What do you think?
Rate this book
What Science Is and How It Really Works
Scientific advances have transformed the world. However, science can sometimes get things wrong, and at times, disastrously so. Understanding the basis for scientific claims and judging how much confidence we should place in them is essential for individual choice, societal debates, and development of public policy and laws. We must what is the basis of scientific claims? How much confidence should we put in them? What is defined as science and what is not? This book synthesizes a working definition of science and its properties, as explained through the eyes of a practicing scientist, by integrating advances from philosophy, psychology, history, sociology, and anthropology into a holistic view. Crucial in our political climate, the book fights the myths of science often portrayed to the public. Written for a general audience, it also enables students to better grasp methodologies and helps professional scientists to articulate what they do and why.
402 pages, Hardcover
Published September 5, 2019
30 people are currently reading
185 people want to read
About the author
James C. Zimring
1Ìýbook5ÌýfollowersJames Zimring is a Professor of Pathology at the University of Virginia where he pursues basic and translational research in the field of transfusion medicine and blood biology. He has an M.D. and also a Ph.D. in Immunology, both awarded from Emory University, and has published over 120 research articles in his field of study. Professor Zimring is the recipient of multiple awards for his research and teaching and an elected member of the American Society for Clinical Investigation (ASCI).
For over a decade, Professor Zimring has taught courses to graduate students (training in the basic sciences) on the philosophical underpinnings of scientific approaches to basic biomedical research, a topic seldom taught in a formal setting to students of science, despite the essential role it plays in scientific research. While delivering lectures as a visiting speaker at different research universities, Professor Zimring frequently delivers lectures on the practice of science itself to students and faculty alike. Out of these activities, Professor Zimring has authored a book for lay audiences and scientists alike, entitled “What Science is and How it Really Works� (Cambridge University Press).
For over a decade, Professor Zimring has taught courses to graduate students (training in the basic sciences) on the philosophical underpinnings of scientific approaches to basic biomedical research, a topic seldom taught in a formal setting to students of science, despite the essential role it plays in scientific research. While delivering lectures as a visiting speaker at different research universities, Professor Zimring frequently delivers lectures on the practice of science itself to students and faculty alike. Out of these activities, Professor Zimring has authored a book for lay audiences and scientists alike, entitled “What Science is and How it Really Works� (Cambridge University Press).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
August 20, 2022
If you like academic hairsplitting about whether Galileo and Einstein were scientists, then you will probably enjoy this book. I was looking for something practical related to the book's title--particularly with respect to important public issues--and was disappointed.
Nerd addendum:
In the chapter about causality, the author gives a mishmash of the whole vaccines and autism story, parroting a mythology about parents noticing a temporal association and not being able to figure out how that isn't necessarily causal. This confuses the MMR and thimerosal issues, while omitting the role of the CDC/FDA/EPA/AAP et al in raising the alarm about thimerosal. Why? In discussing problems with interpreting the vaccine data, he doesn't really explore why the Lancet ever published Wakefield's terrible tiny case report study in the first place, and thereby made the whole panic credible. The real story about how scientists noticed the quantity of mercury in the vaccines and how that led to removal of thimerosal based on the precautionary principle yada yada yada, is much more informative about "what science is and how it really works" than the mishmash here. I don't get the point of omitting the real story.
In terms of explaining how we know what causes disease, the author fails do delve into how we know that cigarettes cause lung cancer (Hill criteria, etc.) missing an opportunity to explain in detail something important and practical instead of opening another legal/philosophical can of worms. He also fails to emphasize the difference between removing something of danger vs. exposing someone to poison, in terms of the ethics of studies to see if environmental exposures are dangerous. He also fails to use this opportunity to discuss quasi-experimental designs that are crucial in prevention and public health.
I'm also confused by his angle on the HRT (hormone replacement therapy) story. He notes that "authority figures and professional societies banged the drum" for HRT on the basis of evidence that he admits was weak. He doesn't seem to have a problem with this because it was "the best data available" at the time. But it was epidemiological data from studies not controlling for obvious issues like healthy user bias. This kind of evidence is not sufficient for getting a drug approved by the FDA. There is a major problem if medical experts were "banging the drum" recommending this drug on that basis. That deserves examination, not casual justification. The whole field of Evidence-Based Medicine exists to try to stop ill-advised recommendations based solely on expert opinion. The author doesn't seem to grasp the enormous difference between doctors actively recommending something that could be harmful (HRT) vs. public health experts suggesting avoidance of a deadly toxin (cigarettes) that serves no necessary purpose. The moral responsibility for a burden of proof on the scientific community is much stronger in the former than the latter. They are not both equivalent examples about how all knowledge is imperfect or some such similar balderdash.
