz. The author says too often that scientists deliberately mislead the public by publishing findings that are later disproved. I object. Science is never settled completely and many ideas are found to be off the mark by scientists who do further research. It's very true that many findings are overhyped, especially with the rise of the internet and social media where everyone has a say, or a thousand says. But I refuse to believe that most scientists are out of fool us. So I read the damn book and now I have to find a tactful way to return it to tea party neighbor and say neutral things about it. I'm not looking for a fight!
October 30, 2019
I think this was a terrific book for me to read. I definitely will try not to feed into a media sensation breakthrough as I probably have in the past, just because I wanted something to be true if it fit into my logical pattern of thinking and my own biases. Critical thinking basics for me to remember - analyze assumptions and biases (both my own and the other party) - avoid emotional reasoning - tolerate uncertainty. There is more to critical thinking than this, but these are some traps. One of the reasons that we are getting conclusive reports out of expert studies is because the media is not capable of reporting something with all of the assumptions and uncertainties as newsworthy.
September 25, 2024
This book is helpful and very accessible. Freedman manages to make clear the many ways in which expertise can go awry while not falling into the trap of dismissing experts altogether. I think a reader will come away feeling more equipped to assess expert claims, rather than feeling that all experts are wrong. His lists of the characteristics of trustworthy advice are useful.
Humorously, he gets some historical facts wrong in Appendix 2, but as he says in Appendix 4, of course his book has errors like anything else from experts. Appendix 2 is pretty unnecessary anyway so the errors don't really matter.
My only other criticism is that there are a lot of little offhand anti-religious comments, which is irrelevant and off-putting.
Humorously, he gets some historical facts wrong in Appendix 2, but as he says in Appendix 4, of course his book has errors like anything else from experts. Appendix 2 is pretty unnecessary anyway so the errors don't really matter.
My only other criticism is that there are a lot of little offhand anti-religious comments, which is irrelevant and off-putting.
July 18, 2022
An extremely interesting book exposing the underbelly of science and other areas of expertise. To err is human. Scientist are knowledgeable human beings and they err knowingly. The burden of choice of what to believe and what not to believe is on the less knowledgeable common man. Going by the trends in various fields, it pays to be a hardcore sceptic. A must read for all researchers and others who use their outputs.
May 18, 2012
My oldest son, Will, was born a month early (surprise!), and though small, was judged healthy enough to come home after only two days in the hospital. A few days later, he turned blue in my arms – twice – prompting a frantic 9-1-1 call and rush back to the hospital. It was a scary, emotional, and disorienting time. He outgrew the issue, a result of his prematurity, and is healthy today, but what I remember as some of the most frustrating moments during our additional time in the hospital, were doctors' rounds when we were presented with a myriad of divergent medical opinions. We saw no less than eight physicians during that week and it seemed that every single one had a different approach to Will's care. This one wanted one certain test; that one thought these other two tests would provide better information. The third suggested one sleeping arrangement while the fourth expressed her opinion that that was completely unnecessary. Another one convinced us that his recommendation of a particular medication was best, only to have a different physician dismiss that idea as ineffective. As brand new, sleep-deprived, and frankly terrified parents, it was maddening to us that all these “experts” not only weren't on the same page, but actively contradicted each other. If they, with all their medical training and knowledge, couldn't come to a consensus on the best course of treatment, how on earth were we, with little medical experience, supposed to make intelligent, informed decisions for our son?
In Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us and How to Know When Not to Trust Them, Mr. Freedman discusses this phenomenon, along with many similar situations in which “experts” in many different fields find themselves. To open the book with a bang, Mr. Freedman interviews Dr. John Ioannidis, a physician whose specialty is “calculating the chances that studies' results are false.” Dr. Ioannidis reveals that “most medical treatment simply isn't backed up by good, quantitative evidence,” and that even when a study is published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, “often it [is] only a matter of months, and at most a few years, before other studies [come] out to either fully refute the findings or declare that the results were 'exaggerated.'” In fact, he states, even in the top echelons of published medical research, “results that held up were outweighed two-to-one by results destined to be labeled 'never mind.'” That's not particularly reassuring, but it certainly provides some insights into why those eight pediatricians we dealt with in the hospital weren't all singing the same tune.
