Re: (Tears) Fads and Fallacies by Martin Gardner

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:09:49 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber
<naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:

On 2024-04-28, James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

>
| To quote its subtitle, Martin Gardner’s 1957 Fads and Fallacies in the
| Name of Science studies “the curious theories of modern
| pseudoscientists and the strange, amusing, and alarming cults that
| surround them.”
>
1957?  No ancient astronauts then.  My own interest in this took a
hard hit with von Däniken's fourth book, about spectral apparitions
(ghosts), which was not something I was willing to give any credence
to, no matter how many anecdotes he cited, and which put into
question his other writing.
>
| focusing mostly but not entirely on American theories.
>
No "earth rays" either then.  That one was so specifically limited
to German-speaking countries that there isn't even an established
English term for "Erdstrahlen".  There was some overlap with dowsing,
though.  For a time in the 1970/80s, my parents were members of a
book club that had a quarterly mininum purchase requirement.  At
some point my dad fulfilled this by buying a book on "Erdstrahlen",
but couldn't be bothered to read it himself and tasked me with it.
I skimmed through it.  Intensely exasperating.  I was hoping for
some physical characterization of those mysterious "rays"--particle?
electro-magnetic? ionizing?  non-ionizing?--but it all remained
perfectly vague, with references to devices that supposedly could
detect those rays, but again devoid of any description of physical
principles.  One or two hundred pages of nothing.

The strongest actual argument against "parapsychology" (telepathy,
telekinesis, etc) was that, since none of the Four Fundamental Forces
(gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak) can explain them,
those who promote their reality must first come up with a Fifth
Fundamental Force. Which they have yet to even attempt, preferring
instead to wave their arms about and yell a lot.

| “Judging by the number of Campbell’s readers who are impressed
| by this nonsense, the average fan may very well be a chap in his
| teens, with a smattering of scientific knowledge culled mostly
| from science fiction, enormously gullible, with a strong bent
| toward occultism, no understanding of scientific method, and a
| basic insecurity for which he compensates by fantasies of scientific
| power.”
>
Yes, ageism aside, that mirrors my own view.

A hundred years or so ago, the "justification" of Science Fiction was,
precisely, that it would teach science to teenage males. (In that
culture, teenage females needed training in how to pour tea, not
science. Things have improved a bit since then, of course.)

| [list of contents]
>
I'm happy to say that there are quite a number I don't know at all.
I suppose many have fallen out of fashion since the book was
published.
>
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"