Scan barcode
calyxconcision's review against another edition
4.0
A lot of arguments these days lack nuance, and I see, back when I was around 16-, that it is no different in the columns Goldacre writes, compiled in this book. Initial bad faith interpretations that beget kneejerk reactions are a dime a dozen on Twitter, and seemingly so in academic and scientific fields, as well. I enjoyed the book for the amount of bullshit it called out, the nuance it added, the additional context provided, and the "they never said that" calling out of the distortion disguised as hyperbole, as well as the argument for evidence-based medicine and argument itself. I highly recommend this book. :)
wintrovia's review against another edition
4.0
I'd previously read most of these columns when they were originally published in The Guardian but it was still enjoyable to read them in this collection.
rollforlibrarian's review against another edition
5.0
I thought that my statistical literacy and ability to critically examine information was pretty good - but I learnt a lot from this book. I will be able to use this in my own work with data analysis and interpretation to (hopefully) avoid unintentional error.
This book highlights many examples, largely in the media. There are examples of intentional misinformation, over-interpretation and errors in methodology. Academics are also put in the spotlight, with errors of the past shown and some that still happen.
I didn't really know what a systematic review was in the past, but I'll be paying more attention to those in the future - and taking a harder look at what's behind the seemingly authoritative figures quoted in sources I would usually presume to be reasonably reliable.
This book highlights many examples, largely in the media. There are examples of intentional misinformation, over-interpretation and errors in methodology. Academics are also put in the spotlight, with errors of the past shown and some that still happen.
I didn't really know what a systematic review was in the past, but I'll be paying more attention to those in the future - and taking a harder look at what's behind the seemingly authoritative figures quoted in sources I would usually presume to be reasonably reliable.
colindalaska's review
3.0
An uneven collection of Ben Goldacre's writings. Oddly Ben reads the first few chapters of the audiobook and then switches to a different narrator. It's almost as if he got bored with this himself.
leosaumure's review against another edition
5.0
I've just finished reading Ben Goldacre's: I Think You'll Find it's a Bit More Complicated Than That.
I found this book both fascinating and infuriating!
The book is about...well, it is about many things, such as bad science, bad journalism (compounding much the bad science or blatantly distorting real science), and bad governmental policy making (using said bad science and bad journalism).
I think everyone should get a copy of this book, read it, and try to apply the lessons you may learn from it. For instance I am going to try to put into practice one of his pieces of advice:
"If people don't link to primary sources, I don't trust them and I don't read them." (ESPECIALLY on social media).
I use to think (some) sources of journalism were trustworthy, but I think I'll have to start digging even deeper into issues that matter to me in order to ensure I am getting the correct information. The sad part is that this is going to take a lot more time, so I will have to narrow my focus significantly. Soon, I will know every piece of factual information about stegosaurus!
I found this book both fascinating and infuriating!
The book is about...well, it is about many things, such as bad science, bad journalism (compounding much the bad science or blatantly distorting real science), and bad governmental policy making (using said bad science and bad journalism).
I think everyone should get a copy of this book, read it, and try to apply the lessons you may learn from it. For instance I am going to try to put into practice one of his pieces of advice:
"If people don't link to primary sources, I don't trust them and I don't read them." (ESPECIALLY on social media).
I use to think (some) sources of journalism were trustworthy, but I think I'll have to start digging even deeper into issues that matter to me in order to ensure I am getting the correct information. The sad part is that this is going to take a lot more time, so I will have to narrow my focus significantly. Soon, I will know every piece of factual information about stegosaurus!
aimeesbookishlife's review against another edition
3.0
I didn't realise this was just a collection of Goldacre's columns, I thought it would be another full book like [b:Bad Science|3272165|Bad Science|Ben Goldacre|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327251503s/3272165.jpg|3308349]. It was still interesting, but not quite as in-depth.
davidgilani's review against another edition
4.0
Written by Ben Goldacre who had a column in the Guardian for a number of years where he would debunk / challenge some of the reporting of science/research/discovery in the media. Slightly odd structure for a book, as it's sort of a compilation of the best of those columns that he wrote, so sometimes feels a bit 'back and forth' between what he's saying about a topic now vs. what he wrote back then.
Really interesting mix of topics and overall makes a great number of points about the ways in which we should resist the temptation to simplify at the expense of truth and accuracy.
Really interesting mix of topics and overall makes a great number of points about the ways in which we should resist the temptation to simplify at the expense of truth and accuracy.
generalheff's review against another edition
4.0
I Think You’ll Find it’s a Bit More Complicated Than That – a collection of articles published by scientist and physician Ben Goldacre – is, according to the author, a “toilet book”: you should read bits of it here and there. Having read it straight through and gotten a little jaded, I would advise following the author’s advice. Howsoever you read it, if you enjoy seeing bad science pulled to bits in bitesized chunks, this is the book for you.
As anyone familiar with the author will know, Goldacre is a master ‘skewerer’ of bad science. A great feature of this volume is the range of topics the author tackles. Perhaps the biggest tranche of articles concerns journalists misrepresenting science. I literally just opened the book at a random page to find an article about how The Telegraph selectively quote only one study, rather than a readily available systematic review, to justify their headline “Exercise Makes You Fat”.
