Is there any reason to read "popular science" books? or Do science writers have any responsibility to their readers?
There are so many bad science writers out there. By bad, I mean writers who know very little about their topic but somehow manage to write a 200-300pg book on it and/or who actually know tons about the topic but somewhere along the road forgot (or put aside) the foundational assumption upon which their work rests (there is no empirical basis for that which they are discussing).
Story, Study, Lesson approach
I am reading Me, Myself and Why. The title is an immediate clue that what I'm going to get here is not going to be deep, but is it worthwhile to read what Jennifer Ouellette has to say for other reasons? I took a look at Ouelette's website to see if I could get some idea of her credentials, but I felt like I was reading a "popular science" website, and by that I mean the same level of attention to substance as in popular science books (their job appears to entertain first, persuade second, and provide proof, not at all. But, I don't really want to slam these books necessarily, because I certainly don't have to read them. I guess what I'm more interested in, is is there any reason to read them besides (or in addition to) entertainment?
Somehow in exploring this question I also came across a blog post on Slate about Malcolm Gladwell (kind of the story, study, lesson king extraordinaire) http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/10/malcolm_gladwell_critique_david_and_goliath_misrepresents_the_science.html
And, here Christopher Chabris goe
s after Gladwell because he acts as if he's presenting science when he knows he's not (and to make it worse, people read him thinking they are getting science; and other people who should know better say don't take him seriously, it's only entertainment). I think these same criticisms can be easily leveled at these other "popular science" writers (Gulp is another recent example).
Many questions arise about this:
1. Can we not take stuff seriously just because we say we are not going too? That is, do we take in some of this stuff that we know is trash and incorporate it into our not-trash part of the brain without realizing it? How often do we even remember where bits and pieces of knowledge or trash have come from? Is it like saying, I'm just not going to take those calories seriously but once they enter the body all calories are the same? (Garbage in, Garbage out?)
2. Is there any responsibility for writers, publishers, critiques to have responsibility for their products (As Chabris asks in his criticism, are they getting the big ideas right?)? If so, what does that responsibility look like, a caution on the book "Hey, I'm just messing around. Don't take me seriously. I actually only did about 3 months of research, well actually I didn't do any, my research assistant did it. So it's just something to think about but I don't know if it's valid or not . . ."
3. Regardless of 1 or 2 is there some other worthy reason to read this stuff that has nothing to do with knowledge? Entertainment is enough?
4. Is there some other kind of knowledge that can come from these books that makes wading through the trash worth it?
On another point all together, there has been some fuss recently about book review criticism where some critics are arguing if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. This seems beyond ridiculous. What is the point of writing a review? It would seem that at least partially it's to help others decide what to read. There are so many books available, don't we want to have honest responses rather than just complimentary responses? People called Chabris a "hater" because he doesn't like Gladwell's books. What exactly is it that Chabris "hates"? The books or the very sloppy writing? And, isn't there a difference?
I teach my students, "We read to learn how to live". If that is true or at least partially true, than doesn't it matter what we read (and, thus, what we write?)?
So, back to Me, Myself and Why. It would be easy to spend considerable time writing about all of the things about this book that make me want to throw it across the room, but instead I'm really trying to think, what is in this book that makes it worth my time?
Raises issues about how we use facebook (but really it's just junk) but at least it got me to thinking about how would we answer the question of "why do people use facebook" and "what does it say about their identity"? But then I start thinking, how could you ever answer questions like that . . . so not particularly useful and perhaps more importantly why would you?
What this book is really about is the author's own experiences and how they have helped her to understand herself (at least within the narrow confines of her subject matter in this book). I tried to find other stuff, but finally gave up. At least for this example, the book does not seem to be worth reading for any reason. Now, I'm going to hunt for reviews to see if maybe I missed something. But first I'm a bit ticked off because I got the recommendation to read this book from Scientific American--this is NOT a science book. They need to say that (of course the author of the book writes a blog for Scientific American . . . ).
I wonder why the author would say she wrote the book? In the Scientific American review she writes, "Ultimately, the story is not about the destination. It's about everything learned along the way." So, is the story "Me, Myself and Why" then not about where we end up but about what we learn along the way? In the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579308822188963500 Hutson, the author, writes, "I waited in vain for the book to develop an overall argument. . ." But, he adds, "I don't mean to sound harsh" (doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings . . .). But if we aren't supposed to be looking for the overall argument, but what we learn along the way . . .
