The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

Though it has been a little while now since I read Tom Bethell's Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, I remember having read it and nodding in agreement with many of Bethell's points, as well as feeling that the book provided a much needed breath of fresh air to science issues that have been politicized for far too long in the (usually) left-leaning media. In any case during one of my random Internet surfing episodes, I decided to check in on Bethell's book just to see how the book was being treated in personal reviews. To my not-so-surprise, the book had certainly made its foes. What amuses me about these harsh reviews is that many of them, in their aim to demolish the book, in fact vindicate it. One wonders if many of them even read the book, or much less, did so charitably. For instance, some have complained about the political nature of the book. Apparently, in their rush to read the book, or -- which is more likely the case -- to read just enough to criticize what they don't like, these folks missed the introduction which clearly spells out the aim of the book. In the introduction titled "The Lure of Politics" (wow - go figure...) Bethell addresses the fact that "science has become politicized" (v), and that journalists are not blowing the whistle as they should. As Bethell states, "it turns out that science could be easily politicized" because "[o]ften, there is a great deal of uncertainty of what the facts are" (vii-viii). Thus, as Bethell says, preference is often inserted. To cover just one example that Bethell mentions - global warming is a hot topic today (no pun intended), even though a mere twenty plus five years ago the concern was global cooling (viii, 1). Obviously, these and other facts need to be analyzed and debated more before they are, for instance, taken to the UN Security Council for action or answered in an unequivocal, loud and non-debatable manner in a 2004 edition of National Geographic. Yet we see too much of the latter, and too little of the former. Why? Politics. So yes, this book is about politics; and for those who are oddly complaining about it - you have stated the obvious... Also, Bethell's point that many (not all of course) scientists (especially those relating to evolution) have a rather high and arrogant opinion of themselves is virtually handed to him by many of his harsh reviewers. It didn't take me long to come across those who were quick to set their own personal record straight, saying in essence that they were scientists and they know the facts unlike, they say, Bethell. Yes, their point that Bethell himself is not a scientist is all fine and well in and of itself, but what these reviewers don't mentioned that invalidates this criticism is that Bethell isn't making up his own objections, but he is reporting the objections of those who ARE scientists and experts in the relevant fields, whether it be Peter Duesberg on cancer, Michael Behe on biochemistry, or Roy Spencer on global warming

More and more of the junk "science" is being exposed. Let me say that, regardless of whether or not you agree with the author's myriad conclusions (or implications) throughout the book, that the book does one thing of utmost importance: it exposes the bias against alternative theories. The only people that win when those biases are in place are politicians and the so-called scientists receiving their handouts. Bethell discusses many topics throughout this book and will probably challenge what you've been told all your life about: 1. The dangers of DDT (we're probably killing well over a million people a year by NOT using it!) 2. The benefits of stem cell research (probably every cent spent on it has been wasted) 3. The African AIDS pandemic (hmmm . . . has someone been playing with the statistics to get more money?) 4. The hazards of low-level radiation (many studies indicate low levels may often be beneficial to the body and result in LOWER cancer and disease rates!) And many other "scientific" topics. In my opinion, the "big story" in the book is not that much of what we have learned may be untrue, but rather that the "establishment" refuses to listen to any viewpoint that contradicts what they (think they) already know. I challenge everyone to read this book and then check out the author's sources. I myself don't know if I agree with all he wrote, but since reading his book I have taken the opportunity to read other sources and check out what he has to say. Unfortunately, even by looking at this book's reviews I can tell there are many who'd rather badmouth the author or his work rather than address facts with facts.

I have read about 75% of this book, and I find that the behavior of some scientists (as reported in the book) is embarrassing! The journal Science refusing to publish the finding of research simply because the findings don't agree with the editorial board's pre-conceived notion of 'correct' is atrocious! Science is supposed to be impartial: what a joke! I have a Ph.D. and teach courses in research methods and statistics at a major US university, so I know what I am talking about. This book is an eye-opener. For example, up until I read this book, I still believed that DDT was responsible for causing the shells of wild birds, like eagles, to be thin enough to endanger their lives. Wrong! The scientist who did the research put alot of DDT into the diet of the birds in the experiment, but he also reduced the calcium: the result was thin shells. That part of the study got published. The next group of birds had the same amount of DDT but the normal amount of calcium, and the shells were not thin, but were normal thickness. The DDT had NO IMPACT ON THE THICKNESS OF THE SHELLS! But the journal Science refused to publish the report from this second study! What?!!!!! Get this book and read it! It should be required reading for every science teacher in America. One Hacked Professor