So why are “experts” - and Mr. Freedman defines an expert as “someone whom the mass media might quote as a credible authority of some topic” as well as, for example, scientists and others who “gain some public recognition for their experience and insight” – so often wrong? Well, there are an impressive number of reasons, so many that by the end of the book you may be more surprised that “experts” ever get anything right than that they are so often wrong! Setting aside egregious faults like the deliberate falsification of data, it turns out that “experts” are just as susceptible to human errors as the rest of us, such as lacking good data (or ignoring data that doesn't fit pre-conceived notions), using indirect or “surrogate” measurements that don't really measure what you want to measure (but are, for whatever reason, easier or more accessible), or trying to force simple answers onto complex questions (like homing in on one or two factors as the “key” for reducing obesity).
Mr. Freedman also confronts the myth that teamwork and collaboration are effective ways to battle individual error. While I could certainly point to some anecdotal evidence of that from my college days and working life, it was affirming to read that “crowds, far from being reliably wise, turn out to be at least as good at discouraging and suppressing the production and dissemination of excellent work as highlighting it, and tend to bring some of the worst work to the top.” Group settings actually present additional opportunities for error including “social loafing” – in which people in groups don't work as hard as people working alone – and “groupthink” – where there is pressure to conform to the majority opinion.
Finally, Mr. Freedman closes with a few suggestions regarding how we as laypeople or non-experts can judge wisely among all the “expert advice” with which we are bombarded on a daily basis. After listing typical characteristics of less trustworthy expert advice and characteristics that should be ignored, he provides traits of more trustworthy expert advice, including:
* It's heavy on qualifying statements
* It's candid about refutational (or conflicting) evidence
* It provides some context for the research
* It provides perspective
With “an appropriate level of wariness with regard to any expert pronouncement,” and a bit more education about just what “expert advice” entails, which Mr. Freedman provides here, we can be better prepared to judge which advice to follow and which to ignore amongst the cacophony of opinions, viewpoints, and theories.
For more book reviews, come visit my blog, Build Enough Bookshelves.
In Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us and How to Know When Not to Trust Them, Mr. Freedman discusses this phenomenon, along with many similar situations in which “experts” in many different fields find themselves. To open the book with a bang, Mr. Freedman interviews Dr. John Ioannidis, a physician whose specialty is “calculating the chances that studies' results are false.” Dr. Ioannidis reveals that “most medical treatment simply isn't backed up by good, quantitative evidence,” and that even when a study is published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, “often it [is] only a matter of months, and at most a few years, before other studies [come] out to either fully refute the findings or declare that the results were 'exaggerated.'” In fact, he states, even in the top echelons of published medical research, “results that held up were outweighed two-to-one by results destined to be labeled 'never mind.'” That's not particularly reassuring, but it certainly provides some insights into why those eight pediatricians we dealt with in the hospital weren't all singing the same tune.
So why are “experts” - and Mr. Freedman defines an expert as “someone whom the mass media might quote as a credible authority of some topic” as well as, for example, scientists and others who “gain some public recognition for their experience and insight” – so often wrong? Well, there are an impressive number of reasons, so many that by the end of the book you may be more surprised that “experts” ever get anything right than that they are so often wrong! Setting aside egregious faults like the deliberate falsification of data, it turns out that “experts” are just as susceptible to human errors as the rest of us, such as lacking good data (or ignoring data that doesn't fit pre-conceived notions), using indirect or “surrogate” measurements that don't really measure what you want to measure (but are, for whatever reason, easier or more accessible), or trying to force simple answers onto complex questions (like homing in on one or two factors as the “key” for reducing obesity).
