Reviewer Jerry Coyne appears to have some of the same reservations I do ("Mooney and Kirshenbaum also fail to support their contention that the knowledge gap between scientists and the public is increasing") - but he ends up voting thumbs down:
No matter how much atheists stifle themselves, no matter how many scientists reach out to the public via new media, we may not find the appetite for science infinitely elastic. This does not mean, of course, that we should refrain from feeding it. But figuring out where and how to intervene will take a lot more work than the shallow and unreflective analysis of Unscientific America.
Ouch!
Still, sometimes I felt that Coyne didn't sound like he read the same book I did. Here's a section of his review:
Other data contradict Mooney and Kirshenbaum's claim that American ignorance of scientific issues reveals a failure of outreach. As the authors themselves note, "college-educated Democrats are now more than twice as likely as college-educated Republicans to believe that global warming is real and is caused by human activities." Surely educated Democrats and Republicans experience similar exposure to scientific facts. All this suggests that the problem of an "unscientific America" may be far more complex than the authors let on. The public's reluctance to accept scientific facts may reflect not just a lack of exposure but a willful evasion of facts due to conflicting economic agendas (e.g., the case of global warming), personal agendas (vaccines), or religious agendas.
Sure. But Mooney and Kirshenbaum do say that the "deficit model" of science literacy - in which improved education will solve the problem - is inadequate. They do argue that religious agendas pose a big challenge - that's why they oppose the New Athiests' mode of communication in the first place, because they think it magnifies the conflict between religious agendas and science. And Chris Mooney wrote a whole book about political conflict with science. So it's just not accurate to say they sum up the whole problem as a "lack of exposure," or say it can be cured by outreach alone. They clearly have a more complex view than that -- although they also don't supply a lot of detail in this book to flesh it out.
On the other hand, Coyne's criticisms that Unscientific America doesn't offer much in the way of either quantitative evidence or solutions are valid. The book does rest on generalized exhortations to increase outreach, better prepare grad students, and minimize New Atheist-style confrontation with religion.
In sum, Coyne's review basically focuses again on the New Atheist issue - which I deliberately avoided in my review because it's been hashed out so much elsewhere, and it comprises a surprisingly small part of a small book. You already know how you feel about that issue, and if you're an enthusiastic New Atheist, you're certainly not going to have your mind changed by this book, so let's lay that to rest now! But I do find the rest of the book interesting and useful as an introduction to some important issues - and it was on that basis that I recommended it.
Coyne's review here - subscription required.
- Log in to post comments
Reviewers are personal taste. I like A.O. Scott of the NY Times and find that if he liked the film, I usually will too. OTOH, if Manohla Dargis likes it, it is a hit or miss. I know I won't read this book because I have read the Intersection and find their writing style not to my liking. Again, it is personal taste. Reviews are tough things, we are to write about what was there, not what we wanted to be there or what we think should be there. Unfortunately the build-up and and breathless style doomed this book. Indeed their own web page states:
Which, as you point out, is not the case. But then again writing that they restate warmed over obviousness served with a side serving of snide commentary and smug self appreciation is not going to sell many books.
>because they think it magnifies the conflict between religious agendas and science.
Is there such a thing? Do we not have the science of sociology to study that? What does sociology tell us about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis