What do you think?
Rate this book
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science
This witty and engaging book examines the various fads, fallacies, strange cults, and curious panaceas which at one time or another have masqueraded as science. Not just a collection of anecdotes but a fair, reasoned appraisal of eccentric theory, it is unique in recognizing the scientific, philosophic, and sociological-psychological implications of the wave of pseudoscientific theories which periodically besets the world.
To this second revised edition of a work formerly titled In the Name of Science, Martin Gardner has added new, up-to-date material to an already impressive account of hundreds of systematized vagaries. Here you will find discussions of hollow-earth fanatics like Symmes; Velikovsky and wandering planets; Hörbiger, Bellamy, and the theory of multiple moons; Charles Fort and the Fortean Society; dowsing and the other strange methods for finding water, ores, and oil. Also covered are such topics as naturopathy, iridiagnosis, zone therapy, food fads; Wilhelm Reich and orgone sex energy; L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetics; A. Korzybski and General Semantics. A new examination of Bridey Murphy is included in this edition, along with a new section on bibliographic reference material.
To this second revised edition of a work formerly titled In the Name of Science, Martin Gardner has added new, up-to-date material to an already impressive account of hundreds of systematized vagaries. Here you will find discussions of hollow-earth fanatics like Symmes; Velikovsky and wandering planets; Hörbiger, Bellamy, and the theory of multiple moons; Charles Fort and the Fortean Society; dowsing and the other strange methods for finding water, ores, and oil. Also covered are such topics as naturopathy, iridiagnosis, zone therapy, food fads; Wilhelm Reich and orgone sex energy; L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetics; A. Korzybski and General Semantics. A new examination of Bridey Murphy is included in this edition, along with a new section on bibliographic reference material.
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1952
70 people are currently reading
3,759 people want to read
About the author
Martin Gardner
558books492followersMartin 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 67 reviews
December 2, 2009
Man, people believed some crazy nonsense in the 50s. Homeopathy, Dianetics, chiropractic, hollow earth, dowsing... Well, at least those fads have run their course and people are approaching life with a more sensible and logical outlook now. Oh, wait... Shit.
October 16, 2020
I read 's , the sequel to the tome under discussion, way back in 1986 and loved it. It was one book which weaned me away from pseudoscientific claptrap like ESP, Precognition, Cosmic energy etc. which had succeeded in infiltrating my psyche through a misspent teenage gorging on books by the likes of Charles Berlitz, Fritjof Capra and Erich von Daniken, and the coffee table books regularly issued by Readers' Digest. The faculty of scepticism which lies dormant in most of us (because gullibility is much more exciting) was prodded awake by Gardner, the debunker extraordinaire - and it has only grown stronger as I age.
This book, written in the early 1950's, debunks pseudoscience which has by now passed mostly into the realm of historical crackpot theories - though some, like homeopathy and naturopathy, doggedly hold on. Therefore it did not have the myth-busting excitement that grabbed me while reading its sequel, but it's interesting all the same.
Pseudosciences vary from the utterly bizarre to the marginally believable, which is what makes it extremely difficult to pinpoint something as quackery. However, that does not mean it's impossible to be sure of anything at all! As the author says
These are broadly the pseudosciences Gardner tackles:
1. Kooky theories about the earth (flat, hollow etc.) and the nature of the universe
2. Flying Saucers
3. Creation theory vs Evolution
4. Theories of racial superiority
5. Atlantis
6. Medical Quackery
7. Reincarnation
He does this with a disarming honesty and and a great deal of open discussion, never throwing a theory away out of hand and never blaming any of the proponents personally, even when they are confirmed charlatans. Also, his subtle humour makes this a delight to read.
Read it from end to end, or keep on dipping into it at intervals, this is a book to delight you. And maybe, open your eyes.
I am adding an image which is not from the book, but which I feel is relevant.
This book, written in the early 1950's, debunks pseudoscience which has by now passed mostly into the realm of historical crackpot theories - though some, like homeopathy and naturopathy, doggedly hold on. Therefore it did not have the myth-busting excitement that grabbed me while reading its sequel, but it's interesting all the same.
Pseudosciences vary from the utterly bizarre to the marginally believable, which is what makes it extremely difficult to pinpoint something as quackery. However, that does not mean it's impossible to be sure of anything at all! As the author says
In the last analysis, the best means of combating the spread of pseudoscience is an enlightened public, able to distinguish the work of a reputable investigator from the work of the incompetent and self-deluded. This is not as hard to do as one might think. Of course, there always will be borderline cases hard to classify, but the fact that black shades into white through many shades of gray does not mean that the distinction between black and white is difficult.Precisely! and how to do that? Always remember the scientific method. Hypothesis - experiment - observation - confirmation/falsification. If we look at these pseudosciences, almost certainly at least one of the links after the hypothesis is missing.
These are broadly the pseudosciences Gardner tackles:
1. Kooky theories about the earth (flat, hollow etc.) and the nature of the universe
2. Flying Saucers
3. Creation theory vs Evolution
4. Theories of racial superiority
5. Atlantis
6. Medical Quackery
7. Reincarnation
He does this with a disarming honesty and and a great deal of open discussion, never throwing a theory away out of hand and never blaming any of the proponents personally, even when they are confirmed charlatans. Also, his subtle humour makes this a delight to read.
Read it from end to end, or keep on dipping into it at intervals, this is a book to delight you. And maybe, open your eyes.
I am adding an image which is not from the book, but which I feel is relevant.
July 5, 2017
This book.
Made me furious.
I swear, at least once a chapter I would flip back to the copyright page and shout that we had decided that anti-vax/flat-earth/homeopathy/etc was bullshit in the early fifties and are we still having these conversations sixty years later why
The final straw was coming upon a two? three? line paragraph that talked about how poor science education in the United States is and that we have no real good science communicators or priorities to teach science and critical thinking to school-age people and while I do think that we do have some very good science communicators now following in the footsteps of Carl Sagan the fact that we have gone six decades and have taken no major steps to make any real change in our educational system just made me want to cry.
So was it a good book? Absolutely. I love Martin Gardner.
But I am so angry that all these years later his writing comes off as prescient and timely and topical.
Sorry if this is all a bit disjointed, I'm still fuming. Read this and we can fume together.
Made me furious.
I swear, at least once a chapter I would flip back to the copyright page and shout that we had decided that anti-vax/flat-earth/homeopathy/etc was bullshit in the early fifties and are we still having these conversations sixty years later why
The final straw was coming upon a two? three? line paragraph that talked about how poor science education in the United States is and that we have no real good science communicators or priorities to teach science and critical thinking to school-age people and while I do think that we do have some very good science communicators now following in the footsteps of Carl Sagan the fact that we have gone six decades and have taken no major steps to make any real change in our educational system just made me want to cry.
So was it a good book? Absolutely. I love Martin Gardner.
But I am so angry that all these years later his writing comes off as prescient and timely and topical.
Sorry if this is all a bit disjointed, I'm still fuming. Read this and we can fume together.
November 15, 2022
Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science is one of the classic volumes of skeptical writing. Gardner, a mathematician and popular science writer, delightfully skewers a wide range of pseudoscientific beliefs, frauds and charlatans, some relatively harmless, some deeply dangerous. He explores the history of Flat Earth (and Hollow Earth) beliefs and the whacko cosmology of Immanuel Velikovsky; exposes health quacks from chiropractic practitioners and fraudulent medicine peddlers to L. Ron Hubbard (not yet founder of Scientology, but already peddling Dianetics); explodes the psychosexual obsessions of Wilhelm Reich and the genocidal social engineering of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia; skewers the preposterous Charles Fort and the burgeoning UFO craze (the book was written in 1952). Gardner's tone is one of amused, usually gentle ridicule that finds commonality in the parade of cranks and conmen he explores. Their view of accepted wisdom as unpersuasive or incomplete leads them to embrace ideas far more unlikely and unburdened by evidence than the ones they reject; skepticism or critique only confirms their righteousness (indeed, that They are conspiring to hide the Truth!), causing them to dig in their heels and assert their correctness more stridently. This reactionary mindset will strike readers in 2022 as painfully familiar, having contributed both to worldwide political instability and the worst pandemic in a century. It's easy to dismiss such viewpoints as the result of a specific political movement or a particularly fraught historical moment, but Gardner shows these attitudes are ingrained in human nature. And that, however silly such nonsense can appear at times, it contributes to a broader embrace of anti-intellectualism that goes far beyond healthy skepticism to outright hostility towards logic, reason and even thought.
February 9, 2018
(Original review date: 23 January 2013)
How do you tell a scientist from a crank?
It's a difficult assessment, but it turns out that there are subtle but important linguistic clues.
For example, a crank might say:
"To know of the earth's concavity... is to know God, while to believe in the earth's convexity is to deny Him and all his works. All that is opposed to Koreshanity is antichrist."
- Koresh (b. Cyrus Reed Teed), self-proclaimed messiah, who believed that we live on the inside of a hollow sphere.
"Either you believe in me and learn, or you must be treated as an enemy."
- Hans Hörbiger, who believed that our current moon is the sixth of its kind, all previous moons having been sucked into the Earth like manic tetherballs.