Mr. Freedman also confronts the myth that teamwork and collaboration are effective ways to battle individual error. While I could certainly point to some anecdotal evidence of that from my college days and working life, it was affirming to read that “crowds, far from being reliably wise, turn out to be at least as good at discouraging and suppressing the production and dissemination of excellent work as highlighting it, and tend to bring some of the worst work to the top.” Group settings actually present additional opportunities for error including “social loafing” – in which people in groups don't work as hard as people working alone – and “groupthink” – where there is pressure to conform to the majority opinion.
Finally, Mr. Freedman closes with a few suggestions regarding how we as laypeople or non-experts can judge wisely among all the “expert advice” with which we are bombarded on a daily basis. After listing typical characteristics of less trustworthy expert advice and characteristics that should be ignored, he provides traits of more trustworthy expert advice, including:
* It's heavy on qualifying statements
* It's candid about refutational (or conflicting) evidence
* It provides some context for the research
* It provides perspective
With “an appropriate level of wariness with regard to any expert pronouncement,” and a bit more education about just what “expert advice” entails, which Mr. Freedman provides here, we can be better prepared to judge which advice to follow and which to ignore amongst the cacophony of opinions, viewpoints, and theories.
For more book reviews, come visit my blog, Build Enough Bookshelves.
December 10, 2020
If you like to kick in open doors, this book is for you. Captain Obvious going on for 200+ pages to make sure you use your common sense if anyone (‘experts’) claim something to be universally true. Might be an eye-opener if you have never received any type of schooling whatsoever.
February 7, 2020
De eerste vraag wordt duidelijk gedocumenteerd met voorbeelden uit het huidige wetenschappelijk onderzoek en publicaties.
De tweede vraag blijft jammer genoeg ontoereikend beantwoord.
De tweede vraag blijft jammer genoeg ontoereikend beantwoord.
January 29, 2017
Fascinating.
November 22, 2010
Perhaps the biggest “wrong” about this book is that someone already filled to the gunwales with cynicism such as myself would pick it up. With the cover image of a dunce cap bedecked guy I just knew Freedman’s text would prepare me for my next early morning tirade directed towards Today show “experts” that I used to be exposed to (before my wife finally realized that I’m really…really not a morning person). Two things I didn’t originally notice in my typically cursory glance at the cover: the dunce is in a suit and, thus, not some hapless morning TV aficionado but apparently the “expert” him-or-herself and the acute corner the failure occupies represents something of an amorphous realm rather than some specifically defined/themed target.
My likely questionable interpretation is only to emphasize how startled I was at the notion that supposedly bonafide, peer-reviewed, scientific studies were almost always flawed or adulterated by bias, incompetence, mishaps, and/or whatever. Certainly I can connect the dots to dismissal when I hear “The New England Journal of Medicine published a two year study… involving lab rats…doo-rags…and therefore East LA gang members have a 46% higher rate of tumors in the parotid gland” stated by the local news affiliate. The beauty of this book is that Freedman places such originary studies by any given esteemed research institute squarely into the same context as the inevitable 27 year old brunette anchor woman – three cosmetic surgeries already under her belt – who delivers the message in transmogrified form. Even the “expert” mobocracy of World Wide Web is covered here though, while lighting a fire under the real stuff, Freedman offers something of a counterpoint-yet-less convincing acknowledgement that non-pedigreed internet crap at least opens the door to occasional…very occasional…insights that might prove to be valuable. If, after reading this, I raise an eyebrow to any given study out of MIT or John Hopkins then it’s certainly baby steps before I believe some impassioned dude with an internet connection in New Mexico! Generally the author weaves a tapestry of expertise that includes peer review journals, TV meteorologists, and pointless stuff such as this very book evaluation, with the implication that the onus is on the supposed upper echelon of researchers.
