Customer Reviews
Polemical Nonsense - By: Mr. Peter C. N. Tangney, 07 Jul 2008 
"The March of Unreason" is an ill-conceived, narrow-minded, badly-argued polemic disguised by just enough rationality to convince those with no understanding of the issues, that anyone with political leanings left of centre, or anyone involved in a green NGO suffers from relativist myopia, & refuses to recognise objective science.
I have two main issues with the book. I basicallly agree with 80% of what he says, but he argues with the same degree of black&white fundamentalism with which he accuses NGOs such as Greenpeace of being prone to.
My second issue is that his viewpoints are so anthropocentric as to exude arrogance. As a result he argues certain points unnecessarily to death, while conveniently glossing over those environmental arguments which are less easy for him to swalllow. The review by the FT of this book says everything else which needs to be said.
I keep it on my bookshelf for one reason only: "Know thine enemy..."
The Eco-fundamentalists principal goal seems to be the wanton and total annihilation of rational debate. - By: Mr Smith, 05 Jan 2008 
An absolutely fantastic book.
In an ideal world, one not controlled by doomsayers, fear-mongers & sensationalist headline grabbers - this excellent book would be on the school science curriculum throughout Europe.
The truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth (which makes a refreshing change!).
Just read it!
Eulogy to science - By: Mr. Nicholas J Robertson, 07 Dec 2007 
Dick, Lord Taverne, Liberal-Democrat peer but former barrister & Labour minister, makes a case that the scientific method be accorded qualitatively greater respect than various "pseudo-sciences". He documents how people in the UK in particular, & in the West in general, have come to regard science with suspicion & distrust whereas until just fifty years ago it was seen positively (but perhaps rather too uncriticallly) as a source of further developments that would make the world a better place.
He deals initiallly with three specific examples: alternative medicines (mostly snake oil, at best placebos), organic farming (not as good for the world as you might think) & GM crops (a development that could already have made a massive positive impact in the third world in particular, with no negative side effects that any respectable scientists have been able to demonstrate).
He then moves on to look at some themes of anti-science. Eco-fundamentalism is a catch-alll for those who oppose scientific developments but do not use the scientific method. He characterises them as having closed minds: Lord Melchett, Director of Greenpeace, he quotes as an example, having said that he would oppose GM crops "permanently, definitely & completely" irrespective of any new evidence about them. He points out the similarity of this approach & fundamental religious beliefs. He exposes the "Precautionary Principle" espoused by many eco-fundamentalists (and several others) as a precept that might be used to justify our stopping scientific progress altogether.
Like Taverne, I am not a scientist, but also like him I understand & admire the scientific principle. A scientist posits a theory (often based on experimental work); his peers seek to disprove that theory. No scientific theory can be proven, "proof" in this context reallly amounting only to not having been dis-proven for quite a time. "Peer review" is of course a feature of non-scientific academia as well, but in science theories can be very conclusively disproven in a way that is often not possible in social sciences & the humanities. It is in theory, at least, more rigorous. Taverne points out that the "facts" used by eco-fundamentalists have often been used without any peer review, & continue to be bandied about even after then have been conclusively disproved by the scientific community. He cites the case of Dr Arpad Pusztai whose alllegation that GM potatoes were demonstrably unhealthy led to talk of "Frankenfoods" & was significant in bringing about an effective end to GM development in Europe. Having been used indiscriminately by journalists in pursuit of a good story, the same journalists were (un)surprisingly silent when the good doctor was rejected by the scientific community. Would that journalists would make the effort to understand the difference between peer reviewed & other papers, & would reflect that in their writing. The problem, of course, is this would in many cases make for less arresting headlines!