"When I look into the vastness of space and see the marvelous workings of its contents... I sometimes think that I was born ten or twenty thousand years ahead of time... [My] mind responds to every question and the problems that stagger the so-called wise men are as kindergarten stuff to [me]."
- Alfred William Lawson, Supreme Head and First Knowlegian of the University of Lawsonomy, who believed that two types of microscopic creatures live in the human brain and control our behavior: the virtuous "menorgs", and the devious "disorgs".
"We believe our work to be of God; we are actuated by no selfish or mercenary motive. We depreciate personal antagonisms of every kind, but we proclaim a ceaseless antagonism to that great evil, the French Metric System... It is the Battle of the Standards. May our banner be ever upheld in the cause of Truth, Freedom, and Universal Brotherhood, founded upon a just weight and just measure, which alone are acceptable to the Lord."
- The International Institute for Preserving and Perfecting Weights and Measures, who believed that the English measurement system was handed down by God and revealed in the Great Pyramid, while the metric system is an atheistic abomination.
"What kept [the lonely eagle] from [eating all the inferior chickens] was a small hope. The hope, namely, that among the many cackling chicks there might be, one day, a little eagle capable like himself, to look from his lofty perch into the far distance, in order to detect new worlds, new thoughts, and new forms of living."
- William Reich, founder of orgonomy, who believed that all living things are infused with a blue-colored life force called orgone energy, and that all neuroses can be cured by a really good orgasm.
"The Creation of dianetics is a milestone for Man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his inventions of the wheel and arch."
- L. Ron Hubbard (aka The Master), founder of Dianetics and Scientology, who believed that all psychiatric conditions are caused by perceptual recordings made while we were zygotes, which can only be "processed" by a lengthy system of "auditing". See also: Xenu.
While a scientist might say:
"A true genius admits that he knows nothing."
- Albert Einstein, who believed that E = mc2.
It's surprising how entertaining and relevant this book remains, 60 years after it was first published. Though many of the titular fads and fallacies are now (thankfully) defunct, many others are still going strong. People will always be gullible.
With chapters on everything from flying saucers to Atlantis to food fads and wacky sexual theories, the book does a decent job of running the gamut of crackpottery. And Martin Gardner is an engaging escort through all the insanity, injecting just the right amount of sarcasm where appropriate, but often just letting the cranks speak for themselves. (Though hardly a crank, my favorite quote in the whole book comes from Alfred Kinsey, in defense of premature ejaculators: "It would be difficult to find another situation in which an individual who was quick and intense in his responses was labeled anything but superior." HA HA HA, whatever dude.)
The book does drag in places (how many inane medical "theories" do we really need to delve into?), but it hits more than it misses. Especially worthwhile are the chapters on flat & hollow earth theories, sexual ideologies, and Scientology (then called "Dianetics" and only two years old - Gardner thought the fad was on its way out).
How do you tell a scientist from a crank?
It's a difficult assessment, but it turns out that there are subtle but important linguistic clues.
For example, a crank might say:
"To know of the earth's concavity... is to know God, while to believe in the earth's convexity is to deny Him and all his works. All that is opposed to Koreshanity is antichrist."
- Koresh (b. Cyrus Reed Teed), self-proclaimed messiah, who believed that we live on the inside of a hollow sphere.
"Either you believe in me and learn, or you must be treated as an enemy."
- Hans Hörbiger, who believed that our current moon is the sixth of its kind, all previous moons having been sucked into the Earth like manic tetherballs.
"When I look into the vastness of space and see the marvelous workings of its contents... I sometimes think that I was born ten or twenty thousand years ahead of time... [My] mind responds to every question and the problems that stagger the so-called wise men are as kindergarten stuff to [me]."
- Alfred William Lawson, Supreme Head and First Knowlegian of the University of Lawsonomy, who believed that two types of microscopic creatures live in the human brain and control our behavior: the virtuous "menorgs", and the devious "disorgs".
"We believe our work to be of God; we are actuated by no selfish or mercenary motive. We depreciate personal antagonisms of every kind, but we proclaim a ceaseless antagonism to that great evil, the French Metric System... It is the Battle of the Standards. May our banner be ever upheld in the cause of Truth, Freedom, and Universal Brotherhood, founded upon a just weight and just measure, which alone are acceptable to the Lord."
- The International Institute for Preserving and Perfecting Weights and Measures, who believed that the English measurement system was handed down by God and revealed in the Great Pyramid, while the metric system is an atheistic abomination.
"What kept [the lonely eagle] from [eating all the inferior chickens] was a small hope. The hope, namely, that among the many cackling chicks there might be, one day, a little eagle capable like himself, to look from his lofty perch into the far distance, in order to detect new worlds, new thoughts, and new forms of living."
- William Reich, founder of orgonomy, who believed that all living things are infused with a blue-colored life force called orgone energy, and that all neuroses can be cured by a really good orgasm.
"The Creation of dianetics is a milestone for Man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his inventions of the wheel and arch."
- L. Ron Hubbard (aka The Master), founder of Dianetics and Scientology, who believed that all psychiatric conditions are caused by perceptual recordings made while we were zygotes, which can only be "processed" by a lengthy system of "auditing". See also: Xenu.
While a scientist might say:
"A true genius admits that he knows nothing."
- Albert Einstein, who believed that E = mc2.
It's surprising how entertaining and relevant this book remains, 60 years after it was first published. Though many of the titular fads and fallacies are now (thankfully) defunct, many others are still going strong. People will always be gullible.
With chapters on everything from flying saucers to Atlantis to food fads and wacky sexual theories, the book does a decent job of running the gamut of crackpottery. And Martin Gardner is an engaging escort through all the insanity, injecting just the right amount of sarcasm where appropriate, but often just letting the cranks speak for themselves. (Though hardly a crank, my favorite quote in the whole book comes from Alfred Kinsey, in defense of premature ejaculators: "It would be difficult to find another situation in which an individual who was quick and intense in his responses was labeled anything but superior." HA HA HA, whatever dude.)
The book does drag in places (how many inane medical "theories" do we really need to delve into?), but it hits more than it misses. Especially worthwhile are the chapters on flat & hollow earth theories, sexual ideologies, and Scientology (then called "Dianetics" and only two years old - Gardner thought the fad was on its way out).
March 13, 2023
ENGLISH: As this book was first published in 1952, and then slightly updated in 1957, 65 years later it is slightly outdated. Many of the fads & fallacies it mentions are now practically extinct (although it's nice to read about them); others have appeared later. Thus, UFO observations erupt from time to time: in the seventies and the eighties, and even now, as a result of the Chinese spy balloons above the U.S. People are always a little injudicious, and the media swallow this kind of news happily, for it tends to produce more sales.
One fad & fallacy Gardner could not deal with, for it was after this book, is Erich von Däniken's theory about E.T. visits in historical times. Fortunately, Michael Gordin's book (), which I read just before this one, deals with this theory in some detail. My interest in it comes from the fact that my first newspaper contribution ever was an article against von Däniken's theory, which was published in 1974.
ESPAÑOL: Como este libro se publicó por primera vez en 1952, y se actualizó ligeramente en 1957, 65 años después está un poco atrasado. Muchas de las falacias que menciona están ahora prácticamente extinguidas (aunque es bueno leer sobre ellas); otras aparecieron después. Por ejemplo, de vez en cuando se repiten observaciones de OVNIs: en los años setenta y ochenta, e incluso ahora, como resultado de los globos espía chinos sobre los EE.UU. La gente es siempre un poco insensata, y los medios de comunicación saludan con alegría este tipo de noticias, porque suelen producir más ventas.
Una falacia con la que Gardner no pudo lidiar, ya que tuvo lugar después de este libro, es la teoría de Erich von Däniken sobre visitas de extraterrestres en tiempos históricos. Afortunadamente, el libro de Michael Gordin (), que leí justo antes de este, trata esta teoría con cierto detalle. Mi interés en ella proviene del hecho de que mi primera contribución en un periódico fue un artículo contra la teoría de von Däniken que se publicó en 1974.
One fad & fallacy Gardner could not deal with, for it was after this book, is Erich von Däniken's theory about E.T. visits in historical times. Fortunately, Michael Gordin's book (), which I read just before this one, deals with this theory in some detail. My interest in it comes from the fact that my first newspaper contribution ever was an article against von Däniken's theory, which was published in 1974.
ESPAÑOL: Como este libro se publicó por primera vez en 1952, y se actualizó ligeramente en 1957, 65 años después está un poco atrasado. Muchas de las falacias que menciona están ahora prácticamente extinguidas (aunque es bueno leer sobre ellas); otras aparecieron después. Por ejemplo, de vez en cuando se repiten observaciones de OVNIs: en los años setenta y ochenta, e incluso ahora, como resultado de los globos espía chinos sobre los EE.UU. La gente es siempre un poco insensata, y los medios de comunicación saludan con alegría este tipo de noticias, porque suelen producir más ventas.
Una falacia con la que Gardner no pudo lidiar, ya que tuvo lugar después de este libro, es la teoría de Erich von Däniken sobre visitas de extraterrestres en tiempos históricos. Afortunadamente, el libro de Michael Gordin (), que leí justo antes de este, trata esta teoría con cierto detalle. Mi interés en ella proviene del hecho de que mi primera contribución en un periódico fue un artículo contra la teoría de von Däniken que se publicó en 1974.