If I’m a dunce, it’s because of any number of reasons. In this regard I certainly get the notion – as the late Steven Jay Gould articulated quite well – that “science” is only science if it can be disproven. Obviously. However, when I read in my grad school alumni magazine about some study or other about a gene or whatever that, through some impressive number of trials revolving around some manipulation or introduction showed a 30% decrease in this or that effect, I tend to believe it. We’re not talking about proving that the earth is spherical before the advent of telescopes, text, and anyone in your village actually having traversed the adjacent desert. This is about the incremental, small-scale, control/conditioned, laboriously documented studies of virtually insignificant things - .0000000008% of the effort in solving a particular type of cancer if you will. This is awful, my credulous, optimistic side says. The half-glass-empty, red cloven-hoofed bastard on the other shoulder smiles.
My likely questionable interpretation is only to emphasize how startled I was at the notion that supposedly bonafide, peer-reviewed, scientific studies were almost always flawed or adulterated by bias, incompetence, mishaps, and/or whatever. Certainly I can connect the dots to dismissal when I hear “The New England Journal of Medicine published a two year study… involving lab rats…doo-rags…and therefore East LA gang members have a 46% higher rate of tumors in the parotid gland” stated by the local news affiliate. The beauty of this book is that Freedman places such originary studies by any given esteemed research institute squarely into the same context as the inevitable 27 year old brunette anchor woman – three cosmetic surgeries already under her belt – who delivers the message in transmogrified form. Even the “expert” mobocracy of World Wide Web is covered here though, while lighting a fire under the real stuff, Freedman offers something of a counterpoint-yet-less convincing acknowledgement that non-pedigreed internet crap at least opens the door to occasional…very occasional…insights that might prove to be valuable. If, after reading this, I raise an eyebrow to any given study out of MIT or John Hopkins then it’s certainly baby steps before I believe some impassioned dude with an internet connection in New Mexico! Generally the author weaves a tapestry of expertise that includes peer review journals, TV meteorologists, and pointless stuff such as this very book evaluation, with the implication that the onus is on the supposed upper echelon of researchers.
If I’m a dunce, it’s because of any number of reasons. In this regard I certainly get the notion – as the late Steven Jay Gould articulated quite well – that “science” is only science if it can be disproven. Obviously. However, when I read in my grad school alumni magazine about some study or other about a gene or whatever that, through some impressive number of trials revolving around some manipulation or introduction showed a 30% decrease in this or that effect, I tend to believe it. We’re not talking about proving that the earth is spherical before the advent of telescopes, text, and anyone in your village actually having traversed the adjacent desert. This is about the incremental, small-scale, control/conditioned, laboriously documented studies of virtually insignificant things - .0000000008% of the effort in solving a particular type of cancer if you will. This is awful, my credulous, optimistic side says. The half-glass-empty, red cloven-hoofed bastard on the other shoulder smiles.
March 12, 2012
Rarely have I struggled so much over whether or not to recommend a book. Typicall I view this section as not just a book “review” but a place to only review books I strongly recommend our members read. This book is one of the tough ones. I highly recommend the message the author is conveying, and yet, at times, the message seems lost in the words.
Wrong has as its basic premise that the experts we have come to respect, and the studies reported to us as “earthshattering” and “paradigm shifting” often (very often) are wrong. He puts forward several reasons for this. First is simply the fact that everyone makes mistakes. That is understandable. But he also documents in great detail the pressures on researchers and scientists in general, and academics in particular, to publish. The pressure to publish, and the resistance to publishing research that simply confirms what we already know, pushes researchers to at times knowingly or unknowingly “fudge” their data. At the most extreme he documents several high profile instances of researchers (whose work was highly regarded and influential) having later been found to have intentionally manipulated the data to reach the conclusions they sought.
