I’ve just finished a series of 11 detailed chapter-by-chapter reviews of Tom Bethell’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, and in this final summary review I will discuss the successes and failures of his work, along with the fundamental problems in how Bethell presents his subjects. In 14 chapters that cover an broad array of topics, Bethell is able to find some success in debunking the myths his cover art so boldly declares. However, probably only those already convinced prior to reading his work will find much of substance, as he loses all authority by constantly editorializing in his presentation, and sourcing only the worthless material or those ideas that he agrees with. His misrepresentation of science is so pervasive that “The P.I.G. to Science” probably does not belong in the science section of the bookstore, as its publisher, Regnery, knew when it labeled the book as “Current Events.” Unfortunately, there will be some people that are convinced by the sciency-sounding arguments that Bethell presents, and the seemingly thorough sourcing he provides.
Here is a detailed-but-brief summary of the problems and successes in Bethell’s work.
Terrible Sourcing of Information
Each of Bethell’s chapters contains somewhere on the order of 40-50 factual statements, of which no more than half are sourced. The half that are graced with citations are those that are of little consequence, are news events, or agree with his point of view. Almost never does Bethell cite the sources on studies or findings that disagree with his ideas, if indeed he presents them at all. A scientific paper on a single one of the factual statements Bethell makes may contain as many as 30-50 sources, and Bethell seeks to cover dozens of such statements with a mere 15-20 sources at most. He loses a lot of credibility from this major failing of his work.
Constant Sneering Editorializing
When Bethell presents the ideas that he is about to attack, he does not state them without editorializing. Perhaps this is because he is afraid of being misquoted, but it is perfectly acceptable to summarize the ideas of your opponent without inserting your own editorial comments. This disgustingly one-sided presentation of information makes this book very difficult to read for someone of the opposing viewpoint. The world does not need this kind of book, instead it needs honest discussions that allow the other side to completely air their opinions.
Incomplete Presentation of Opposing Ideas
Never does Bethell completely present the issues that he opposes. In the climate change chapter, for instance, he discusses Mann’s hockey stick graph without actually showing the graph. He never truly summarizes in a fair way the definition of evolution, or Darwin’s arguments in On the Origins of Species. The AIDS chapter is the most prominent example of this, never are statistics or figures presented that powerful make the opposing argument.
The AIDS Chapter
Very unfortunately, Bethell engages in a disgusting chapter of political denial of the AIDS pandemic in Africa that is tinged throughout with racist thinking. See the comments in that chapter review for a wonderful contribution by reader Ari, as she is a bit of an expert on the subject. This chapter brings the entire book down a very significant notch, and should absolutely be removed in any future versions of the book as it is not only completely wrong on all points, but extremely offensive and exhibits the same kind of denialist thinking that has made the AIDS epidemic so much worse in countries like South Africa.
Cherry-Picking of Scientific Findings
Bethell commonly dismisses entire reams of scientific publications on the basis of a very limited study by a dissident scientist, or even on the reporting of journalists, doctors, or lawyers. Of course, he mostly ignores those ideas that do not fit in his story, and will treat those that he does present with casual dismissal bordering on contempt. In a few chapters, including the Cancer chapter, he uses the findings of a single scientist to present what he thinks is the correct explanation for something without a shred of viable scientific evidence.
Contempt for Scientists, Confusion of Targets
Bethell is often confused about whether he is attacking the scientists on an issue or those that politicize science, such as environmentalists. By keeping his targets uncertain, he spreads vitriol on his shadowy foes without feeling the need to make his criticisms specific, or even relevant. He displays a general contempt for scientists, often labeling them as radical or painting them as extreme. But, in the next sentence he turns around as uses their findings to support his tenuous grasp on issues. His willingness to dismiss the work of generations of scientists based on the word of philosophers, lawyers, doctors, or journalists, is the most telling proof of his lack of respect for the discipline.
Overly-Broad Range of Topics
There are a few very successful chapters in this book, including Chapters 2 and 3, and the first half of chapter 12. The reasons for this are that he uses scientific findings to support his ideas, his reasoning is narrow and well-ordered, and he keeps the range of ideas he presents small. Sprawling chapters on Climate Change or Evolution are failures by contrast because of his overly-brief treatment of complex subjects.