June 12, 2007
A romp through the curious worlds occupied by influential crank scientists � worlds in which the earth is flat or hollow, and invisible orgone radiation will help us undo our prenatal mental implants and fend off the saucer people. You’ll recognize many of the names (L. Ron Hubbard, Wilhelm Reich, Immanuel Velikovsky) and be first introduced to many others. Gardner acknowledges that there is a broad grey area between crank science and orthodox science where wild (but perhaps true) theories live, and that often orthodox science is just plain wrong, but he insists that there is a well-defined and identifiable arena for cranks. He shows no overt sympathy for these loonies, but his affection for their eccentricities shines through. The book was published in the 1950s, and so is slightly dated, but I wouldn't let this stop you.
March 26, 2019
Target audience: The primary target are common people, with little or no scientific literacy. The secondary target are people in love with mysticism.
About the author: According to Wikipedia, was an American popular mathematics and popular science writer, with interests also encompassing scientific skepticism, micromagic, philosophy, religion, and literature - especially the writings of Lewis Carroll, L. Frank Baum, and G. K. Chesterton. Gardner was best known for creating and sustaining interest in recreational mathematics - and by extension, mathematics in general - throughout the latter half of the 20th century, principally through his "Mathematical Games" columns. These appeared for twenty-five years inScientific American, and his subsequent books collecting them.
Structure of the book: The book is 384 pages long, which are divided into 26 chapters plus other additional parts (notes, preface and so one).
Overview: Basically, the book debunks what it characterizes as pseudo-science and the pseudo-scientists who propagate it. And, unfortunately, the subjects and examples are many; evidence of 373 pages. Yes, the book is long. If you like science, you won’t get bored. However, if you are fan of mysticism, this is a hard pill to swallow; it will shred your dearest beliefs.
Gardner starts by describing/defining “cranks� and “pseudo-scientists�, so that people with low scientific literacy can recognize them. Then he patiently takes theories and personalities, one by one, puts them in groups, describes them and then dismisses them point by point using logic, scientific arguments and common sense. Flat-earth theory, hollow-earth theory, anti-vaccine, flying saucer, vegetarianism, L. Ron Hubbard, Atlantis and Lemuria � you name it. Occasionally he also uses historical examples of previous failures or a welcome portion of humor. As a science fan, I was familiar with the myth of Atlantis or pyramidology, but that does not mean I did not enjoy those parts. There is always something new to be learned.
This book was originally written in 1952. We are in now 2019 (or more). Why do I say this? Because, as a reader, you are pretty shocked about how current are certain pseudo-scientific theories and how hard mindsets can change. Yes, we are in the age of artificial intelligence, smart cars, green energy and voyages to Mars. Yet, homeopathy, astrology, scientology and other are non-sense are still thriving. How is that possible? The answer is simple, but not obvious: while mankind’s knowledge is expanding faster than the individual knowledge. “Cross-pollenisation between sciences� (as Neil deGrasse Tyson likes to say) and the passing of information from one man to another � they all take time.
Quote: There is no evidence whatever that meat plays a significant role in causing bodily disorders, least of all cancer, which some vegetarians, trace to meat by means of wildly distorted statistics.
Strong points: Well research and a sense of humor and a good structure.
Weak points: I felt that Garner offered too much attention to certain subjects, such as Ron L. Hubbard and his philosophy. I don’t think such frauds deserve so much attention.
About the author: According to Wikipedia, was an American popular mathematics and popular science writer, with interests also encompassing scientific skepticism, micromagic, philosophy, religion, and literature - especially the writings of Lewis Carroll, L. Frank Baum, and G. K. Chesterton. Gardner was best known for creating and sustaining interest in recreational mathematics - and by extension, mathematics in general - throughout the latter half of the 20th century, principally through his "Mathematical Games" columns. These appeared for twenty-five years inScientific American, and his subsequent books collecting them.
Structure of the book: The book is 384 pages long, which are divided into 26 chapters plus other additional parts (notes, preface and so one).
Overview: Basically, the book debunks what it characterizes as pseudo-science and the pseudo-scientists who propagate it. And, unfortunately, the subjects and examples are many; evidence of 373 pages. Yes, the book is long. If you like science, you won’t get bored. However, if you are fan of mysticism, this is a hard pill to swallow; it will shred your dearest beliefs.
Gardner starts by describing/defining “cranks� and “pseudo-scientists�, so that people with low scientific literacy can recognize them. Then he patiently takes theories and personalities, one by one, puts them in groups, describes them and then dismisses them point by point using logic, scientific arguments and common sense. Flat-earth theory, hollow-earth theory, anti-vaccine, flying saucer, vegetarianism, L. Ron Hubbard, Atlantis and Lemuria � you name it. Occasionally he also uses historical examples of previous failures or a welcome portion of humor. As a science fan, I was familiar with the myth of Atlantis or pyramidology, but that does not mean I did not enjoy those parts. There is always something new to be learned.
This book was originally written in 1952. We are in now 2019 (or more). Why do I say this? Because, as a reader, you are pretty shocked about how current are certain pseudo-scientific theories and how hard mindsets can change. Yes, we are in the age of artificial intelligence, smart cars, green energy and voyages to Mars. Yet, homeopathy, astrology, scientology and other are non-sense are still thriving. How is that possible? The answer is simple, but not obvious: while mankind’s knowledge is expanding faster than the individual knowledge. “Cross-pollenisation between sciences� (as Neil deGrasse Tyson likes to say) and the passing of information from one man to another � they all take time.
Quote: There is no evidence whatever that meat plays a significant role in causing bodily disorders, least of all cancer, which some vegetarians, trace to meat by means of wildly distorted statistics.
Strong points: Well research and a sense of humor and a good structure.
Weak points: I felt that Garner offered too much attention to certain subjects, such as Ron L. Hubbard and his philosophy. I don’t think such frauds deserve so much attention.
July 22, 2010
An interesting and enjoyable read, but like the somewhat similarly themed
it suffers from a few noteworthy issues.
The first is the lack of references. Quotes occur often, but the exact location they are drawn from is not always attributed. Now, I will admit that I'm unlikely to track down any of the works mentioned (OK, maybe some of the Hollow Earth ones), but at the same time a reference as to where and when a quote was stated would make the book seem a bit less light and allow a somewhat better chronological structuring of the surveyed cranks' changes in opinions.
The second is that, nearly 60 years after the first edition and more than 50 since the second, the book is quite simply dated. Many cultural references that would have been common knowledge in 1952 whiz by without nary a spark in the memory. The same goes for various fads that are referenced with the expectation that the reader knows what they are, but not covered in more detail.
In summary: interesting, but desperately in need of an editor to go through and add explanatory notes for those of us who weren't alive in the early '50s or commentary for when various facets of the information presented have changed drastically.
Amusing side-note: the number of science fiction authors and editors, often fairly recognizable names, who show up in here as proponents of the various beliefs is certainly something.
The first is the lack of references. Quotes occur often, but the exact location they are drawn from is not always attributed. Now, I will admit that I'm unlikely to track down any of the works mentioned (OK, maybe some of the Hollow Earth ones), but at the same time a reference as to where and when a quote was stated would make the book seem a bit less light and allow a somewhat better chronological structuring of the surveyed cranks' changes in opinions.
The second is that, nearly 60 years after the first edition and more than 50 since the second, the book is quite simply dated. Many cultural references that would have been common knowledge in 1952 whiz by without nary a spark in the memory. The same goes for various fads that are referenced with the expectation that the reader knows what they are, but not covered in more detail.
In summary: interesting, but desperately in need of an editor to go through and add explanatory notes for those of us who weren't alive in the early '50s or commentary for when various facets of the information presented have changed drastically.
Amusing side-note: the number of science fiction authors and editors, often fairly recognizable names, who show up in here as proponents of the various beliefs is certainly something.
Read
June 13, 2015(Haven't read this cover-to-cover, I just pick it up every now and again.)
Martin Gardner is remembered today for his work as one of the first successful "pop scientists." You could say he was the Carl Sagan of the 40's and 50's, but the comparison ends at the surface; Gardner was a polymath who attained academic recognition slowly, through his writing, whereas Sagan followed a more or less traditional path to the top of the ivory tower, and from there began preaching. In temperament, where Sagan strives for profundity--small blue marble, billions and billions, the anti-armament Kumbayas of his PBS series Cosmos--Gardner was content with acerbity. Sagan was a Christ figure, Gardner was the bad boy shooting spitballs into supercolliders. Sagan attempted to convert the masses to scientism; Gardner mocked those not on board. Sagan=MLK, Gardner=Malcolm X.
I prefer Gardner. This little book of essays exists only to take pot shots at the pseudoscience industry, which flourished in the 50's. Scientology is taken on here (back when it was seen as merely the latest fad within Hubbard's larger "Dianetics" movement), as are the bizarre Nazi cosmologies of Hans Horbinger and others. (Hitler so favored Horbinger's theory--that the entire universe was once a large ball of ice, which has since been broken up and melted into varying stages, which compose the elements--that he once proposed building a museum that would dramatize the fundamentalist cosmology on the first floor, the big bang on the second, and Horbinger's on the third and final floor! Nuts, right?)