Another element though that contributes to the “wrong-ness” of experts is the reliance on published research and data as support for further research. As mentioned above, the research most often published is that which challenges the status quo, which steps up and shakes up. That means that, statistically, while hundreds of studies may show prior theory to be correct they will not be published, and yet the one study that “disproves” a prior finding gets published. Despite the fact that, given the other research, this one study may be a statistical aberration.
The message here is clear for business as well as science. When evaluating new ideas be vigilant. Ask questions. And most importantly, be sure to guard against the excitement of new ideas and evaluate them carefully, and rigorously. Noted previously is that the book tends to wander. Be careful though, because lost in the meanderings are some truly interesting insights, including discussions about “consensus building.” The author warns the reader (and the business leaders) about the potential problem with consensus:
“Once a majority opinion is formed, even highly competent, confident people are reluctant to voice opinions that go against it, thanks to the notion, drilled into our heads from elementary school up through the workplace, that forging cooperation and agreement is critical. “
This book is a valuable read, and has some true pearls of wisdom. Just resist the notion that there “isn’t much new here.” Sometimes that actually is the point.
Wrong has as its basic premise that the experts we have come to respect, and the studies reported to us as “earthshattering” and “paradigm shifting” often (very often) are wrong. He puts forward several reasons for this. First is simply the fact that everyone makes mistakes. That is understandable. But he also documents in great detail the pressures on researchers and scientists in general, and academics in particular, to publish. The pressure to publish, and the resistance to publishing research that simply confirms what we already know, pushes researchers to at times knowingly or unknowingly “fudge” their data. At the most extreme he documents several high profile instances of researchers (whose work was highly regarded and influential) having later been found to have intentionally manipulated the data to reach the conclusions they sought.
Another element though that contributes to the “wrong-ness” of experts is the reliance on published research and data as support for further research. As mentioned above, the research most often published is that which challenges the status quo, which steps up and shakes up. That means that, statistically, while hundreds of studies may show prior theory to be correct they will not be published, and yet the one study that “disproves” a prior finding gets published. Despite the fact that, given the other research, this one study may be a statistical aberration.
The message here is clear for business as well as science. When evaluating new ideas be vigilant. Ask questions. And most importantly, be sure to guard against the excitement of new ideas and evaluate them carefully, and rigorously. Noted previously is that the book tends to wander. Be careful though, because lost in the meanderings are some truly interesting insights, including discussions about “consensus building.” The author warns the reader (and the business leaders) about the potential problem with consensus:
“Once a majority opinion is formed, even highly competent, confident people are reluctant to voice opinions that go against it, thanks to the notion, drilled into our heads from elementary school up through the workplace, that forging cooperation and agreement is critical. “
This book is a valuable read, and has some true pearls of wisdom. Just resist the notion that there “isn’t much new here.” Sometimes that actually is the point.
November 8, 2015
This is an average book about an important topic.
The issue is that the experts whom we trust to know better then us are often wrong. It seems that the problem is especially widespread in medical fraternity. This book explores why is it so, who can we trust and how can we identify better advice, one more likely to be correct, from the large amount we encounter in media and online.
Author examines various aspects of it. Are formal experts like trained scientists better than informal experts like lifestyle gurus, celebrity authors? As you would expect, they are but that is not saying much. Why are scientists wrong and why don't institutional practices like peer review, reproducible results prevent it? What role does the media play? (Hint: They make it worse.)
Then there are chapters examining crowd sourcing, management fads and internet. I didn't think they added much. The chapter on internet already feels dated with no mention of sites like StackCverflow and Quora which do present interesting data points for examining. The open access publishing, Arxiv etc have a lot more momentum now then in 2010 when the book was written. Also the collaborative maths experiments of Terrence Tao. So scientific community is beginning to adapt open collaboration and review at least in few fields.
The 4 appendices seem to be there to help with the perennial problem of achieving the right page count. The second one about the The Evolution of Expertise made little sense, making claims like acupuncture being the "one of the first medical practices to survive more or less intact to present day." That is because while going through a vague history of world science, in which he mentions Greeks, Chinese, Egyptians, Arabs and Europeans, he forgets someone.
Apart from the fact that about 1/3rd of the book can be cut without taking away much from the central thesis of the book, the writing feels repetitive and unorganized. No subheadings in any of the chapters make it harder to keep track of arguments. Author keeps going on tangents.
But I still finished it. Because I think having a more critical eye towards all the expert pronouncements and advice around us is an increasingly important skill to have. Especially since most of our information in future is likely to come from internet where filters are absent.
The issue is that the experts whom we trust to know better then us are often wrong. It seems that the problem is especially widespread in medical fraternity. This book explores why is it so, who can we trust and how can we identify better advice, one more likely to be correct, from the large amount we encounter in media and online.
Author examines various aspects of it. Are formal experts like trained scientists better than informal experts like lifestyle gurus, celebrity authors? As you would expect, they are but that is not saying much. Why are scientists wrong and why don't institutional practices like peer review, reproducible results prevent it? What role does the media play? (Hint: They make it worse.)
Then there are chapters examining crowd sourcing, management fads and internet. I didn't think they added much. The chapter on internet already feels dated with no mention of sites like StackCverflow and Quora which do present interesting data points for examining. The open access publishing, Arxiv etc have a lot more momentum now then in 2010 when the book was written. Also the collaborative maths experiments of Terrence Tao. So scientific community is beginning to adapt open collaboration and review at least in few fields.
The 4 appendices seem to be there to help with the perennial problem of achieving the right page count. The second one about the The Evolution of Expertise made little sense, making claims like acupuncture being the "one of the first medical practices to survive more or less intact to present day." That is because while going through a vague history of world science, in which he mentions Greeks, Chinese, Egyptians, Arabs and Europeans, he forgets someone.
Apart from the fact that about 1/3rd of the book can be cut without taking away much from the central thesis of the book, the writing feels repetitive and unorganized. No subheadings in any of the chapters make it harder to keep track of arguments. Author keeps going on tangents.
But I still finished it. Because I think having a more critical eye towards all the expert pronouncements and advice around us is an increasingly important skill to have. Especially since most of our information in future is likely to come from internet where filters are absent.
January 16, 2011
This is an important book that helps explain why so much expert advice turns out to be wrong or unhelpful. Freedman goes into the many ways that experts both intentionally and unintentionally mislead us; the forces that cause the media to distort evidence when reporting it; and other ways in which people who seem to know what they are talking about are less than trustworthy.
If experts are wrong so frequently, it is easy to fall into a kind of despair and paralysis: if any given advice is highly likely to be misleading or wrong, why should I act on any advice? Freeman tries to address this problem in a chapter on recognizing a trustworthy expert. An expert who is upfront about a study's shortcomings, qualifies his statements, refers to other studies that gave conflicting results, and so forth, is trustworthy. But this is only somewhat reassuring: it helps us have confidence that this expert is not deliberately misleading us, but it doesn't protect us against the kinds of accidental mistakes, like poor handling of blood samples by lab technicians or errors in statistical analysis software, that can also distort results and end in poor advice. On how to avoid this kind of bad advice, Freeman is silent.
Freedman, curiously, also leaves out one very important reason that media coverage of scientific studies can be biased: the sheer importance of advertising revenues to the bottom line of any media company. A reporter who accurately stated, "Drug X actually increases the all-cause death rate in a large clinical study" may have a difficult time getting the story published if the manufacturer of Drug X is a big advertiser.
Nonetheless, I think that anyone who has ever read a headline like, "Fiber prevents colon cancer" and immediately gone out and bought a giant tub of Metamucil, only to learn later that fiber does not in fact prevent colon cancer, should read Freeman's book.