Related alternatives to consider:
Nerd addendum:
In the chapter about causality, the author gives a mishmash of the whole vaccines and autism story, parroting a mythology about parents noticing a temporal association and not being able to figure out how that isn't necessarily causal. This confuses the MMR and thimerosal issues, while omitting the role of the CDC/FDA/EPA/AAP et al in raising the alarm about thimerosal. Why? In discussing problems with interpreting the vaccine data, he doesn't really explore why the Lancet ever published Wakefield's terrible tiny case report study in the first place, and thereby made the whole panic credible. The real story about how scientists noticed the quantity of mercury in the vaccines and how that led to removal of thimerosal based on the precautionary principle yada yada yada, is much more informative about "what science is and how it really works" than the mishmash here. I don't get the point of omitting the real story.
In terms of explaining how we know what causes disease, the author fails do delve into how we know that cigarettes cause lung cancer (Hill criteria, etc.) missing an opportunity to explain in detail something important and practical instead of opening another legal/philosophical can of worms. He also fails to emphasize the difference between removing something of danger vs. exposing someone to poison, in terms of the ethics of studies to see if environmental exposures are dangerous. He also fails to use this opportunity to discuss quasi-experimental designs that are crucial in prevention and public health.
I'm also confused by his angle on the HRT (hormone replacement therapy) story. He notes that "authority figures and professional societies banged the drum" for HRT on the basis of evidence that he admits was weak. He doesn't seem to have a problem with this because it was "the best data available" at the time. But it was epidemiological data from studies not controlling for obvious issues like healthy user bias. This kind of evidence is not sufficient for getting a drug approved by the FDA. There is a major problem if medical experts were "banging the drum" recommending this drug on that basis. That deserves examination, not casual justification. The whole field of Evidence-Based Medicine exists to try to stop ill-advised recommendations based solely on expert opinion. The author doesn't seem to grasp the enormous difference between doctors actively recommending something that could be harmful (HRT) vs. public health experts suggesting avoidance of a deadly toxin (cigarettes) that serves no necessary purpose. The moral responsibility for a burden of proof on the scientific community is much stronger in the former than the latter. They are not both equivalent examples about how all knowledge is imperfect or some such similar balderdash.
Related alternatives to consider:
May 3, 2020
This book was a bit of a dry read for my taste. In particular, the first part contained lengthy explanations of the Knowledge Problem and how humans reason, that could have been explained on fewer pages. However, the second and third part were more engaging, and important distinctions between science, pseudoscience and non-science have been established.
One point I highly appreciated was that what distinguishes science from other knowledge-seeking systems is not necessarily that some brilliant minds have brilliant ideas. Rather, science distinguishes itself by the rigorous testing of those ideas. In that sense, science follows a Bayesian approach, "where scientists weigh the relative probability of a theory being true as more and more evidence becomes available, rather than the binary true/false thinking". In fact, science has developed a huge set of tools to compensate for all sorts of errors, such that the chance of wrong conclusions can be greatly reduced. For this reason, science is the best system we have for navigating the world.
One point I highly appreciated was that what distinguishes science from other knowledge-seeking systems is not necessarily that some brilliant minds have brilliant ideas. Rather, science distinguishes itself by the rigorous testing of those ideas. In that sense, science follows a Bayesian approach, "where scientists weigh the relative probability of a theory being true as more and more evidence becomes available, rather than the binary true/false thinking". In fact, science has developed a huge set of tools to compensate for all sorts of errors, such that the chance of wrong conclusions can be greatly reduced. For this reason, science is the best system we have for navigating the world.
May 30, 2019
A really well written book and a must for all PhD students, and GCSE students as well as the lay reader. Well written, well referenced James Zimmring has explained a vast and potentially complex area in a clear consistent way.
5 stars
5 stars
May 26, 2019
Science was always my area of interest and passion. This is the field of mystery and curiousity for my mind. This book is a deep and thoughtful reading and if you really dive into it, there are a lot of interesting things to feed your curious brain with. I found many philosophical aspects for me and the whole reading was like having a talk with the author.
October 8, 2019
We hear that a medication has been scientifically proven to be effective. But what does that really mean? What is a “scientific fact�? Zimring helps non-scientists (and perhaps some scientists) understand what science is and the process by which science is done. He helps readers be able to tell if the science was done well and whether scientific claims have, in fact, gone beyond the limits of scientific knowledge. Yes, there are limits to scientific knowledge.
I like that he walks us through how scientists reason. He includes logic, something not routinely taught in scientific studies. (Loc 2063/6558) I like how he gives common day examples of reasoning and thinking. He points out the flaws of human thinking and how science has specific processes to try and address the potential errors. Even though the scientific process can evidence flaws, it is still the most effective means we have of understanding the natural world.
I like how Zimring addresses the differences in science and religion and why appealing to the divine is outside the realm of science. I was glad to see that he does not discount religion, noting that the two deal with different aspects of reality.
I was happy to see Zimring clarifying that science does not yield absolute truth. We just do not live in that kind of a universe. (Loc 1679/6558) Theories are never proven but rather corroborated by failed attempts to disprove them. (Loc 1202/6558)
This is a good book for readers who want to better understand how science is done and better evaluate the results of the scientific process. You'll gain some good insights into thinking in general and how conclusions are drawn. It is a long book but is well worth working through.