Of particular interest to me was the chapter on Alfred Lawson, one of the most overlooked figures in Iowa history and the history of quack science in general. "Fads and Fallacies" was a useful source when I was writing a paper on Mr. Lawson, whose story involves failed careers in baseball, fiction-writing, aviation, and economics, before founding his own (tax-exempt) cult/commune, the Des Moines University of Lawsonomy, a few miles from where I live in Des Moines, Iowa. The University was devoted entirely to inculcating in its "students" (most of whom lived on-campus) a complete knowledge of Lawson's teachings, previously espoused in several dozen self-published volumes. The proposed course of study lasted 30 years. It took so long because one could only graduate (and become, in Lawsonomic terms, a "Knowledgian") after they had memorized every word Lawson ever put to paper.
The University opened in 1943 and closed shortly after Lawson's death in 1954. Lawson was the only Knowledgian, and remained so until more than a decade after his death, when one of his foremost followers, a man named Merle Hayden, began giving out the title at Lawsonomy reunions in the 70's. (Hayden now lives on a farm on a highway outside Racine, Wisconsin, in a house adrift with accumulated paraphernalia--Lawsonomic books and newspapers, paperwork from the University, photographs of Lawson and he smiling side by side, inquisitive letters from those who were children in Des Moines when the University stood, who walked along its fence and wondered what went on inside, all of which Hayden answers--filling the house like floodwater to the attic, on the exterior of which is written, handpainted in neat white capitals over the aging shingles: "PRACTICE NATURAL LAW"; now and then lost tourists cross it, their children point it out to them across the corn fields, and most of them drive on, anxious to get to the Dells; once every year or two, one of these cars stops for gas, or coffee, and the stories begin again...)
Sorry about that. Anyway. One other essay that stands out is the one on chiropractors, who I have always considered to be quacks but who seem to have gained mainstream acceptance since this was published. The shift from chiropractice (chiropractition? are either of these words?) as New Age contemporary of L. Ron Hubbard and alchemists to chiropractice as contemporary of Dr. Scholl and OBGYNs is yet further proof that pseudoscience is alive and well today. It is also proof that Gardner's work must be continued, and we are in need of someone to pick up the torch.
Richard Dawkins doesn't cut it; he is a fine biologist but a mean man, of insufficient warmth to appeal to anyone not already in agreement, and so lacking in imagination--perhaps inherently but I suspect willfully--to interpret religious doctrine in any other way than, like the Fundamentalists he so despises, literally. Gardner had great affection for the bears he poked. He understood the appeal of a worldview which rejects reason, and reveled in it, viewing the bizarre movements he wrote about as a sort of performance art, appreciating their metaphors as would any student of world religion those of Hinduism and Christianity.
We need a scientist who is capable of great cognitive dissonance and is unashamed of it. In our present divided culture, which has politicized science and religion and set them opposed, scientists of just such imagination have tuned out entirely, preferring to play in the lab than settle the territory disputes our gang-like libs and cons have waged. In wait of such a person, I'll be picking up Gardner every now and again.
Martin Gardner is remembered today for his work as one of the first successful "pop scientists." You could say he was the Carl Sagan of the 40's and 50's, but the comparison ends at the surface; Gardner was a polymath who attained academic recognition slowly, through his writing, whereas Sagan followed a more or less traditional path to the top of the ivory tower, and from there began preaching. In temperament, where Sagan strives for profundity--small blue marble, billions and billions, the anti-armament Kumbayas of his PBS series Cosmos--Gardner was content with acerbity. Sagan was a Christ figure, Gardner was the bad boy shooting spitballs into supercolliders. Sagan attempted to convert the masses to scientism; Gardner mocked those not on board. Sagan=MLK, Gardner=Malcolm X.
I prefer Gardner. This little book of essays exists only to take pot shots at the pseudoscience industry, which flourished in the 50's. Scientology is taken on here (back when it was seen as merely the latest fad within Hubbard's larger "Dianetics" movement), as are the bizarre Nazi cosmologies of Hans Horbinger and others. (Hitler so favored Horbinger's theory--that the entire universe was once a large ball of ice, which has since been broken up and melted into varying stages, which compose the elements--that he once proposed building a museum that would dramatize the fundamentalist cosmology on the first floor, the big bang on the second, and Horbinger's on the third and final floor! Nuts, right?)
Of particular interest to me was the chapter on Alfred Lawson, one of the most overlooked figures in Iowa history and the history of quack science in general. "Fads and Fallacies" was a useful source when I was writing a paper on Mr. Lawson, whose story involves failed careers in baseball, fiction-writing, aviation, and economics, before founding his own (tax-exempt) cult/commune, the Des Moines University of Lawsonomy, a few miles from where I live in Des Moines, Iowa. The University was devoted entirely to inculcating in its "students" (most of whom lived on-campus) a complete knowledge of Lawson's teachings, previously espoused in several dozen self-published volumes. The proposed course of study lasted 30 years. It took so long because one could only graduate (and become, in Lawsonomic terms, a "Knowledgian") after they had memorized every word Lawson ever put to paper.
The University opened in 1943 and closed shortly after Lawson's death in 1954. Lawson was the only Knowledgian, and remained so until more than a decade after his death, when one of his foremost followers, a man named Merle Hayden, began giving out the title at Lawsonomy reunions in the 70's. (Hayden now lives on a farm on a highway outside Racine, Wisconsin, in a house adrift with accumulated paraphernalia--Lawsonomic books and newspapers, paperwork from the University, photographs of Lawson and he smiling side by side, inquisitive letters from those who were children in Des Moines when the University stood, who walked along its fence and wondered what went on inside, all of which Hayden answers--filling the house like floodwater to the attic, on the exterior of which is written, handpainted in neat white capitals over the aging shingles: "PRACTICE NATURAL LAW"; now and then lost tourists cross it, their children point it out to them across the corn fields, and most of them drive on, anxious to get to the Dells; once every year or two, one of these cars stops for gas, or coffee, and the stories begin again...)
Sorry about that. Anyway. One other essay that stands out is the one on chiropractors, who I have always considered to be quacks but who seem to have gained mainstream acceptance since this was published. The shift from chiropractice (chiropractition? are either of these words?) as New Age contemporary of L. Ron Hubbard and alchemists to chiropractice as contemporary of Dr. Scholl and OBGYNs is yet further proof that pseudoscience is alive and well today. It is also proof that Gardner's work must be continued, and we are in need of someone to pick up the torch.
Richard Dawkins doesn't cut it; he is a fine biologist but a mean man, of insufficient warmth to appeal to anyone not already in agreement, and so lacking in imagination--perhaps inherently but I suspect willfully--to interpret religious doctrine in any other way than, like the Fundamentalists he so despises, literally. Gardner had great affection for the bears he poked. He understood the appeal of a worldview which rejects reason, and reveled in it, viewing the bizarre movements he wrote about as a sort of performance art, appreciating their metaphors as would any student of world religion those of Hinduism and Christianity.
We need a scientist who is capable of great cognitive dissonance and is unashamed of it. In our present divided culture, which has politicized science and religion and set them opposed, scientists of just such imagination have tuned out entirely, preferring to play in the lab than settle the territory disputes our gang-like libs and cons have waged. In wait of such a person, I'll be picking up Gardner every now and again.
September 17, 2020
3 3/4 stars
August 25, 2020
So this book was more fun than I would have expected. This is basically a book that debunks various things that are on the fringe or are pseudoscience. The fun part of this book is that it was written in the late fifties or early sixties (I know I could look it up, but I am being lazy.). The number of things that are brought up that are still relevant in the modern-day sixty years later is amazing. The other wild thing about this book is it doesn't dance around saying it is full of it just coming out and saying things about how wrong it is and why. Much less politeness than the modern books on the topic.
To start with it has the best explanation I have ever seen as to why a weather balloon might be thought to be an alien craft. If the book had done nothing else than that I would have been thankful to have been able to read it.
It also goes over Homeopathy letting you have an idea just how old this 'alternative' medicine has been floating around. The verdict is the same as most of the modern works. If you dilute the ingredient that many times, there is no ingredient in the cure.
Chiropractic Medicine is brought up and one of the most interesting experiments in regards to testing the veracity of an 'alternate' medicine is brought up. Although it would be expensive. It was suggested you go to a practitioner and get a diagnosis and then go to another and so on until you get two that match. For me, the chapter had another reason for interest, since it mentioned Palmer Chiropractic Jr. College, which happens to be in Davenport Ia. The place I just happened to be born. The school had a pretty good garden and Palmer gave a number of the exhibits for the cities museum.
The best one that came up as far as I was concerned was Dianetics/Church of Scientology. It also had the worst prediction of the entire book. The author went into a review of L. Ron Hubbard's life and career as a Sci-Fi writer, without a great deal of buttering up. Then at the end of the chapter, he said that he thought that this fad had run its course. As anyone around now can say, that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to be a bit bigger than ever.
A great book and somewhat of an eye-opener.
To start with it has the best explanation I have ever seen as to why a weather balloon might be thought to be an alien craft. If the book had done nothing else than that I would have been thankful to have been able to read it.
