It took everything I had to get all the way through this one, and I'm pretty sure it all comes down to style. My guess is you'll both understand and/or enjoy Defending Science depending on your degree of familiarity with and enjoyment of the style and conventions of analytic philosophy (and probably the terms used in formal logic). My beef was more with the sorts of self-congratulatory barbs of "wit" this style often entails—maybe what's meant as an attempt to be funny, but which winds up just being needlessly insulting. I've no idea, in other words, how to rate this one—only that I wouldn't hand it to a layperson interested in examining what science is or why it's valuable, etc.

Incidentally, I started this book after having enjoyed a shorter journal article by Haack on the same subject.

The problem is neither the scientists, the real ones, nor the skeptics.

The problem is an ersatz, fake, pretend, pseudo-science mentality of the "science" defenders best given the term "SCIENTISM".

Scientism is an authoritarian put down of anyone who disagrees for any reason. You're WRONG because "science sez". This attitude pervades science where doctrinaire theories gain hold and then impede research and development of new ideas that challenge the status Quo. This was the case in the discovery that went against the conventional theory that stomach ulcers were due solely to stress and ulcers. "Science" said that the proposed explanation of bacteria was impossible because of the acidic environment of the stomach, despite occasional mysterious lab reports, over decades that it was possible. It took a Nobel Prize winning discovery to change that, and even then, it was several YEARS before the changed "official" position filtered down to everyone.

In addition, Corporatism and the subversion of governments, government research labs, government agencies, colleges and research centers by corporatist influence, have created an army of influence peddlers, corporate shills, pseudo-scientists and just plain trolls who will shout down, denounce, attack, insult, demean and ridicule anyone who dares disagree.

Personal attacks are the mode and modus of this bunch, "Scientism" their justification even when they mindlessly intone that "scientific studies disprove that" even when most of the "Scientismics" have neither read the studies nor could understand them if they did, NOR realize that in many instances the "studies" prove nothing except what the corporate funders of the "study" wanted.

Scientism is the post-modernist descent of science to corporate dogmatism, fascism and the subversion of open discussion and debate, for example in the vaccine question in which anyone who dares ask questions or question official "scientism" fairy tales about the supposed history of how the vaccines eradicated certain childhood diseases, is denounced as an "anti-vaxer" and immediately associated with those who believe there is a vaccine - autism connection even if the person thinks nothing of the sort.

I watched in amazement in early 2015 as news media across the world turned a tiny measles outbreak in California into an opportunity for mass hysteria, misinformation and the instigation of legislation across the country for "mandatory" = coerced vaccination. And this even though the "science" of it, as openly admitted by vaccine scientist and expert Dr. Gregory Poland clearly shows that the current measles vaccine fails to induce protective levels of antibodies in 2 to 10 % of the vaccinated population.

The problem is neither the scientists nor the skeptics, though some of them may be. It is the ersatz fake science, demand for "submission" to "authority", corporatist influence, and the refusal of the "scientists" to accept that there may be valid questions, reasonable countervailing views and completely cogent skeptics who have every right to raise questions.

The "VAXXED" documentary, pulled from the Tribeca film festival is testament to the power of scientismic denunciation and a failure to be able to tolerate legitimate questions and valid questions. Science IS what it IS, not always what the government or corporations, or even some mistaken scientists SAY it is.



NB: I’m not an ANTI-VAX. But I’m ANTI-SCIENCE. ( )

With so many people citing science as Truth and telling us we have to believe something because "science says so" and other's rejecting long-established scientific knowledge for little more than superstitious reasons, this book comes as a breath of fresh air. ( )

Develops a philosophical view of science that is based on 'common sense' and steers a clear path between postmodern denial of the special utility of science and excessive scientism. A bit dry in places - written by an academic philosopher. ( )

Defending Science - within Reason: Between Scientism And Cynicism by Susan Haack (2007)