RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: Books about Science vs Politics?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2006,17:57   

Hey. I was thinking about picking up Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science", which I have heard a lot of good things about. I was wondering if anyone here would like to recommend or discuss any other books related to conflicts between science and politics (religious politics or otherwise).

In particular, there's one book in specific I was wondering if anyone knew anything about it:

The book is called "Imaginary Weapons" by Sharon Weinberger, and it's apparently a chronicle of one specific military research project into developing something called an "Isomer Bomb", a project which continued on for years although independent analysis largely concluded the science behind the project was founded on simple experimental error. This book interested me a great deal because it reminded me of another book I read recently and enjoyed, a book by Jon Ronson named "The Men who Stare at Goats" on the subject of the strange things which can occur when military research projects are given poor oversight. However, checking up on Weinberger's book on the internet and Amazon's review page, I am finding some allegations that the book has factual accuracy issues. For starters, a couple of people observed that the book has glaring proofreading problems ranging from grammatical errors to a passage which apparently references the Yucca Mountains as being in Colorado. This sounds to me mostly just like the book was rushed to press, not really a problem, but this could indicate more serious errors slipped by unnoticed. More worrying to me are claims that the book plays fast and loose with facts, and misrepresents the history of the "Isomer Bomb" related research projects in order to make a more entertaining naarative. If these allegations are true I'd just as soon skip the book.

But this is where things get odd-- when I look carefully, I find most of the complaints about the book that a Google search turns up are excruciatingly vague, suggesting that specific objections about the book can be found on "blogs" but never explaining what blogs or where. All objections with any specificity seem to be directly linked back to a specific person named Doina Collins and her husband Carl, who have an entire website set up at dedicated to complaining about the book-- a website which seems to consist mostly of very vicious attacks on Ms. Weinberger which are long on rhetoric but scanty on details. This is very suspicious because, although they don't make this clear in their internet postings, Carl Collins turns out to be the scientist responsible for the research project the book was about in the first place. This mysterious failure to disclose makes me wonder if the Collinses were in some way behind at least some of the complaints that originally made me start worrying about the book-- since most of the complaints I'd seen on various sites were very repetitive, as if they were written by the same person who was just going from website to website posting the same thing. In one case I saw a comment along the lines of "this book has errors, search google for blogs on the subject" that had been cut&pasted literally verbatim directly into the comments sections of more than one blog. So now I'm just not sure what to think.

I was wondering if anyone had read Weinberger's book and could maybe give me some indication whether the book does in fact seem to suffer from factual sloppiness, or whether the book is a fine piece of journalism and the appearance of complaints about the book is due to a one-man internet astroturf campaign.

Anyway, just curious, and I'd be curious for any recommendations of other books that anyone might have. Thanks!


Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2006,21:29   

This reminds me of all the allegations of factual inaccuracies in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11, from both the left and the right, but mostly from the right.

This is how it would go:

"Michael Moore's an ass, and his latest movie is riddled with lies and inaccuracies."

"Really? Such as?"

"Well, they're everywhere! Practically everything he says in there is untrue!"

"But most of the movie is either interviews or file footage. So which parts are false or inaccurate?"

"Just about all of it is."

"Well, can you give me a specific example?"

"Yes, pretty much everything he says is wrong."

"Such as…?"


2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams


Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2006,15:57   

read anything by Paul Ehrlich, to get a good overview of the history of the conflict between politics and science.

here's a relatively recent contribution I read a few years back:

How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future"

You should also take a gander at the manipulations of G.O. scientific reports undertaken by the current administration, which are documented and believed to be the worst and most excessive of any presidency in the US, ever.

start with the Union of Concerned Scientists webpage; there are some good links there.

Yes, it IS that bad.

"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2006,22:20   

"Yes, pretty much everything he says is wrong."

"Such as…?"


not a unique mindset to that particular issue, at all.  Unfortunately all too common when the average american is asked to provide evidence in support of any of their opinions.

Heck, my own father has the same mindset.  Ask him why he voted for Chimpy McGrin, and you'll get the same kind of response.  

"the other guy is just all wrong; he would never have made a good president."


"he just IS that's all."

But he spent 30 years in the Senate; what specifically do you find objectionable about him?



If you ever take a gander at right wing political attack ads, they pretty much reinforce the "all inclusive but no fact" opinions the majority of folks seem to share in this country.  As does Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, O'Leary, Coulter, etc., etc.

It's just easier to take a position without thinking why, i guess.


"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."


  3 replies since July 17 2006,17:57 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]