It also goes over Homeopathy letting you have an idea just how old this 'alternative' medicine has been floating around. The verdict is the same as most of the modern works. If you dilute the ingredient that many times, there is no ingredient in the cure.
Chiropractic Medicine is brought up and one of the most interesting experiments in regards to testing the veracity of an 'alternate' medicine is brought up. Although it would be expensive. It was suggested you go to a practitioner and get a diagnosis and then go to another and so on until you get two that match. For me, the chapter had another reason for interest, since it mentioned Palmer Chiropractic Jr. College, which happens to be in Davenport Ia. The place I just happened to be born. The school had a pretty good garden and Palmer gave a number of the exhibits for the cities museum.
The best one that came up as far as I was concerned was Dianetics/Church of Scientology. It also had the worst prediction of the entire book. The author went into a review of L. Ron Hubbard's life and career as a Sci-Fi writer, without a great deal of buttering up. Then at the end of the chapter, he said that he thought that this fad had run its course. As anyone around now can say, that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to be a bit bigger than ever.
A great book and somewhat of an eye-opener.
June 27, 2012
Although the book is quite old, it still has much to offer the modern skeptic, since many of the "fads and fallacies" of sixty years ago are still around. Scientology is a case in point. At the time Gardner was writing, it was in its birth pangs and was called Dianetics. He didn't take it very seriously, thinking that it had already spent itself. What he has to say about L. Ron Hubbard is interesting, though I am sure more is known today. Gardner accepts Hubbard's war hero status without question, although as I understand it, today there are questions about his service. Still Gardner doesn't flinch from pointing out the flaws in Hubbard's own life, character, and work. He also tackles pseudosciences such as parapsychology and paranormal research (currently enjoying a revival on reality TV). The chapters on the history of medical quackery are especially interesting. I'd have liked a longer chapter on the tangle of fallacies around sexuality, but perhaps that was deemed of questionable taste at the time the book was published. Anyway, Mary Roach has done an admirable job of filling in those historical gaps with her book "Boink".
October 16, 2021
This book is now quite dated, Velikovsky et alia not being figures of much concern nowadays. The original edition of 1952 was entitled 'In the Name of Science'. This edition includes some newer material.
April 4, 2023
Martin Gardner is an author who is not well known because his brand of skepticism does not sell in a marketplace full of bestselling books on the paranormal. Even today, many of the same scams debunked in this 1957 edition are still being promoted by the History Channel's shows and in most places books are sold. We still see Dianetics, Homeopathy, Atlantis, and that fraud protocols of Zion still being accepted as true even confronted by a mountain of evidence. There is even blood testing medical devices that promised to garner information by one drop. I believe that people are just as ignorant today as they were in year this book was hot off the presses. Maybe books like this don't sell because the truth is not as good reading as the bullshit that sells books.
Shelved as 'xx-dnf-skim-reference'
December 31, 2019No doubt important in its time, but dated to the point of irrelevancy (to me and anyone with whom I interact) now. That's all.
March 7, 2014
I bought this book because as a kid I used to subscribe to “Scientific American�, primarily because of Martin Gardner’s articles on mathematical games. But this is nothing like those pieces. Much of the time it comes across as a rabid foaming at the mouth book describing the 1950’s and the preceding century as a world full of pseudo-scientists leading a world full of sheep back into the dark ages. It’s so over the top that I believe anyone who hadn’t lived through those times would find it hard to believe that if that was the state of the world at that time, that we even live in the “modern times� we do today.
He rails at pseudo-scientists who believe the world is flat; or hollow and we live inside the sphere. Interestingly, though he steps into to the argument between those who accept the age of the earth from geology and those who believe in the six day time frame in the book of Genesis he does provide a theory by zoologist Philip Gosse. It is a very clever supposition that the world might have actually been created a couple of minutes ago. Gardner says of it Gosse’s book Omphalos, “Not the least of its remarkable virtues is that although it won not a single convert, it presented a theory so logically perfect, and so in accord with geological facts that no amount of scientific evidence will ever be able to refute it.� You’ll have to read the book to understand.
Gardner covers everything from dowsing rods, ESP, anti-gravity shields, Atlantis and Lemuris, dianetics, curing poor eyesight via muscle training called “central fixation� rather than glasses, to phrenology. These are just a sampling of the topics covered in the 26 chapters, each covering different subject matters. It seems ironic that throughout the book it comes across that he is attacking the pseudo-scientists the same way they are defending themselves; by attempting to shout more things that appear to support their point of view than the other side. There is no mention of using scientific methods to prove or refute the theories.
Two chapters stand out above the others as a sign of the times in which this book was written and brings one to question whether much of this is motivated by the author’s personal views. Chapter 12 called “Lysenkoism� deals with Lamarckianism. Lamarckianism differs from the theory of evolution in that it posits that changes over time occur as the inheritance of acquired characteristic, rather than via the survival of the fittest. Gardner provides a history of this theory and then dedicates most of the remainder of the chapter on the rejection of Darwin’s work by the Communist Party of the USSR as bourgeois idealism. The Soviets believe Lamarckianism supports the idea that “Russian children can be taught that the Revolution has “shattered� the hereditary structure of the Soviet people—that each new generation growing up in the new environment will be a finer stock than the last.�
The term Lysenkoism is derived from Trofim Lysenko a “former peasant and plant-breeder� who rose as one of the most influential proponents of this view. Much of the chapter that follows is a description of what happened to scientists in the USSR who didn’t toe the party line.
Towards the end of the chapter Gardner states:
He then brings up the Scopes trial in the United States, stating that though this provides a dramatic lesson for the free works…our sins in this respect have not been very grave.
Chapter 13, called “Apologist for Hate� follows. It is a clear condemnation of the theories that support Nordic and Aryan race superiority. Because of the recent end of the WWII and the beginnings of the civil rights movement in the United States, some of the Gardner’s statements come across with less scientific force and with more with vehemence against who support the superiority of whites. Though his points are well presented and supported, it sometimes reads more like an editorial than a book of non-fiction. Though I lived through those times, and back then blacks were Negroes, it still sticks in my craw when I hear that term.
Overall the book is interesting, more as a novelty than a scientific exposition on quack theories. But then again as he states in his book, most serious scientists don’t think the topics are worth their effort to refute.
He rails at pseudo-scientists who believe the world is flat; or hollow and we live inside the sphere. Interestingly, though he steps into to the argument between those who accept the age of the earth from geology and those who believe in the six day time frame in the book of Genesis he does provide a theory by zoologist Philip Gosse. It is a very clever supposition that the world might have actually been created a couple of minutes ago. Gardner says of it Gosse’s book Omphalos, “Not the least of its remarkable virtues is that although it won not a single convert, it presented a theory so logically perfect, and so in accord with geological facts that no amount of scientific evidence will ever be able to refute it.� You’ll have to read the book to understand.
Gardner covers everything from dowsing rods, ESP, anti-gravity shields, Atlantis and Lemuris, dianetics, curing poor eyesight via muscle training called “central fixation� rather than glasses, to phrenology. These are just a sampling of the topics covered in the 26 chapters, each covering different subject matters. It seems ironic that throughout the book it comes across that he is attacking the pseudo-scientists the same way they are defending themselves; by attempting to shout more things that appear to support their point of view than the other side. There is no mention of using scientific methods to prove or refute the theories.
Two chapters stand out above the others as a sign of the times in which this book was written and brings one to question whether much of this is motivated by the author’s personal views. Chapter 12 called “Lysenkoism� deals with Lamarckianism. Lamarckianism differs from the theory of evolution in that it posits that changes over time occur as the inheritance of acquired characteristic, rather than via the survival of the fittest. Gardner provides a history of this theory and then dedicates most of the remainder of the chapter on the rejection of Darwin’s work by the Communist Party of the USSR as bourgeois idealism. The Soviets believe Lamarckianism supports the idea that “Russian children can be taught that the Revolution has “shattered� the hereditary structure of the Soviet people—that each new generation growing up in the new environment will be a finer stock than the last.�
The term Lysenkoism is derived from Trofim Lysenko a “former peasant and plant-breeder� who rose as one of the most influential proponents of this view. Much of the chapter that follows is a description of what happened to scientists in the USSR who didn’t toe the party line.
Towards the end of the chapter Gardner states:
“It may be that the steady deterioration of Soviet biology will be followed by a similar deterioration in other sciences. We know now how greatly the Nazi efforts to make an atom bomb were bungled by the control of political Neanderthals. There is reasonable ground for hope that a similar state of affairs may, to some degree, hamper Soviet war research.�
He then brings up the Scopes trial in the United States, stating that though this provides a dramatic lesson for the free works…our sins in this respect have not been very grave.
Chapter 13, called “Apologist for Hate� follows. It is a clear condemnation of the theories that support Nordic and Aryan race superiority. Because of the recent end of the WWII and the beginnings of the civil rights movement in the United States, some of the Gardner’s statements come across with less scientific force and with more with vehemence against who support the superiority of whites. Though his points are well presented and supported, it sometimes reads more like an editorial than a book of non-fiction. Though I lived through those times, and back then blacks were Negroes, it still sticks in my craw when I hear that term.
