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)

Listen to the sample first!

I was desperately interested in the content of this book but the narration made me give up. Flat, with an awful buzzing quality to it, and the accent made it worse. Hopefully others don't have the same problem with this fantastic book.

Informative but not worth the effort

I wanted to enjoy this book, but it is like taking a an interesting course where the professor loves to talk - it is very heavy on data, examples, history, asides, tangents, and very light on conclusions, points or meaning. All I can say it is that there is a lot of information provided by Pigliucci, he overwhelms with detail.

Scattered, pointless book

What could have made this a 4 or 5-star listening experience for you?

If the speaker had spoken 3x as fast (i listened to it on 2x and it was still to slow); if the book had a thesis -- it doesnt, its scattered statements that anyone who's read a news article or two on quantum physics or darwinism will already know. the opening chapter (to take one of the more egregious examples) is 40 minutes of yammering about what makes something a hard vs soft science, chock full of duh statements like "one thing that impacts the trajectory of different fields of science is how much funding they get from governments and universities." at the end of the chapter, i had no idea what was at stake in the distinction... the whole book feels like it was written bc the author wanted to get something published, not because he had anything to say.

Would you ever listen to anything by Massimo Pigliucci again?

no

Would you be willing to try another one of Jay Russell’s performances?

no

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

Annoyance that the lack of a point.

Not great

First off the narration is bad. Very boring, almost sounds like a computer voice.

The content is OK. You can definitely tell the writer has a real disdain for conservatives and anyone with religion. His points are good and I agree with many of them, but he cannot hide his obvious disgust with all things conservative. In fact, he spends an entire chapter on one conservative judge who shockingly sided with reason over religion. He kept pointing out that he was a conservative judge as if it is totally beyond the realm of possibility that he would be fair and impartial.

Uninformative and dogmatic, not wroth the time.

Every aspect of culture has is orthodoxies, religious, political, economic, artistic and even scientific. Inherent in each orthodoxy are their articles of faith, dogmas, adherents, defenders, evangelists and prophets. There is no fault with any of these, but they must be understood for what they are. Massimo Pigliucci is, without question, a minister of scientific orthodoxy, and as such uses the tools and methods of his avocation. He must be read with this understanding. The first line of defense for orthodoxy is consensus, which he sites repeatedly, ignoring the basic understanding that consensus has never established fact. Instead of discussing questions rationally on their merits, he falls back on insults and demeaning language while attacking the motives and personalities of those who disagree with him, questioning their right to speak outside of their credentialed areas of expertise while repeatedly doing so himself.
As an engineer and physics instructor of 40 years, I have accumulated many questions on the positions commonly held in the scientific community, none of which were addressed seriously in this book. If you are looking for an emotional pep talk to sustain you in your commonly held opinions, this is your book, but if you are looking for an objective, rational discussion, look elsewhere. This is least informative and least credible book I have ever read on these topics.

Too academic and rambling for it's own good

I'm not necessarily a fan of 'dumbed down' science books, which simply try to be as accessible as possible. But from the title and description of this book, I expected a light hearted and interesting discussion of how to tell good science and bad science apart.

What I actually got was a rather heavy and at times rambling discussion into the philosophy and history of science. Interesting in parts, but not very coherent, and pretty hard work.

I'd recommend Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' far more than this one - it's narrower in scope, but a MUCH better listen.