Specious Arguments, Illogical Conclusions
Particularly evident in a few chapters, including the AIDS chapter, Bethell makes conclusions that do not follow from his argument. For instance, South Africa has 20x the death-rate from AIDS as the US, but its population 1/6th the size, therefore, Bethell argues, South Africa’s AIDS deaths cannot be true. This, of course, is completely false. The death rate from a disease depends only on its prevalence in the population and how the disease is treated, not on the population size. Indeed, South Africa has greater than 25% infection rate of HIV and very limited access to the drug cocktails that hold HIV at bay in US cases.
The Fallacy of Arguing from Ignorance
The primary redeeming trait of this book is that most of its conclusions will be (or, in the case of the climate change chapter, have already been) invalidated by the advance of science. So many of Bethell’s arguments rely on the fact that science is not complete, that there is much we have yet to understand. The chapters on the Human Genome Project and Cancer are perfect examples of this. Just because science does not have evidence to fully prove a hypothesis does not mean that hypothesis is untrue. Evidence that it is untrue is all that is required to disprove a hypothesis, however, and in almost all cases, Bethell cannot provide this.
The True Politicization of Science
This book is not a work of science, it is a work of political propaganda most likely intended to arm its readers with a series of smart sound-bite arguments. It is poorly researched, badly written, deliberately incomplete, and displays extremely negligent journalism. Those that read it to learn about science will be grossly misinformed and made ignorant by the dishonest journalism of Tom Bethell. I cannot state strongly enough how disgusting the AIDS chapter is, and how badly that reflects on the entire work, as well as the author. The best fate that this book could receive is to be condemned to the trash-heap of science journalistic history, because its few successes do not merit the 270+ pages it is printed on.
Chapter Review Table of Contents
A couple of readers now have written to inform me about mosquitoes developing resistance to DDT. For some strange reason, I didn’t even think to check on this before I posted my DDT review.
Of course, Bethell left this out of his book entirely. That is because ignoring mosquito resistance to DDT meant that he could legitimately make his claim of millions killed each year from lack of spraying DDT. But, in reality, blanket spraying of DDT as it was done in the 1950s and 1960s rapidly lead to the development of DDT-resistant mosquito strains that could still transmit and host the malaria virus.
Also, there is no international ban on DDT use, just in some western countries, like the US, where malaria was largely eradicated. In African countries, as I noted in my review, there is continued DDT use, and in many cases it is done in a sustainable fashion that should limit the spread of DDT-resistant mosquitoes.
I’ve updated the review itself, but I also wanted to post here that I’ve rescinded one of the few kudos I offered to Bethell. He witheld an extremely imprtant piece of scientific information and painted a grossly exaggerated picture of the negative influence of DDT spraying.
I’m sorry to say that I fell for it completely, despite my skepticism about nearly everything else in Bethell’s book. This does demonstrate the dangers of books like Bethell’s very well. Though I’m not an expert in the field, I have somewhat extensive scientific training and I read widely, yet I still believed his completely one-sided claims. Again, I repeat my trash-heap recommendation for this book, but with a bit more vigor this time.
Once you’ve established that a source is untrustworthy, you can’t trust anything that source says. It might be right, but how will you ever know?
An example from a completely different field is Ward Churchill. He may have done some good scholarship on Native American issues, but you can’t trust it, given his career track record.
I saw the cspan event hosted by the heritage foundation that was in late June. I laughed a lot at what was said. One of the funniest things said was that Intelligent Design was not shrouded religion. I have seen the decision on the Dover Case on I.D. and even the proponents of I.D. (Behe etc.) consede that you must go to the supernatural to explain it. There is some talk about extraterrestials but it all seems to come back to an supenatural intelligent being.
You can find the Dover case’s decision on the CNN website in PDF form. It is a work of Art.
Bethell also said that the recent find that “Junk DNA” having more use that expected is evidence that Evolution is wrong. He said that the whole genome is used. My research on the issue shows that SOME of the nonsense DNA is used and is used to diagnose certain cancers. He also leaves out that a huge number of that Junk DNA has similar (upwards to 90%) genes to Rats Fish and other “lower animals”.
If I am mistaken on anything I have said give me feedback.
Well I hope you do every review with this method. Or do you do it only with mavericks? Which is propaganda? So I understand from your review that everything is false there? I bet you are kidding. Or paid?