Overall the book is interesting, more as a novelty than a scientific exposition on quack theories. But then again as he states in his book, most serious scientists don’t think the topics are worth their effort to refute.
October 1, 2016
This book was a lot of fun. It's not an in-depth criticism of the topics covered, instead functioning more like a friend reading something you both agree is ridiculous and reading aloud the best parts. Less dated that you might expect for a book written in 1952, both in the author's attitude and in the topics covered.
August 25, 2022
It’s strange how completely unrelated books with similar issues come in pairs. was disappointingly not what it was advertised to be. Similarly, these are not fads and fallacies in the name of science. They’re just fads and fallacies—really, they’re not even that, they’re just a collection of high-profile kooks, some of whom are only kooky in one field, and some of whom are only kooky looking back on history.
A study in the fads and fallacies in the name of science from Martin Gardner would be fascinating; as a science popularizer and philosopher, he’d be the right person for the job, and when I read about this book in I immediately added it to my want list. Unfortunately, it’s really just a collection of amusing crackpots, many not even remotely in the name of science but instead in the name or religion or even in the name of hallucinations. The choice of who and what to write about was made on “that small segment which is richest in interest and humor.�
It ends up reading a lot like the paranormal books I read as a teen, a mishmash of strange happenings and odd coincidences, juxtaposed in a manner that suggests something more than what is said. Gardner presents his potpourri of crackpot ideas as examples of falsities rather than unexplained realities, but it wouldn’t take much editing to turn it around. Context is often sadly lacking.
For example: he has a chapter on homeopathy. On the face of it, it’s pretty nutty to believe that medicine diluted to the point where it doesn’t exist even as a single atom is the most potent. On the other hand, as he noted in the final chapter,
But the actual chapter on homeopathy provides none of this context. It’s just something to laugh at.
And again, he makes a detour into “The quickness which which the public will accept evidence of life on nearby worlds� and characterizes the Orson Wells radio version of War of the Worlds as an “upsetting� prank [that] was played on the American public the night of Halloween, 1938�.
But it wasn’t a prank. The play was listed in radio guides as a play; it was advertised on the station as a play; it was advertised during the play as a play. Nor is it clear that people believed it portrayed “life on nearby worlds� attacking the United States. In 1938, there was a lot of fear about terrestrial war, and some people tuning in after the initial introduction seem to have believed that’s what it was about.
Other times he seems to be in too much of a hurry to explain why a particular belief is nutty and simply uses different terms for the same thing to obscure the need for an explanation.
As written, Roberts is crazily wrong about water being pushed up by the same forces that push up oil, into domes, because we know that oil is pushed up by water into inverted bowls.
He also, again through lack of context, misrepresents about there being no examples of primitive art from dogs and horses. Gardner doesn’t provide any examples of primitive art at all, let alone primitive art that is so different as to be from a different branch of man than our own. Nor does he deny that there are scientists who delight in finding human-like traits in animals. He never mentions this context, which ends up making Chesterton’s comments seem like nonsensical non sequiturs. They may turn out to be nonsense, but they are not non sequiturs.
He seems to miss both the point and the humor of what Chesterton was saying and how he was saying it. This is especially odd because Gardner is both a fan of Chesterton and a writer who understands humor.
However, taken as a random collection of humorous crackpots rather than a study in either illogical logic or unscientific uses of scientific trappings, this is a very interesting book. Some of the most interesting—though, here, I may be making too much of a random juxtaposition of examples—are those who started from a scientific background, developed a scientific (if nutty) theory, and then picked and chose from religious mythology to prove their science. Velikovsky is perhaps the prime example, but a lot of the examples here did that. They started as science, and veered into religion, instead of the other way around (as many of the examples also did).
It’s also interesting what was considered crackpot when he wrote this. The “Lawson Money System� is crackpot for, among other things, calling for abolishing the gold standard. Today, saying that abolishing the gold standard was a crackpot idea is itself a crackpot idea!
A study in the fads and fallacies in the name of science from Martin Gardner would be fascinating; as a science popularizer and philosopher, he’d be the right person for the job, and when I read about this book in I immediately added it to my want list. Unfortunately, it’s really just a collection of amusing crackpots, many not even remotely in the name of science but instead in the name or religion or even in the name of hallucinations. The choice of who and what to write about was made on “that small segment which is richest in interest and humor.�
It ends up reading a lot like the paranormal books I read as a teen, a mishmash of strange happenings and odd coincidences, juxtaposed in a manner that suggests something more than what is said. Gardner presents his potpourri of crackpot ideas as examples of falsities rather than unexplained realities, but it wouldn’t take much editing to turn it around. Context is often sadly lacking.
For example: he has a chapter on homeopathy. On the face of it, it’s pretty nutty to believe that medicine diluted to the point where it doesn’t exist even as a single atom is the most potent. On the other hand, as he noted in the final chapter,
In fact, most pseudo-scientific cults, especially those that attract a mass following, contain many praise-worthy elements. The homeopathic movement, for example, arose in pre-scientific days of medicine when doctors were fond of giving patients heavy doses of drugs that were little understood and often harmful. By diluting their doses to an infinitesimal amount, the homeopaths developed a materia medica that caused no harm because it had no effect whatsoever. As someone once put it, homeopathic patients died only of the disease whereas patients of the orthodox doctors died of the cure as well.
But the actual chapter on homeopathy provides none of this context. It’s just something to laugh at.
And again, he makes a detour into “The quickness which which the public will accept evidence of life on nearby worlds� and characterizes the Orson Wells radio version of War of the Worlds as an “upsetting� prank [that] was played on the American public the night of Halloween, 1938�.
But it wasn’t a prank. The play was listed in radio guides as a play; it was advertised on the station as a play; it was advertised during the play as a play. Nor is it clear that people believed it portrayed “life on nearby worlds� attacking the United States. In 1938, there was a lot of fear about terrestrial war, and some people tuning in after the initial introduction seem to have believed that’s what it was about.
Other times he seems to be in too much of a hurry to explain why a particular belief is nutty and simply uses different terms for the same thing to obscure the need for an explanation.
[Kenneth Roberts] accepts, for example, a theory that underground water veins bear no relation to the ground-water table, but come from huge "domes" which are pushed up from great depths. In fact, one dome is supposed is supposed to come from 57,500 feet below ground! At this depth the earth’s heat would have turned the water to steam, and geysers, not wells, would have resulted. Of course, the whole concept of water being pushed up into domes is geologically absurd, but to make it worse, Roberts suggests that such domes are driven up “by the same sort of pressure that drives up oil.…� Roberts is apparently unaware of the elementary geological fact that oil floats on water, and is therefore flushed upward by water until it is trapped under inverted bowls of impervious rock.
As written, Roberts is crazily wrong about water being pushed up by the same forces that push up oil, into domes, because we know that oil is pushed up by water into inverted bowls.
He also, again through lack of context, misrepresents about there being no examples of primitive art from dogs and horses. Gardner doesn’t provide any examples of primitive art at all, let alone primitive art that is so different as to be from a different branch of man than our own. Nor does he deny that there are scientists who delight in finding human-like traits in animals. He never mentions this context, which ends up making Chesterton’s comments seem like nonsensical non sequiturs. They may turn out to be nonsense, but they are not non sequiturs.
He seems to miss both the point and the humor of what Chesterton was saying and how he was saying it. This is especially odd because Gardner is both a fan of Chesterton and a writer who understands humor.
However, taken as a random collection of humorous crackpots rather than a study in either illogical logic or unscientific uses of scientific trappings, this is a very interesting book. Some of the most interesting—though, here, I may be making too much of a random juxtaposition of examples—are those who started from a scientific background, developed a scientific (if nutty) theory, and then picked and chose from religious mythology to prove their science. Velikovsky is perhaps the prime example, but a lot of the examples here did that. They started as science, and veered into religion, instead of the other way around (as many of the examples also did).
It’s also interesting what was considered crackpot when he wrote this. The “Lawson Money System� is crackpot for, among other things, calling for abolishing the gold standard. Today, saying that abolishing the gold standard was a crackpot idea is itself a crackpot idea!
Let us hope that Lysenko’s success in Russia will serve for many generations to come as another reminder to the world of how quickly and easily a science can be corrupted when ignorant political leaders deem themselves competent to arbitrate scientific disputes.
May 3, 2023
In his Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, Martin Gardner dissects the various manifestations of pseudo-science that have proliferated throughout the ages. From the curious case of flat earth proponents to the dubious claims of the infamous orgone energy boxes popularized by Wilhelm Reich, Gardner exposes the fallacious logic and unsupported claims that underpin these false and unfounded beliefs. With wit and erudition, Gardner lays bare the logical inconsistencies and scientific inaccuracies that plague these false claims, illuminating the dangers of allowing hucksters to masquerade their nonsensical ideas as legitimate scientific theories. Through his careful analysis and insightful critiques, Gardner offers readers a defence against such an arguments, providing them with the tools they need to discern fact from fiction and truth from falsehood.
November 12, 2013
Took longer to get into than other books by Gardner I have read. Felt very "list like" for a long time, just a rundown of items that fit that chapter's subject but about halfway through it felt a bit more like it had been considered by a human mind. He still didn't give you a good feel for the people he was talking about, but shared more of himself, I guess.