Story, Study, Lesson approach
I am reading Me, Myself and Why. The title is an immediate clue that what I'm going to get here is not going to be deep, but is it worthwhile to read what Jennifer Ouellette has to say for other reasons? I took a look at Ouelette's website to see if I could get some idea of her credentials, but I felt like I was reading a "popular science" website, and by that I mean the same level of attention to substance as in popular science books (their job appears to entertain first, persuade second, and provide proof, not at all. But, I don't really want to slam these books necessarily, because I certainly don't have to read them. I guess what I'm more interested in, is is there any reason to read them besides (or in addition to) entertainment?
Somehow in exploring this question I also came across a blog post on Slate about Malcolm Gladwell (kind of the story, study, lesson king extraordinaire) http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/10/malcolm_gladwell_critique_david_and_goliath_misrepresents_the_science.html
And, here Christopher Chabris goe
s after Gladwell because he acts as if he's presenting science when he knows he's not (and to make it worse, people read him thinking they are getting science; and other people who should know better say don't take him seriously, it's only entertainment). I think these same criticisms can be easily leveled at these other "popular science" writers (Gulp is another recent example).
Many questions arise about this:
1. Can we not take stuff seriously just because we say we are not going too? That is, do we take in some of this stuff that we know is trash and incorporate it into our not-trash part of the brain without realizing it? How often do we even remember where bits and pieces of knowledge or trash have come from? Is it like saying, I'm just not going to take those calories seriously but once they enter the body all calories are the same? (Garbage in, Garbage out?)
2. Is there any responsibility for writers, publishers, critiques to have responsibility for their products (As Chabris asks in his criticism, are they getting the big ideas right?)? If so, what does that responsibility look like, a caution on the book "Hey, I'm just messing around. Don't take me seriously. I actually only did about 3 months of research, well actually I didn't do any, my research assistant did it. So it's just something to think about but I don't know if it's valid or not . . ."
3. Regardless of 1 or 2 is there some other worthy reason to read this stuff that has nothing to do with knowledge? Entertainment is enough?
4. Is there some other kind of knowledge that can come from these books that makes wading through the trash worth it?
On another point all together, there has been some fuss recently about book review criticism where some critics are arguing if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. This seems beyond ridiculous. What is the point of writing a review? It would seem that at least partially it's to help others decide what to read. There are so many books available, don't we want to have honest responses rather than just complimentary responses? People called Chabris a "hater" because he doesn't like Gladwell's books. What exactly is it that Chabris "hates"? The books or the very sloppy writing? And, isn't there a difference?
I teach my students, "We read to learn how to live". If that is true or at least partially true, than doesn't it matter what we read (and, thus, what we write?)?
So, back to Me, Myself and Why. It would be easy to spend considerable time writing about all of the things about this book that make me want to throw it across the room, but instead I'm really trying to think, what is in this book that makes it worth my time?
Raises issues about how we use facebook (but really it's just junk) but at least it got me to thinking about how would we answer the question of "why do people use facebook" and "what does it say about their identity"? But then I start thinking, how could you ever answer questions like that . . . so not particularly useful and perhaps more importantly why would you?
What this book is really about is the author's own experiences and how they have helped her to understand herself (at least within the narrow confines of her subject matter in this book). I tried to find other stuff, but finally gave up. At least for this example, the book does not seem to be worth reading for any reason. Now, I'm going to hunt for reviews to see if maybe I missed something. But first I'm a bit ticked off because I got the recommendation to read this book from Scientific American--this is NOT a science book. They need to say that (of course the author of the book writes a blog for Scientific American . . . ).
I wonder why the author would say she wrote the book? In the Scientific American review she writes, "Ultimately, the story is not about the destination. It's about everything learned along the way." So, is the story "Me, Myself and Why" then not about where we end up but about what we learn along the way? In the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579308822188963500 Hutson, the author, writes, "I waited in vain for the book to develop an overall argument. . ." But, he adds, "I don't mean to sound harsh" (doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings . . .). But if we aren't supposed to be looking for the overall argument, but what we learn along the way . . .
Comments
Post a Comment