I received a complimentary egalley of this book from the publisher. My comments are an independent and honest review.
I like that he walks us through how scientists reason. He includes logic, something not routinely taught in scientific studies. (Loc 2063/6558) I like how he gives common day examples of reasoning and thinking. He points out the flaws of human thinking and how science has specific processes to try and address the potential errors. Even though the scientific process can evidence flaws, it is still the most effective means we have of understanding the natural world.
I like how Zimring addresses the differences in science and religion and why appealing to the divine is outside the realm of science. I was glad to see that he does not discount religion, noting that the two deal with different aspects of reality.
I was happy to see Zimring clarifying that science does not yield absolute truth. We just do not live in that kind of a universe. (Loc 1679/6558) Theories are never proven but rather corroborated by failed attempts to disprove them. (Loc 1202/6558)
This is a good book for readers who want to better understand how science is done and better evaluate the results of the scientific process. You'll gain some good insights into thinking in general and how conclusions are drawn. It is a long book but is well worth working through.
I received a complimentary egalley of this book from the publisher. My comments are an independent and honest review.
January 24, 2024
This book provides a nice breakdown about "What Science is..." for the lay person. At the conclusion of the book, you will (at the very least) have a nice perspective in demarcating the practice of science vs. nonscience.
I chose this book, because the eminent organization within my medical subspecialty(AABB) recommended it. Dr. Zimring is a well-recognized figure. I recommend this book to STEM field adherents at all levels of education.
I chose this book, because the eminent organization within my medical subspecialty(AABB) recommended it. Dr. Zimring is a well-recognized figure. I recommend this book to STEM field adherents at all levels of education.
August 11, 2023
This is a beautiful exploration of the philosophical underpinnings of science combined with a clear-eyed notation of science’s limitations and how such limitations are in fact the grist that enables science to move forward. It provides a clear explanation of scientific reasoning, including how “proof� is limited and generally impossible, yet from scientific undertakings we can still learn much. There is even a chapter on the life of a scientist, and how the scientific method often never reaches its ideal.
I wish this book existed when I was doing my bachelors in biology 25 years ago. It would have pulled me away from the edge of swaggering scientific “facts� and into a reality that is much more honest and humble. For all that, science as an endeavour is still humanity’s great hope and this book shows how.
Cambridge University Press, please hire a copy editor! I have never seen the homonym error of role vs. roll before, and duplicated footnotes, missing words, misspelling, etc. The author writes in an accessible, friendly style, but he does like to use “at the end of the day� a lot and I think an editor could have smoothed out the rough spots that are most apparent 2/3 of the way through. I have seen too many poorly edited academic monographs in the past few years for the price publishers charge. I almost dropped this book down to four stars, but the last chapter is a masterpiece in summary writing. Indeed, if you just pick this book up and read the final chapter, you will learn much.
High recommend for everyone. We need more people, especially the lay public, with a proper understanding of what science is, its logical and human faults, and its amazing power to transform.
I wish this book existed when I was doing my bachelors in biology 25 years ago. It would have pulled me away from the edge of swaggering scientific “facts� and into a reality that is much more honest and humble. For all that, science as an endeavour is still humanity’s great hope and this book shows how.
Cambridge University Press, please hire a copy editor! I have never seen the homonym error of role vs. roll before, and duplicated footnotes, missing words, misspelling, etc. The author writes in an accessible, friendly style, but he does like to use “at the end of the day� a lot and I think an editor could have smoothed out the rough spots that are most apparent 2/3 of the way through. I have seen too many poorly edited academic monographs in the past few years for the price publishers charge. I almost dropped this book down to four stars, but the last chapter is a masterpiece in summary writing. Indeed, if you just pick this book up and read the final chapter, you will learn much.
High recommend for everyone. We need more people, especially the lay public, with a proper understanding of what science is, its logical and human faults, and its amazing power to transform.
June 27, 2019
Interesting look at how science is different from other learning systems
I enjoyed this book. James Zimring wrote a clear, well-reasoned and well-supported review of the inner workings of science. He doesn’t whitewash - he discusses some of the mistakes scientists make but also shows how science self-corrects. And he does this with a good sense of humor. While most of the footnotes were typical citations, many did elucidate the subject matter and some were just funny, so read those. I recommend this book for anyone interested in science.
Disclosure: I received a complimentary copy of this book via Netgalley for review purposes.
I enjoyed this book. James Zimring wrote a clear, well-reasoned and well-supported review of the inner workings of science. He doesn’t whitewash - he discusses some of the mistakes scientists make but also shows how science self-corrects. And he does this with a good sense of humor. While most of the footnotes were typical citations, many did elucidate the subject matter and some were just funny, so read those. I recommend this book for anyone interested in science.
Disclosure: I received a complimentary copy of this book via Netgalley for review purposes.
February 14, 2020
The book raises good points about bias humans have and makes a storm strong point that the very definition of science is to minimise them while learning something about nature.
November 21, 2024
This changed my perspective significantly and helped arm me so that I'm not defenseless in a world where it feels like the value of science is under attack
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.