I am now wondering if Scully from The X-Files was named after Frank Scully, author of the hoax book Behind the Flying Saucers.
And I had to crack up when he called George McCready Price "the last and greatest of the anti-evolutionists" -- Price now has plenty of competition.
I am now wondering if Scully from The X-Files was named after Frank Scully, author of the hoax book Behind the Flying Saucers.
And I had to crack up when he called George McCready Price "the last and greatest of the anti-evolutionists" -- Price now has plenty of competition.
June 4, 2012
I read this as a kid and it's stayed with me ever since. Gardner's takedowns of various pseudosciences, from now-long-forgotten crackpottery like Fletcherism to others, like Dianetics and its current incarnation, Scientology, which continue to plague us to this day, are the perfect thing for a budding skeptic to hone their critical thinking skills on, skills that are needed more than ever in a world in which delusions like birtherism, climate change denial, "intelligent design" creationism, "alternative" medicine, and the like are just as prevalent (if not more so thanks to the Internet).
December 13, 2014
Too many descriptions of fads and pseudo-scientists who have long since faded away. Too many references to ideas and people "in the news" that were completely unfamiliar to me. The opening chapter on the nature of pseudo-science was interesting, but most of the following summaries of specifics were dull and repetitious.
December 7, 2017
Way outdated
This book goes back to 1957, so is badly in need of an update. It does, however, prove the adage, the more things change the more they stay the same. In fact it is disheartening to reflect that 60 years later not only is pseudoscientific claptrap still around, it is thriving more than ever thanks to the Internet.
This book goes back to 1957, so is badly in need of an update. It does, however, prove the adage, the more things change the more they stay the same. In fact it is disheartening to reflect that 60 years later not only is pseudoscientific claptrap still around, it is thriving more than ever thanks to the Internet.
March 19, 2009
This is the classic work on pseudoscience. Gardner is also an insightful and amusing writer. He gives such nonsense as Scientology, UFOlogy, homeopathy, and flat-earth theory a lot of slack, which only makes their silliness more evident. Recommended most highly.
January 4, 2020
W związku z tą książką miałem duże nadzieje na świetną lekturę, którą odkładałem przez lata. To tytuł bardzo znany, pojawiający się jako istotna referencja wielu nowszych publikacji. Autor z kolei to popularny demistyfikator i fan zagadek matematycznych. Jednak finalnie wyszło coś nie tak. Może to wina moich wygórowanych oczekiwań, a może i wiekowości tekstu (pierwsze wydanie amerykańskie było w 1952)? „Pseudonauka i pseudouczeni� Martina Gardnera to klasyk, który w dużych fragmentach chyba nie wytrzymał po prostu próby czasu. Teraz pisze się inaczej. Współcześnie pyta się o motywacje aktywności konkretnych ludzi, szuka powiązań w prezentowanych postawach. Autor opiniowanej książki takich tropów budowania lektury niemal nie wykorzystywał.
Gardner założył, że czytelnik sam potrafi dokonać oceny stopnia bezsensowności pseudoteorii (co było może prawdą 60 lat temu, ale teraz to wątpliwe). Stąd często nie komentował bzdur rodzących się w głowach prezentowanych bohaterów. Tak było chociażby w przypadku Reicha, twórcy ‘energii orgonalnej� � siły seksualnej uczestniczącej jakoby w tworzeniu życia. Podsumowując bezsensowny eksperyment Reicha z radem, pisze tak:
„Jasne jest, że jedyną drogą, aby dokładnie wyjaśnić, co zaszło, byłoby zasięgnięcie opinii fizyka jądrowego, należy jednak wątpić, czy Reich uzna to za niezbędne. Przypuszczalnie sytuacja w końcu zostanie opanowana, tajemnica w pełni wyjaśniona i praca, miejmy nadzieję, ruszy dalej, z zachowaniem większej ostrożności.�
Czy taki ukryty sarkazm jest wystarczająco czytelny dla polskiego współczesnego czytelnika? Nie wiem.
Od strony formalnej „Pseudonauka i pseudouczeni� nie jest źle zbudowana. Są ufolodzy, różdżkarze, frenolodzy, zwolennicy Atlantydy, chiromanci i różnej maści samozwańczy ‘geniusze� prezentujący, w swoich wielotomowych dziełach życia, ‘prawdziwe� opisy świata. Coś mi jednak nie grało. Gardner zbyt szeroko rozpisał się nad treścią pseudo-publikacji całkiem niepotrzebnie. Mógł więcej miejsca poświęcić na percepcję społeczną pseudonauki i skupić się na syntezie mechanizmu ‘konkretnego pseudo�. Widać, nie takich detali oczekiwałem. Przykładowo zbyt wnikliwie i nużąco rozważył pseudo-badania nad materialnymi świadectwami zgodności z biblijnym przekazem. W ostatecznej ocenie istotny okazał się również wybór bohaterów. Zdecydowana większość to amerykańscy pseudouczeni z przełomu XIX/XX wieku. W dużej części to ludzie mi kompletnie nieznani. Było co prawda Łysenko, ale w polskim wydaniu (PWN 1966) nie mógł się pojawić z wiadomych powodów.
Nieco ciekawsza okazała się końcówka. Gardiner opisał w niej słynne i wnikliwe parapsychologiczne zainteresowania Rhine’a. Przy okazji przybliżył techniki badawcze i szeroko zreferował własne wątpliwości wobec zastosowanej u niego metodologii. To dobry kawałek krytycyzmu. Niewątpliwym plusem było też zaprezentowanie prekursorów różnych popularnych i dziś trendów i mód pseudonaukowych. Dowiemy się z lektury o źródłach ufologicznych, sporo jest o pionierach negacji ewolucjonizmu czy teorii względności. Teraz już wiem, skąd czerpią tematy autorzy tekstów w czasopismach w stylu „Nie z tej ziemi�.
„Pseudonauka i pseudouczeni� to lekkie rozczarowanie. Dłużyzny, choć i są perełki. Dla zainteresowanych tematyką to i tak lektura obowiązkowa. Czyli polecam raczej fanom.
Prawie DOBRA - 6/10
Gardner założył, że czytelnik sam potrafi dokonać oceny stopnia bezsensowności pseudoteorii (co było może prawdą 60 lat temu, ale teraz to wątpliwe). Stąd często nie komentował bzdur rodzących się w głowach prezentowanych bohaterów. Tak było chociażby w przypadku Reicha, twórcy ‘energii orgonalnej� � siły seksualnej uczestniczącej jakoby w tworzeniu życia. Podsumowując bezsensowny eksperyment Reicha z radem, pisze tak:
„Jasne jest, że jedyną drogą, aby dokładnie wyjaśnić, co zaszło, byłoby zasięgnięcie opinii fizyka jądrowego, należy jednak wątpić, czy Reich uzna to za niezbędne. Przypuszczalnie sytuacja w końcu zostanie opanowana, tajemnica w pełni wyjaśniona i praca, miejmy nadzieję, ruszy dalej, z zachowaniem większej ostrożności.�
Czy taki ukryty sarkazm jest wystarczająco czytelny dla polskiego współczesnego czytelnika? Nie wiem.
Od strony formalnej „Pseudonauka i pseudouczeni� nie jest źle zbudowana. Są ufolodzy, różdżkarze, frenolodzy, zwolennicy Atlantydy, chiromanci i różnej maści samozwańczy ‘geniusze� prezentujący, w swoich wielotomowych dziełach życia, ‘prawdziwe� opisy świata. Coś mi jednak nie grało. Gardner zbyt szeroko rozpisał się nad treścią pseudo-publikacji całkiem niepotrzebnie. Mógł więcej miejsca poświęcić na percepcję społeczną pseudonauki i skupić się na syntezie mechanizmu ‘konkretnego pseudo�. Widać, nie takich detali oczekiwałem. Przykładowo zbyt wnikliwie i nużąco rozważył pseudo-badania nad materialnymi świadectwami zgodności z biblijnym przekazem. W ostatecznej ocenie istotny okazał się również wybór bohaterów. Zdecydowana większość to amerykańscy pseudouczeni z przełomu XIX/XX wieku. W dużej części to ludzie mi kompletnie nieznani. Było co prawda Łysenko, ale w polskim wydaniu (PWN 1966) nie mógł się pojawić z wiadomych powodów.
Nieco ciekawsza okazała się końcówka. Gardiner opisał w niej słynne i wnikliwe parapsychologiczne zainteresowania Rhine’a. Przy okazji przybliżył techniki badawcze i szeroko zreferował własne wątpliwości wobec zastosowanej u niego metodologii. To dobry kawałek krytycyzmu. Niewątpliwym plusem było też zaprezentowanie prekursorów różnych popularnych i dziś trendów i mód pseudonaukowych. Dowiemy się z lektury o źródłach ufologicznych, sporo jest o pionierach negacji ewolucjonizmu czy teorii względności. Teraz już wiem, skąd czerpią tematy autorzy tekstów w czasopismach w stylu „Nie z tej ziemi�.
„Pseudonauka i pseudouczeni� to lekkie rozczarowanie. Dłużyzny, choć i są perełki. Dla zainteresowanych tematyką to i tak lektura obowiązkowa. Czyli polecam raczej fanom.
