Nonsense on Stilts

How to Tell Science from Bunk

By: Massimo Pigliucci

Narrated by: Jay Russell

Length: 16 hrs and 51 mins

Publisher's summary

Recent polls suggest that fewer than 40 per cent of Americans believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, despite it being one of science's best-established findings. More and more parents are refusing to vaccinate their children for fear it causes autism, though this link has been consistently disproved. And about 40 per cent of Americans believe that the threat of global warming is exaggerated, despite near consensus in the scientific community that manmade climate change is real.

Why do people believe bunk? And what causes them to embrace such pseudoscientific beliefs and practices? Noted skeptic Massimo Pigliucci sets out to separate the fact from the fantasy in this entertaining exploration of the nature of science, the borderlands of fringe science, and - borrowing a famous phrase from philosopher Jeremy Bentham - the nonsense on stilts.

Presenting case studies on a number of controversial topics, Pigliucci cuts through the ambiguity surrounding science to look more closely at how science is conducted, how it is disseminated, how it is interpreted, and what it means to our society. The result is in many ways a "taxonomy of bunk" that explores the intersection of science and culture at large.

No one - not the public intellectuals in the culture wars between defenders and detractors of science nor the believers of pseudoscience themselves - is spared Pigliucci's incisive analysis. In the end, Nonsense on Stilts is a timely reminder of the need to maintain a line between expertise and assumption. Broad in scope and implication, it is also ultimately a captivating guide for the intelligent citizen who wishes to make up her own mind while navigating the perilous debates that will affect the future of our planet.

NOTE: Some editorial changes to the original text have been made with the author’s approval.

©2010 The University of Chicago (P)2010 Audible, Inc.

Critic reviews

"How can we decide what counts as science? That is the central question of this brilliant book, which ought to be required reading for, well, everyone." (New Scientist)

"Jay Russell's excellent narration guides listeners through the skeptic's arguments, even when Pigliucci bogs down in scientific language. Russell delivers the author's passion for his subject with some sarcasm or anger but, overall, maintains his role as a reasoned guide." (AudioFile)

Great book

If you could sum up Nonsense on Stilts in three words, what would they be?

interesting and informative

What was one of the most memorable moments of Nonsense on Stilts?

I loved the part where he discussed Penn and Teller's Showtime show

Have you listened to any of Jay Russell’s other performances before? How does this one compare?

no

If you could give Nonsense on Stilts a new subtitle, what would it be?

The truth hurts

Any additional comments?

I would highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in science and knowledge

One long rant

The first two chapters were extremely compelling as they are a well thought critic on the nature of science and knowledge.

From there is quickly devolves into a collection of aggravating experiences the author has experienced and punching obvious targets. We all know what to think about UFOs and astrology, how about picking something more controversial like alternative medicine or cold fusion, or perpetual motion variants? I was hoping for more analysis and less rant.

Too long

Maybe it’s just me but I found the book was too long for the message it needs to get across. The main message of a chapter is sometimes lost due to the length of the text.

Thoughtful analysis of science's role in society

It really isn't all about debunking bad science, despite the title. Instead, it goes into a variety of topics related to science in society, and as I said, his discussion of the topics is very thoughtful and not antagonistic. While I don't agree with everything he says, I do think he handled the subject matter quite masterfully.

Excellent start into philosophy of science

This is one of the best books I’ve listened to in a long time. I find philosophy of science very difficult, but Nonsense on Stilts was very clear and easy to follow. Dr Pigliucci uses interesting examples to explain concepts. This makes the points very clear.

Well balanced and thorough

Not only was it engaging, but I learned lots. Well worth the time to listen to.
Absolutely loved the section on the court’s treatment of intelligent design!

Thought provoking and relevant

The most interesting book I have read in a long time. Beginning as a standard de-bunking book, where Pigliucci uses clear-sighted logic to dissect pseudo-scientific ideas, like UFO's, Psi studies, and the Dover, PA Intelligent Design case, he thankfully moves into new territory, saving it from being another Michael Shermer book.

Instead, the author uses these cases studies as a spring-board to illustrate the power of science. Slowly, and with increasing resonance, he begins to unveil the unique contribution that philosophy could bring to the understanding and advancement of science. In the process, he takes solid aim at "Scientism," the near religious belief in Atheistic Science as the only thing that produces value--think Richard Dawkins.

What I really enjoyed was how Pigliucci moves beyond Popper-ian "experiemntal falsifiabilty" into a more nuanced, updated view of what contemporary philosophers of science tell us what it really means to be "scientific." Science means close observation, and adherence to the peer review process to even out our biases. It also means using and careful reasoning, both inductive and deductive. Ultimately, being truly scientific means realizing that our current theory is just a temporary understanding that further study will, likely, sweep away.

The book finishes with a wonderful meditation:"How can you tell an expert from a charlatan?" Healthy food for the grey cells. Of course, Pigliucci, or any relatively competent thinker can, with relative ease, debunk things coming from the Cato Institute. But what about us? Regular people. You know; "John Q. Public?" He looks at 1) The quality of the evidence provided. 2) The reputation of an "expert" among their peers. 3) The expert's biases.

Overall, a great book on skeptical thinking. Instead of an easy debunking of straw-men like Depak Chopra and ESP experts, his focus is on the philosophy of how science works in the real world. Indeed, it looks at science's role as perhaps the only surefire way to overcome our frail human biases when uncovering the truth about things the way they are--and not, for good or ill, the way we want them to be.

Great Book - aweful narration.

This is a wonderful book - very timely. Good coverage of all the relevant areas except I think he went a bit too easy on Dr. Deepak Chopra and his quantum nonsense - I was expecting a real smack-down!
However, the reading was terrible - so many words, especially names were mispronounce - some very common ones found in science. Narrator mispronounces "eugenics," "heuristics," "cognito ergo sum" among them. Also how would anyone read "Apollo 11" as "Apollo Two" ? Ready! The reading pace is quite annoying - slowing down and then taking off and speeding up! I've purchased many Audio Book and this is the only one where the narration really ruin my enjoyment of the content.

Run For Your Life

What disappointed you about Nonsense on Stilts?

The single worst thing I've "read" since law school. At some point, I elected to listen masochistically right the way through. Surely there would be a pony in there if I just dug deeply enough. No pony.

The author comes across as hectoring and he gets distracted into sarcastic rants about people who practice fraud. The few good bits in the book were overwhelmed by having so much time and so many words devoted to the pillory of people who, ultimately, are irrelevant. But, if you feel awed by people with degress and appreciate their efforts to educate you the unworthy, then the author's condescending way of communicating to his readers may suit you just fine.

I suppose the narrator must have been selected to reinforce the flaws. If you like listening to people who are supercillious, whining and snide, than Jay Russell is your guy. In fact, he may be over the top for you. The combination of the text and the narration made me question my long standing belief in evolution and the danger of ignoring global warming. If the author and the narrator are in what has been my crowd on these issues, then I am inclined to do everything I can to distance myself from such people.

I read a fair amount of science for lay people. Scientists can write lucidly and in a way that makes what they do accessible to people without their background. Find something else to read.

What do you think your next listen will be?

I'm doing some light stuff to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Alexander McCall Smith at the moment.

How could the performance have been better?

Different narrator and different text. I think the text would have left me cold anyway, but the narrator was really bad. Something that starts as text, if well done, uses words, vocabulary, phrasing and structure to evoke in the reader a sense of dialog with the author. A narrator's task is to deliver the text orally without adding the narrator's creative revision by timing and dramatic rendition. This narrator took a dubious text and made it just awful.

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

Disappointment and anger. I did read a few reviews of the book and admit that I was forewarned. However, the topic was just too appealing to let myself be put off by some grumpy reviewer. I hope I've done a better job than the reviews did and that I succeed in helping others avoid wasting their time.

Any additional comments?

Please take care with the selection of narrators.

Politicalized Science

Would you try another book from Massimo Pigliucci and/or Jay Russell?

No, very dishonest writer.

Would you ever listen to anything by Massimo Pigliucci again?

No, very dishonest writer.

What did you like about the performance? What did you dislike?

Massimo starts out by laying a foundation about science and how we should be very careful to distinguish between real science and non –science in the first few chapters. He then however, gets very political, very unscientific, and very left wing. He blasts the voters the voters for not electing John Kerry because he was an intellectual and Bush was a Jock cowboy. He also states that Obama is an exception since he is an intellectual who was elected President. First what the hell does either fact have anything to do with the premise of the book? Second, if the author wanted to pontificate about his political views change the title. To be clear Kerry is a snob and Obama is an ideology not an intellectual.
The author then goes on about how man is creating global warming – does he use science to make his case NO. He used Al Gore’s, presumably another of his intellectuals, distorted facts, UN ‘s political document and other politicized science documents to make his case. At that point, I just gave up and stopped listening.

If you could play editor, what scene or scenes would you have cut from Nonsense on Stilts?

Changed the title to read "How to fool some of the people some of the time"

Any additional comments?

If your a pinhead and drink a lot of cool aid this is your book - if you are looking for a book that helps one understand science then keep looking.