e're in the golden age of scientific misinformation. Now that biology
has surpassed physics as the most dangerous branch of science, it's more
important than ever to be familiar with what science really says.
Here's a quick course on how to do it.
Why read scientific books
Science tells us why we can't travel faster than the speed of light, what will really happen if another planet smashes into the Earth, why a vaccine can work against one virus but not another, and why all those breathless stories in the news about chemicals that make you infertile, give you cancer, or make you live to 100 are more often wrong than right. You'll never get that from pop science books or from social media.
The best way to get started on a technical subject is to read a non-expert who tells you details the textbooks take for granted. Despite its intimidating title, this is a great example
Just a warning: no longer will you be able to read those gee-whiz “science” websites that uncritically report some press release that they don't really understand. No longer will you be able to sit still when people talk about Covid masks or some computer “prediction.” You'll be forced out of that artificial bubble. But there's no substitute for knowledge, and no better way to protect yourself against the propaganda we're bombarded with day and night.
Here's another reason: we only live in this world for a short time. How can people stand to live not knowing about the world works? How can they stand not knowing about science—our greatest cultural achievement and the only remaining pillar of truth—or about all the things that can harm you, like the sinister way carbon monoxide kills you weeks after you thought you recovered, or the horrific things lightning does to you months or years later? Who wants to live not knowing the truths about DNA or AI? Is 5G really as great as they want you to think? And what do actual scientists say about that new shocking discovery that there are two and only two sexes?
Values are built on a foundation of facts. Without facts, values will wash away with the political tides. Those who wish to change our values will deny some facts, invent others, and redefine terms to change what we believe to be true. So far, though weakened by bureaucrats and pseudoscientists in government and educational institutions, science remains the principal source of factual authority in our culture.
The golden age of science is dying
That authority is rapidly declining. Many popular “science” books today are actually propaganda, filled with falsehoods. They're intended to manipulate you, not inform you. Covid revealed to the wider public what scientists have complained about for years. Politicized science is already being used to take away our freedom, damage our health, wreck our economy, and harm our children. Our only hope of defense is to understand science. Only then will we have a chance of distinguishing good science from bad.
J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter, probably the greatest children's book ever written, was rejected by nine different publishers. Publishers have a death grip that is wiping out literature, and it's now spreading to science. See here for two examples of pop science books filled with nonsense—one of which was given a glowing review by Nature magazine. Politicians on both sides are using science as a political weapon and unknowingly making many misstatements: this book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr is a good example.
Publishers routinely force scientists to include statements in their papers which the scientists believe to be false. If they don't add the statement the publisher demands, their paper doesn't get published. See here and here for examples. It has never been more urgent to learn this stuff before science becomes hopelessly entangled with politics.
Aren't science books boring?
Turn the question around: what could be more boring than reading about an imaginary person doing things that never really happened and thinking things no one would ever really think, only to discover that the author was trying to trick you into accepting his ideology? That's how many technically oriented people see modern fiction.
Let's face it: schools are designed to destroy your ability to think. They want you to think science is boring. The smart kids suffered the most. They were the ones who sat in the back reading Being and Nothingness or Foundations of College Chemistry instead of paying attention. They learned how to record what was being said in class and play it back in their minds if the teacher suddenly asked them a question.
When you try to read online, you're constantly aware that the page could disappear at any moment or be covered up by some animated pop-up. By contrast, you can concentrate on a book with no fear of pop-ups, ads, or demands to send the author more money in order to continue reading. There's no need: they have most of your money already.
Some tips
Most textbook writers aren't going to win a Nobel prize for literature. If you read novels at, say, 50 pages an hour, don't expect more than five or ten in a textbook. The goal is not to blast through the book to find out how it ends. The goal is to learn stuff; in the process, as Edward Teller taught, you will become confused. So, the dirty secret is this: everybody is confused when they start reading a scientific book. It's normal. If you're not confused, it's because you already know the material.
Avoid books where each chapter is by different authors. Those usually have some academic as the editor, who invites whoever he wants; the authors just throw something together and don't expect anyone to read it. It's not intended to be read; its sole purpose is to fulfill the demand of their institutional bureaucrats to publish something.
Get the necessary background before starting. I've found books that were way over my head until I got the background. For instance, you wouldn't start with a book on string theory straight away. If you want to learn quantum mechanics, a great place to start is Quantum Ontology. It was written by a philosopher who explains in plain language all those terms that physicists assume everyone knows, and tells you what he thinks the theory means for how we see the world. It's very well written; I read the first half of it in my doctor's office while he was trying to cure me of problems caused by that damn covid vax.
There are also many badly written books, like one popular text on Chinese medicine where the author spends forty pages explaining the basic concept of yin and yang. Too low a level is as bad as too high.
It's important to alternate between difficult and ordinary books. Otherwise, you can get conditioned aversion, where you read technical books more and more slowly—or even fall asleep.
About those complicated formulas
Many people are afraid of math formulas, and rightfully so. Many authors skip steps in the derivations, and they say things are “obvious” and “left as an exercise for the reader” so often it's become a running joke.
Overly-complicated math formula, actually easy
The trick to reading formulas is to simplify them. At right is a typical example. The author had to write his formula this way to avoid being accused of lacking rigor. But by now you, the smart reader, know that the trick is to simplify it. This formula simply means that S (whatever it may be) is what you get when you multiply C × C × the other S and add them all together. The stuff in parentheses and the subscripts is just details to remind you where the variable comes from. Then note what exactly these S's and C's might be, and then think for a minute what it means when you add them together. That's all the author expects you to do.
Sometimes people complain when physicists use ‘God-given’ units, where the speed of light is 1, h-bar is 1, and infinity is either 1 or zero, depending on which one makes it easier to throw away. The goal is to make the formulas easier to read. Of course, you'll eventually need to spend time learning some of the common tricks like linear algebra and tensor calculus, but lots of it you can pick up along the way. An expert can understand a formula at a glance, not because he's smarter, but because he's seen it a million times. The important thing to know: every formula does something. If the author doesn't tell you what that is, try a different book, which often explains it differently.
Taking notes
For any serious book, you'll have to take notes. I had to make a genealogy chart to make sense of one big novel where everybody was related to everybody else. The same is true for scientific books. Those notes are essential: when the author defines an abbreviation or a variable name, gives an important formula, write it down along with the page number. Otherwise, you'll be totally confused when he refers to it 350 pages later. The trick, as I learned the hard way, is to make the notes legible.
Why it's important
Some people think that calmly arguing facts is a waste of time. No, they say, science is impossible to understand unless you're a science geek. You have to make movies that infuse your ideas into the culture. You have to get angry, exaggerate, and call people names in order to get people to pay attention. That is a losing strategy. It only becomes necessary when your side waits until it's far too late and then fails to come up with a valid, convincing argument. I see this happening over and over.
Maybe it's true, as some websites keep saying, that Big Tech is censoring the truth. But it's frustrating to see commentators who think quoting the Bible, Burke, Aristotle, or the Declaration of Independence is a valid argument, and then complain when their opponents ignore them. No matter how many times people say it, politics is not downstream from culture. It is downstream of what people believe to be true. If conservatives and my fellow libertarians want to fix things (as opposed to waiting until a disaster happens and then complaining about it), there is only one way: make honest, fact-based arguments.
The average person might not care, but scientists and journal editors are terrified of being associated with anyone not in absolute command of their facts. Their response will be to flee from candidates like RFK Jr who make inaccurate statements and avoid doing any research at all on anything related to the topic, however important it may be. Result: they drift left, and it gets harder to find scientific support for your ideas.
I know this is a science blog, and we really try not to do politics here, but this needed to be said.
mar 13 2024, 7:12 am. updated mar 14 2024, 4:36 am
