Discarded Science

Discarded Science, by John Grant (Surrey, UK:  Facts, Figures & Fun, 2006) is an engaging but ultimately unsatisfying little book about the dead ends and false trails of scientific inquiry. Grant ranges widely over the history of science, covering topics like Ptolemaic cosmology, luminiferous aether, Velikovsky, Atlantis, Lamarckian evolution, Creationism, Ufology, Homeopathic, and scores of others. It is well-written and admirably complete. Unfortunately, Grant's desire for breadth and completeness has led him into a couple of dead ends or false trails himself.
   
First of all, his definition of "discarded science" wanders far astray. Things like Ptolemy's epicycles, the luminiferous aether, phlogiston, and Lamarck's theory of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics are all legitimately discarded -- they were once part of the mainstream of scientific thought, but were abandoned when contradictory data or better theories came along.

But the bulk of the book's length is not about interesting dead ends and how they came to be abandoned. Instead Grant spends a lot of time discussing theories which were pseudoscience from the start and never gained an iota of respectability -- the colliding planets of Velikovsky, Erich von Daniken's ancient astronauts, UFO cults like the "Aetherius Society," Chromotherapy, and similar nonsense.

Now good crackpottery is always entertaining, and Grant's book would be a lot less fun to read without these interludes, but they do rather wander from his topic. They also wander rather heavily over the pages of Martin Gardner's landmark study of crank science, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. And since Grant never goes into much detail about the crackpot theories he covers, I found myself thinking again and again "Martin Gardner did it better."

Grant's second wrong turning is that he throws in opposition to science and ideological suppression along with discarded science and quackery. For instance, he spends several pages quoting religious leaders opposed to abortion and contraception, including Jerry Falwell, Pope John Paul II, and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Fine -- but none of those gentleman base their arguments on science. They say that abortion (or contraception, or even complete nudity) is wrong on moral or scriptural grounds. So what are they doing here at all? "Because John Grant doesn't agree with them," is apparently the answer.

This desire to throw in everything including the kitchen sink means that Grant's book is maddeningly superficial. Nothing gets more than a couple of pages, and many topics are covered in just a paragraph or two. In the end, that is the book's greatest flaw: it dilutes its subject matter like a dose of homeopathic medicine. One learns little about the process or history of scientific thought, just a collection of factoids. It's entertaining but nothing more. A deeper and more narrowly-focused approach would have been much more rewarding to the reader.

Comments

[Barrett]

It's was a serious blow for relations between science and the humanities that luminiferous aether didn't pan out. What a great pair of words.

[Brian Rogers]

Hey, it's my copy of the book, where's my hat tip?

[Cambias]

A tip of the pseudoscientific hat to Mr. BRIAN ROGERS! Let's have a big hand, ladies and gentlemen!

[Eric]

Actually, Velikovsky gained more than an iota of respectability, irrespective whether he was right or wrong.

In 1974, the AAAS held a conference devoted to Velikovsky's theories, and in 1973, the University of Lethbridge awarded Velikovsky an honorary degree of Doctor of Arts and Science. See http://www.velikovsky.info/Honourary_Degree_Awarded_to_Immanuel_Velikovsky

[Cambias]

Eric: Two points.

First, that AAAS conference mostly consisted of Carl Sagan demolishing Velikovsky's theories in front of him.

Second, an honorary degree. That and $3.75 will get you a latte at Starbuck's.

So, I'll meet you halfway: Velikovsky briefly owned one iota of scientific respectability, but they took it back.