Prawie DOBRA - 6/10
August 22, 2022
Martin Gardner was a mathematician, a writer, a creator of puzzles, and a skilled amateur magician. He was also possessed of a clear writing style and a finely honed BS detector. He died in 2010 after a long life during which he was a consistent contributor to Scientific American, the source for many of the pieces reproduced in this worthwhile book.
For those who believe American lunacy dates from the deplorable election of Donald Trump, which led to his fans capering during the COVID epidemic, guaranteeing it would be uncontrollable, this book is a useful cure. Irrationalism goes back to the founding of the nation and before. The Jamestown colonists were mad for gold (not covered here), Washington purchased patent medical devices that were quackery, and thousands eagerly flocked to the banners of charlatans like Alfred Lawson and L Ron Hubbard (Lawson has vanished, but Hubbard persists hideously under the guise of an invented religion), bought dowsing rods, believed in Atlantis, and hoped desperately
that staring at colored lights would cure their ills.
A large number of the quacks and fads here are mostly forgotten, but are very interesting as indicators of what's going on now and what we might expect in the future from deluded people and those who prey on them. There's little fundamental difference between the Lawsonomy cult and Trumpism other than the danger of the latter, and the chapter on Lysenko (a rare excursion from Gardner's mostly American focus) is a clear illustration of crackpot science turned into a mandatory belief system.
This particular edition is from the New American Library "Masterpieces of Science" series and has the advantage of using the revised second edition text originally published by Dover Books in 1956, which included an extra chapter Gardner wrote on the then-current reincarnation fad. Don't be deterred by the age of the contents; it's still fresh after all these years because irrationalism is still very much in vogue.
For those who believe American lunacy dates from the deplorable election of Donald Trump, which led to his fans capering during the COVID epidemic, guaranteeing it would be uncontrollable, this book is a useful cure. Irrationalism goes back to the founding of the nation and before. The Jamestown colonists were mad for gold (not covered here), Washington purchased patent medical devices that were quackery, and thousands eagerly flocked to the banners of charlatans like Alfred Lawson and L Ron Hubbard (Lawson has vanished, but Hubbard persists hideously under the guise of an invented religion), bought dowsing rods, believed in Atlantis, and hoped desperately
that staring at colored lights would cure their ills.
A large number of the quacks and fads here are mostly forgotten, but are very interesting as indicators of what's going on now and what we might expect in the future from deluded people and those who prey on them. There's little fundamental difference between the Lawsonomy cult and Trumpism other than the danger of the latter, and the chapter on Lysenko (a rare excursion from Gardner's mostly American focus) is a clear illustration of crackpot science turned into a mandatory belief system.
This particular edition is from the New American Library "Masterpieces of Science" series and has the advantage of using the revised second edition text originally published by Dover Books in 1956, which included an extra chapter Gardner wrote on the then-current reincarnation fad. Don't be deterred by the age of the contents; it's still fresh after all these years because irrationalism is still very much in vogue.
April 12, 2025
Gardner, a mathematician and science writer, presents a provocative work emphasizing skepticism and critical thinking. However, while some of his analysis remains relevant, many of his conclusions are rooted in outdated scientific ideas and cultural assumptions.
The book highlights two valuable themes. First, Gardner argues that limited or selective data leads to theories that differ significantly from those based on comprehensive, unbiased evidence. Second, he notes that people often favor evidence supporting their preconceived notions, dismissing contradictory information.
Ironically, considering the book's central ideas, Gardner himself is at times guilty of selectively utilizing data to bolster his own positions while overlooking or minimizing evidence that might challenge his arguments. Take his outright dismissal of organic farming as just another passing trend. That stance has been profoundly undermined by a wealth of rigorous empirical evidence that highlights its known environmental and health benefits. Likewise, critiques of chiropractic and osteopathy are looking increasingly outdated, as modern practitioners and researchers begin to grasp the nuanced value that these fields can genuinely offer.
At times, Gardner's language can be strikingly harsh, as he labels proponents of the expanding universe hypothesis and abandonment of the gold standard as "crackpots."
Thus, it’s hard to shake off the notion that many of Gardner's conclusions are not just flawed, they’re biased—dare I say, rather psychoscientific. Despite these issues, Fads and Fallacies remains influential in scientific skepticism. It highlights the need to regularly reassess claims and theories in light of ongoing scientific progress, changing societal views, and new evidence.
The book highlights two valuable themes. First, Gardner argues that limited or selective data leads to theories that differ significantly from those based on comprehensive, unbiased evidence. Second, he notes that people often favor evidence supporting their preconceived notions, dismissing contradictory information.
Ironically, considering the book's central ideas, Gardner himself is at times guilty of selectively utilizing data to bolster his own positions while overlooking or minimizing evidence that might challenge his arguments. Take his outright dismissal of organic farming as just another passing trend. That stance has been profoundly undermined by a wealth of rigorous empirical evidence that highlights its known environmental and health benefits. Likewise, critiques of chiropractic and osteopathy are looking increasingly outdated, as modern practitioners and researchers begin to grasp the nuanced value that these fields can genuinely offer.
At times, Gardner's language can be strikingly harsh, as he labels proponents of the expanding universe hypothesis and abandonment of the gold standard as "crackpots."
Thus, it’s hard to shake off the notion that many of Gardner's conclusions are not just flawed, they’re biased—dare I say, rather psychoscientific. Despite these issues, Fads and Fallacies remains influential in scientific skepticism. It highlights the need to regularly reassess claims and theories in light of ongoing scientific progress, changing societal views, and new evidence.
March 26, 2023
I discovered this book while reading Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World. Carl described this book as an "eye-opener" in the area of pseudoscience and it certainly is.
Martin Gardner does a survey of the most prominent crackpot theories of his time and discusses their origin. These range from flat-earth, hollow-earth, flying saucers, submerged continents (Atlantis and Lemuria), pyramidology, food fads (such as fasting and vegetarianism which are so in vogue today), to scientology.
It is an interesting survey of the folly of mankind. It shows how easy it is to make up ideas based on faulty evidence or without an ounce of evidence and see them spread like wildfire.
Just like Sagan, he criticizes the lack of scientific education in the United States and indirectly highlights the dangers of continuing to neglect this aspect.
It's sad to say that after reading Sagan's book and Gardner's book, it sems like we haven't been able to restructure our societies to solve this issue. I myself would argue that my knowledge of science growing up was very limited. I come from a somewhat superstitious family so I was exposed to that type of pseudo-scientific thinking without realizing it, and I don't think that we do enough in our K-12 to emphasize critical thinking and skepticism.
Overall good book but at times too disorganized, repetitive, lacking a narrative flow and just like every single book I've read lately, it could easily be 100 pages shorter and make its point.
Martin Gardner does a survey of the most prominent crackpot theories of his time and discusses their origin. These range from flat-earth, hollow-earth, flying saucers, submerged continents (Atlantis and Lemuria), pyramidology, food fads (such as fasting and vegetarianism which are so in vogue today), to scientology.
It is an interesting survey of the folly of mankind. It shows how easy it is to make up ideas based on faulty evidence or without an ounce of evidence and see them spread like wildfire.
Just like Sagan, he criticizes the lack of scientific education in the United States and indirectly highlights the dangers of continuing to neglect this aspect.
It's sad to say that after reading Sagan's book and Gardner's book, it sems like we haven't been able to restructure our societies to solve this issue. I myself would argue that my knowledge of science growing up was very limited. I come from a somewhat superstitious family so I was exposed to that type of pseudo-scientific thinking without realizing it, and I don't think that we do enough in our K-12 to emphasize critical thinking and skepticism.
Overall good book but at times too disorganized, repetitive, lacking a narrative flow and just like every single book I've read lately, it could easily be 100 pages shorter and make its point.
December 2, 2018
Still interesting
This book, though a little dated in its examples and details, is still a classic and worth a read.
This is actually at least the third time that I’ve read it. The first time was sometime in the late 1950s when I was still in elementary school. Much of it was above my head then, so I think I didn’t finish it then, getting bogged down someplace in the orgones.
I read it again around 1970 during my senior year at MIT. It was a good reminder to me at that time of what science was about and that however cool and trendy the psychic hoogie-moogie, astrology, and occultism of my friends early in the Aquarian Age seemed, ultimately it had to be self delusion or fraud.
The bits that are now the most dated are simply the refutations of the fallacies being debunked; 70 more years of scientific progress makes it much easier find disproofs, especially in the fields of genetics, biology, planetary science, and physics.
This book, though a little dated in its examples and details, is still a classic and worth a read.
This is actually at least the third time that I’ve read it. The first time was sometime in the late 1950s when I was still in elementary school. Much of it was above my head then, so I think I didn’t finish it then, getting bogged down someplace in the orgones.
I read it again around 1970 during my senior year at MIT. It was a good reminder to me at that time of what science was about and that however cool and trendy the psychic hoogie-moogie, astrology, and occultism of my friends early in the Aquarian Age seemed, ultimately it had to be self delusion or fraud.
The bits that are now the most dated are simply the refutations of the fallacies being debunked; 70 more years of scientific progress makes it much easier find disproofs, especially in the fields of genetics, biology, planetary science, and physics.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.