If experts are wrong so frequently, it is easy to fall into a kind of despair and paralysis: if any given advice is highly likely to be misleading or wrong, why should I act on any advice? Freeman tries to address this problem in a chapter on recognizing a trustworthy expert. An expert who is upfront about a study's shortcomings, qualifies his statements, refers to other studies that gave conflicting results, and so forth, is trustworthy. But this is only somewhat reassuring: it helps us have confidence that this expert is not deliberately misleading us, but it doesn't protect us against the kinds of accidental mistakes, like poor handling of blood samples by lab technicians or errors in statistical analysis software, that can also distort results and end in poor advice. On how to avoid this kind of bad advice, Freeman is silent.
Freedman, curiously, also leaves out one very important reason that media coverage of scientific studies can be biased: the sheer importance of advertising revenues to the bottom line of any media company. A reporter who accurately stated, "Drug X actually increases the all-cause death rate in a large clinical study" may have a difficult time getting the story published if the manufacturer of Drug X is a big advertiser.
Nonetheless, I think that anyone who has ever read a headline like, "Fiber prevents colon cancer" and immediately gone out and bought a giant tub of Metamucil, only to learn later that fiber does not in fact prevent colon cancer, should read Freeman's book.
July 21, 2016
Excellent overview of the persistent problems inherent in relying on experts, regardless of their status. Although scientists are the most reliable experts, as careful study of the outcomes of expert advice, even from scientists, has shown, experts are often wrong. It's a jungle out there when it comes to knowing what advice is truly trustworthy, from diet and health advice to economic and political advice. The author concludes, that although there is no simple, straight-forward way to determine what expert advice is correct or not, there are some guiding principles that can b used. For example, f something is touted as a "breakthrough," it is actually more likely to be in error. When breakthroughs in science are published, it is often best to wait for further confirmation from additional studies before concluding that a breakthrough really is what it claims to be.
I did find the book discouraging to some extent, when he shares statistics on such things as levels of scientific fraud, which is probably more widespread than we often want to recognize. If scientists, who are the most trustworthy, are so prone to fudging, massaging or outright fabricating data, where are we to turn for sound advice. In the end it just means we need to always maintain a healthy degree of skepticism, while deciding what i true and what isn't, and always being ready to adjust as new evidence comes in.
I did find the book discouraging to some extent, when he shares statistics on such things as levels of scientific fraud, which is probably more widespread than we often want to recognize. If scientists, who are the most trustworthy, are so prone to fudging, massaging or outright fabricating data, where are we to turn for sound advice. In the end it just means we need to always maintain a healthy degree of skepticism, while deciding what i true and what isn't, and always being ready to adjust as new evidence comes in.
April 16, 2011
Interesting approach to the value of expert advice and how, generally, it is to be treated with caution. Thoughtful and self-aware analysis. Freedman is not unaware of the irony: he is talking about expert advice from the stance of being an expert himself. He devotes an entire chapter to this apparent paradox without ever quite overcoming it (I guess that is the nature of paradoxes!)
It's common sense stuff and he throws a good deal of light on the potential pressures on "experts" to publish, be right, find unique and controversial takes on subjects under study and highlights some of the more infamous examples of bias and outright falsification.
It isn't a terribly easy read and I fear that it will not be as widely read as it deserves to be. Today, one of the biggest challenges I feel is developing critical thinking in society - we take far too much at face value, without questioning it, and are thereafter loathe to change our opinions. Often we won't change despite overwhelming evidence, yet we are ready to believe anything, however flimsy, that supports our world view.
A good read, perhaps a tad long and a little repetitive.
It's common sense stuff and he throws a good deal of light on the potential pressures on "experts" to publish, be right, find unique and controversial takes on subjects under study and highlights some of the more infamous examples of bias and outright falsification.
It isn't a terribly easy read and I fear that it will not be as widely read as it deserves to be. Today, one of the biggest challenges I feel is developing critical thinking in society - we take far too much at face value, without questioning it, and are thereafter loathe to change our opinions. Often we won't change despite overwhelming evidence, yet we are ready to believe anything, however flimsy, that supports our world view.