A second set of targets is the Government, with a particular focus on the lack of transparency in Government data. A third source of articles is ridiculous inventions, like a magnetic device to improve the taste of cheap wine. This does lead to some brilliant quips (a fair reflection of the author’s direct, humorous style): “I was previously unaware of the magnetic properties of wine, but this explains why I tend to become aligned with the Earth’s magnetic field after drinking more than two bottles”. But compared to some of the heavier topics the author grapples with, this style of article can come off as a bit below his paygrade.
The last and most engaging targets are scientists themselves. This seems like a fairer fight. Indeed, the very first article is a takedown of Baroness - and Professor at Oxford - Susan Greenfield, who repeatedly claimed computer games cause dementia in children without a shred of evidence. She is a worthy target: a scientist at a prestigious institution and one who attacks anyone who challenges her.
This illustrates a key corollary to Goldacre’s mantra of transparency and one he refers to time and again: ‘authority’ has no place in science. Either you have evidence for something or you do not. If you do, you should show it (transparency); if you do not, the worst thing for Goldacre is to lean on your credentials, or intimidate or abuse others into acquiescence.
Such messages are the book at its best because they tell us what science truly is. Whether it is his nuanced and easy-to-read overview of how randomised controlled trials work or a specific discussion of a well-evidenced piece of research, this book offers a valuable look at good - as well as bad - science.
A beautiful example is the case of the magnetic wine device. Having written in 2003 about the lack of evidence for the manufacturer’s claims, he followed up in 2005 with an article about a team at Kings College who went away and actually ran a randomised controlled trial of the device (they found it had no effect).
What is so wonderful about this, as the author is quick to point out, is not simply that a garbage claim was tested, but that a second much more insidious claim was debunked too: device makers often claim it is too expensive to test a device rigorously. The Kings’ researchers, therefore, deliberately ran a trial on the cheap and spent a grand total of £70.
This is maybe the book’s most powerful message: that good evidence is not a pipe dream. Rather, people who claim they cannot demonstrate something often have a good motive for doing so: they know their claim is pure quackery. If this book gives more people the tools to challenge nonsense and take a critical eye to suspect claims then it will have truly achieved something worthwhile.
As anyone familiar with the author will know, Goldacre is a master ‘skewerer’ of bad science. A great feature of this volume is the range of topics the author tackles. Perhaps the biggest tranche of articles concerns journalists misrepresenting science. I literally just opened the book at a random page to find an article about how The Telegraph selectively quote only one study, rather than a readily available systematic review, to justify their headline “Exercise Makes You Fat”.
A second set of targets is the Government, with a particular focus on the lack of transparency in Government data. A third source of articles is ridiculous inventions, like a magnetic device to improve the taste of cheap wine. This does lead to some brilliant quips (a fair reflection of the author’s direct, humorous style): “I was previously unaware of the magnetic properties of wine, but this explains why I tend to become aligned with the Earth’s magnetic field after drinking more than two bottles”. But compared to some of the heavier topics the author grapples with, this style of article can come off as a bit below his paygrade.
The last and most engaging targets are scientists themselves. This seems like a fairer fight. Indeed, the very first article is a takedown of Baroness - and Professor at Oxford - Susan Greenfield, who repeatedly claimed computer games cause dementia in children without a shred of evidence. She is a worthy target: a scientist at a prestigious institution and one who attacks anyone who challenges her.
This illustrates a key corollary to Goldacre’s mantra of transparency and one he refers to time and again: ‘authority’ has no place in science. Either you have evidence for something or you do not. If you do, you should show it (transparency); if you do not, the worst thing for Goldacre is to lean on your credentials, or intimidate or abuse others into acquiescence.
Such messages are the book at its best because they tell us what science truly is. Whether it is his nuanced and easy-to-read overview of how randomised controlled trials work or a specific discussion of a well-evidenced piece of research, this book offers a valuable look at good - as well as bad - science.
A beautiful example is the case of the magnetic wine device. Having written in 2003 about the lack of evidence for the manufacturer’s claims, he followed up in 2005 with an article about a team at Kings College who went away and actually ran a randomised controlled trial of the device (they found it had no effect).
What is so wonderful about this, as the author is quick to point out, is not simply that a garbage claim was tested, but that a second much more insidious claim was debunked too: device makers often claim it is too expensive to test a device rigorously. The Kings’ researchers, therefore, deliberately ran a trial on the cheap and spent a grand total of £70.
This is maybe the book’s most powerful message: that good evidence is not a pipe dream. Rather, people who claim they cannot demonstrate something often have a good motive for doing so: they know their claim is pure quackery. If this book gives more people the tools to challenge nonsense and take a critical eye to suspect claims then it will have truly achieved something worthwhile.
beebless's review against another edition
3.0
Made me wonder how this book would be different if written now. Helpful reminders of some key concepts. Probably better not to read it in one go as it can be a bit repetitive!