After my last post on down-voting a book categorized as non-fiction and science, it seems only fair that I give an alternative reference on what might be a goodread rather than that work. I cannot find an exact complement for that book, but here is one that can take the place for now.
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.
There is a nice Wikipedia page on this book, so I won’t have to put in a lot of effort to compare it with the one in my last post. My Book Probe hit a true on this one and I have already read it since then. If you came here checking out the Michael Brooks book or looking for material on Placebo, Homeopathy and the likes, I suggest you check this work first before venturing into the 13 things that don’t make sense.
You can also check out a free chapter, “The Doctor Will Sue You Now” available as a PDF file.
PS: I am very happy to tag this post ‘science’.
Book Probe: these are small bits from my search on good books to read.
These things cannot be called reviews, because I have not yet read the book; its the decision of reading it that is being concluded here.
13 Things That Don’t Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time,
There are some books on ‘science’ that — thankfully — highlight their bias of research/facts very easily. It is because authors put up more details like this that I get more time checking rest of the books.
That chapter description strikes out Michael Brooks from my science reading list.
Still have doubts?
I wonder how many intrigued people will jump at a possible opportunity of learning new science after checking the profile on his site,
“Michael Brooks, who holds a PhD in quantum physics, is an author, journalist and broadcaster. He is a consultant at NewScientist, a weekly magazine with over three quarters of a million readers worldwide, and the author of the acclaimed non-fiction title 13 Things That Don’t Make Sense and the techno-thriller Entanglement.”
I may however consider his fiction work, Entanglement. He seems to have a knack for these things. It takes a bit more than Escher-works to research anomalies.
PS: I could not make myself tag this post under ‘science’.