People love scamming other people, any which way they can. One method, which hurts far more than what happens to mere victims, is pseudoscience. In pseudoscience, scammers pretend to have discovered all manner of impossible scientific solutions, and foist them on the gullible who are always susceptible to the passing nonsense. It has given science a bad name, and nothing can stop it, it seems. In their book Pseudoscience, Lydia Kang and Nate Pedersen examine about a hundred of them, and the heights to which the scammers soared. The field is so well-populated, the authors didn’t even have to draw lines or limits. For example, they easily steer clear of religious pseudoscience, such as say, Scientology, and it is not missed in the mix of stories here. The book is both entertaining and instructive, as the authors are chatty and informal.

Pseudoscience can be as simple as a parrot telling fortunes, to the entire field of eugenics. Eugenics is a pseudoscience that enables its experts to predict intelligence by feeling and measuring the bumps on someone’s skull. It quickly became a racist tool in the USA, a way to keep non-whites away from anything whites wanted them away from. It led to the saying “You should get your head examined.” It was so important, it became automated, with highly wired helmets making the interpreter’s job a breeze. A printout quickly answered all questions, and on to the next victim. But for nearly a century, it was received medical science.

Another key to pseudoscience is finding deep meaning in meaningless things. We all do it; it is part of being wrong some of the time. But some people take it to extremes, and can fool a large number of people until and unless they are exposed by, say, facts. So finding human faces in scrambled eggs, or ghosts who can perform various tricks – but only in certain places at certain times, are examples. There’s even a word for it: pareidolia. Who knew?

Some of these totally unscientific scams are still around. The Briggs Meyers personality test is one that thousands must take in order to get a job, for example. It has no scientific basis whatsoever, just a household project between a mother and daughter. But it became a giant corporation with its own scientific (sort of) journal, and reaped – and continues to reap – a fortune, while inaccurately pigeon-holing and stereotyping millions of innocents.

Another that is very much with us still is astrology. Originally a way to try to predict what to plant and when in the coming year, it rather suddenly became about predicting individual lives from start to finish. Even the early astrologers would have told you up front that is totally absurd and can’t be done. Nonetheless, horoscopes are everywhere, and far too many run their lives by them, including Nancy and Ronald Reagan, Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King, and innumerable kings and queens and generals throughout history.

My favorite chapter concerns birds. People made decisions by counting the number of certain types of birds flying overhead, and in what direction, how fast they flew and how high or low. They were also used directly in fortune telling, as shown in India today, where trained parrots select cards from a deck and there your future is sealed. The Romans made the bird flight system mandatory, and also portable by carrying around chickens in cages, letting them out when a decision was needed. It was worth the bother for the armies of Rome, as they also provided eggs and meat if nothing else. Still, many a famous disaster is attributed to chickens.

What I like about the story is how the whole bird forecasting pseudoscience entered the language, and has remained there. The word auguries refers to bird flight making predictions. An auspicious day is one that birds have indicated would turn out well. Some indicator is said to augur well for the desired outcome. Augurs, who interpreted bird movements for the state, became a priestly class in Rome. And American presidents have traditionally been inaugurated to begin their term in office. And it all stems from – nothing. But a nothing that drove the whole Roman Empire.

Another interesting one is dowsing – the ability to find underground water and minerals by carrying a Y-shaped bare branch (and later, manufactured metal rods). Where it dips down is where one should dig. Its most famous early proponent was a woman, the Baroness Martine de Bertereau, a trained geologist. In the early 1600s it was completely impossible for a woman to be recognized as having scientific credentials, let alone a professional practice, so she hid behind her dowsing sticks. That was okay for everyone who accepted witchcraft and superstition over education and science (ie. most everyone), even though what she was really doing was noticing mineralization, surface sands, striation, and geological formations. Soon, dowsing had spread all over the world, and anyone could do it. It was a miracle of science!

From flat earthers (how come after all this time, no one has ever found the edge?) to fake moon landings, from gasoline pills to crop circles and from UFOs to the Bermuda Triangle, there’s lots to chuckle at, and stuff to learn too.

David Wineberg

A (mostly) clear and engaging exploration of some popular conspiracy theories

Labels like ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘fake news’ appear regularly in the Media. But people do not always appreciate the pseudo-science upon which they rest. That makes this book particularly interesting, as it drills into fringe perspectives to identify and expose the pseudo-science which drives and enables a variety of alternative perspectives.

Combining clear exposition with personal stories, each chapter tends to be written around characters who exemplify important aspects of the issues. Thus, the chapter on Flat Earth follows ‘Mad’ Mike Hughes and his attempts to build rockets in order to see for himself whether the world is flat or not. This focus upon personal characters makes each chapter more engaging, as it turns what would otherwise be just a set of issues, into a story about the issues.

Each chapter is relatively short, but they generally contain a thoughtful analysis of the issues and a suggested explanation of the pseudo-science phenomena. So, for example, the chapter on spontaneous human combustion explored alleged historical examples. Then it noted that in previous centuries people used skin creams which were highly flammable. With an abundance of candles and naked flames in older houses, cases of alleged human combustion can sadly be explained all too easily.

One minor disappointment with the book was that it only covered a few aspects of Pseudo Science. It would have been good to alert readers to the wider issues which fall within the category. For example, people can fall into pseudo-science by simply not accepting changes and new discoveries. Scientific theories of Phlogiston represented scientific wisdom until new discoveries meant that those hanging onto Phlogiston became adherents of Pseudo-Science.

A more serious disappointment with the book involved its occasional condescending tone. For example, on p.232 the seventeenth century figure of Joseph of Cupertino is described as a ‘religious fanatic.’ Yet, he wasn’t really behaving that differently to his historical contemporaries. So his alleged ‘fanaticism’ sounds more like a modern cultural imperialism looking down upon the divergent values and ethos of a different era. Is that kind of attitude really appropriate in a modern book?

And on the point of Joseph of Cupertino, he was cited in the book because it was said that he could fly. Apparently there were so many witnesses (including the pope and other dignitaries) that a guest house had to be built to accommodate the constant large numbers. The author then debunks the story that Joseph could fly, by telling us that maybe Joseph was just good at jumping.

Good at jumping? What? Are we really to believe that 350 years ago no one could tell the difference between jumping and flying? The author’s explanation of Joseph’s behaviour sounds as odd, if not odder than, the phenomenon which it is meant to explain. Lacking a better explanation, I can’t help wondering if it wouldn’t have been better to just leave Joseph out of the book altogether (?).

Overall, this was (mainly) a well-written and enjoyable read. I appreciated the short sections combining text and photographs, as they were ideal for browsing and for dipping in and out of the text. If it hadn’t been for the issues noted above, then this would have been a 4 or 5 star review. But I just think that the era of books being casually condescending towards other cultures has passed, and so it is hard to justify more than 2 stars.

(These are honest comments on a ‘free’ digital ARC (Advanced Review Copy) version of the text).