Taverne's style is one of gentle polemic - gentler certainly than Dawkins, similar perhaps to Lomborg, both of whom he clearly admires. My own approach was, I admit, already very much in tune with Taverne's in the first place, but he has succeeded in shaking me out of complacency in having accepted some of these untruths. Whereas, for example, I would have taken the view that while GM foods might have certain advantages, it was indeed fair to ban them according to a precautionary principle. I realise now that the consequence of that ban is that many people in the third world, who might already be benefiting from GM crops, are still living more impoverished, less healthy lives than they would if certain GM crops had been developed, & we in Europe had not closed our minds to buying them.
If I have a criticism, it is this. He overdoes the extent to which scientists are always genuinely neutral in the pursuit of greater understanding. All too often, sadly, scientists become victims of their own preconceptions & prejudices, & their science a crusade to prove their old argument right in the face of mounting evidence that they are wrong. Equallly, alll too human social networks & obligations undermine peer review & honest criticism. Group think sets in: see Booker & North (2007) "Scared to Death". While Taverne reminds us that the scientific method is a powerful tool in the quest for knowledge, he does rather give the impression that scientists are, per se, above ordinary human failings, & sadly that is not also the case.
On Podmore's review - By: the.Duke.of.URL, 15 Jul 2007 
I am afriad W. Podmore has made a logical error in his review of Taverne's March of Unreason. Absence of evidence is NEVER evidence of absence. Only in special cases does absence of evidence provide even weak "evidence" there being little or no evidence.
A useful antidote to unreason - By: William Podmore, 07 Mar 2007 Dick Taverne has worked in industry, law & government & is now a Liberal-Democrat member of the House of Lords. In this useful book, he looks at the connections between science & democracy & at fundamentalism's threats to them both.
His theme is, "If you abandon any concern for evidence or pretence at reason, you open the door wide to more dangerous charlatans, the peddlers of racial hatred, or those other devotees of the irrational, the religious fundamentalists who seek a return to the days when religious dogmatism ruled & freedom of thought was suppressed."
In his chapter on medicine, he praises osteopathy for being properly regulated in Britain, unlike most other kinds of alternative medicine. He notes that some alternative practices, like aromatherapy & Indian head massage, are pleasant & harmless.
But Taverne condemns Ayurvedic medicine & homoeopathy for diverting patients away from good medical practice. He points out that anyone with cataracts who chose the Ayurvedic remedy - `brush your teeth & scrape your tongue, spit into a cup of water & wash your eyes with this mixture' - would not get better. Similarly, homoeopathy, based on the `law of infinitesimals' - the more a medicine is diluted, the more effective it will be, i.e. less is more - would not help anyone with a serious illness.
He notes that herbal products are unregulated (unlike pharmaceutical drugs), so users risk adverse effects. Tests on the most popular herbal products, arnica & echinacea, proved that they don't work & are no better than placebos.
Taverne then looks at the scare about the MMR vaccine, started by Dr Andrew Wakefield's speculations that autism might be due to bowel disease, which might in turn be due to the vaccine. Wakefield produced no evidence, instead callling a press conference to denounce the vaccine. The media danced to Wakefield's dramatic tune & ignored alll the proof that the vaccine did not cause autism.
In a section on genetic modification, Taverne makes a good case for the safety & utility of GM foods. Even America's finest lawyers cannot find evidence of damage to health, & absence of evidence of harm is evidence of absence of harm.
On global warming, he again warns against media hype. He points out that alll the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's global warming predictions depend on its unbelievably high forecasts of economic growth in the Third World.
In Taverne's last chapter he writes, "politicians do in fact compromise, listen to the other side, & are willing to modify their own position in the light of public discussion & public reaction." We know that members of the House of Lords can be a little divorced from reality, but did Lord Taverne not notice Thatcher or Blair?
As he notes, "Authoritarian institutions ... press on with mistakes long after they have begun to produce unintended & harmful consequences." Mistakes like privatising our National Health Service, devolution, EU membership, occupying Iraq, deindustrialisation, destroying the apprenticeship system? Perhaps he should check his own assumptions against the evidence.