A good read, perhaps a tad long and a little repetitive.
January 21, 2011
An interesting look at how most expert opinions are wrong in the short term. The author contends that most reportage of 'study' findings is misleading, at best.The whole system is predictably tilted to favor flashy, earth-shattering, most-likely erroneous conclusions of academic and medical studies over boring, negative or more careful ones. In the upper echelons of academic journals, more than half of conclusions prove wrong, and most of the rest are simply untested.
I didn't think the writing was great, but it was interesting. It more or less reinforces the general skepticism which should greet every new simplistic claim you hear on the news about some new study proving that your favorite thing (chocolate, beer, wine) is going to prevent cancer, cause cancer, or prevent and cause cancer whilst making you skinny.
I didn't think the writing was great, but it was interesting. It more or less reinforces the general skepticism which should greet every new simplistic claim you hear on the news about some new study proving that your favorite thing (chocolate, beer, wine) is going to prevent cancer, cause cancer, or prevent and cause cancer whilst making you skinny.
October 27, 2011
He makes an important point--science is often "wrong"--but I'm not sure he completely appreciates how day-to-day science works. Scientists are trained to be skeptical. I think most scientists understand that even their own work may be "wrong," at least in the sense that it's not exactly right, but that's why we continue to work on research questions. I believe most scientists realize that very rarely is a single study definitive. We do multiple studies on important questions and accumulate evidence. We feel more confident as we find similar and more precise findings under different conditions. He is correct, though, that we should be careful not to overstate our confidence in our findings. Professional scientists know to be skeptical, while the general public may not. I'm going to consider using parts of the book for grad students.
November 11, 2017
An interesting book.
There are a disturbing number of ways that experts (credentialed experts, informal experts and the rest of us) can go wrong in finding the "right" answer. Poor data, fudged data, biases, blind spots, pressure from peers...
In the end, the author seems to be saying that you can't really trust anyone (including him) to give you a silver bullet answer to any complex question. You have to listen to lots of "experts", use common sense, be aware of some of the pitfalls involved and become you own expert.
+++
I originally read this book in February of 2012, and reread it again in May 2016 (aloud to Maggee) to look at it as a candidate for inclusion in the BML (it will probably will make the cut...)
On the second reading it became book #22 on our 2016 Read-aloud list.
There are a disturbing number of ways that experts (credentialed experts, informal experts and the rest of us) can go wrong in finding the "right" answer. Poor data, fudged data, biases, blind spots, pressure from peers...
In the end, the author seems to be saying that you can't really trust anyone (including him) to give you a silver bullet answer to any complex question. You have to listen to lots of "experts", use common sense, be aware of some of the pitfalls involved and become you own expert.
+++
I originally read this book in February of 2012, and reread it again in May 2016 (aloud to Maggee) to look at it as a candidate for inclusion in the BML (it will probably will make the cut...)
On the second reading it became book #22 on our 2016 Read-aloud list.
October 17, 2012
It's good at showing how expert opinion, even scientific opinion, can be untrustworthy. The problem though is that if you use a point that talks about how numbers often make people more likely to accept bad studies, you are going to have a problem when you need to use these same numbers to prove a point. Or how you can trust an expert who uses statistical analysis after providing example after example that statistics can be misreported, cooked, etc.
It's a good skeptical book, but it doesn't make much of a case to balance that with accurate data, or even answer many contradictions of a purely skeptical approach. Especially when he offers positions of his own, like how life expectancy solely increased due to anti-smoking efforts, or global warming issues.
It's a good skeptical book, but it doesn't make much of a case to balance that with accurate data, or even answer many contradictions of a purely skeptical approach. Especially when he offers positions of his own, like how life expectancy solely increased due to anti-smoking efforts, or global warming issues.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews