(Larger Image)
|
The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism
Product Group: Book
Publisher: OUP Oxford (2005-03-17)
ISBN: 0192804855
EAN: 9780192804853
Dewy Decimal #: 303.483
Hardcover: 310 pages
|
Customer Reviews
|
Not scientific or truthful
Rating  (1)
Date: 2008-11-13
0 out of 2 customers found this reveiw helpful
Mr Taverne, who many years ago might be experienced as a freedom -loving democratic socialist ,has tried to find the paradigm behind the ecological and environmental movements of today. In an extraordinarily interesting part of his book he tries to find this in the person of Rudolf Steiner(1861-1925) founder of biodynamic agriculture anthroposophical medecine and steiner education, whose london centre is in Park Rd NW1.This seems to me unusual, since Steiners work seems not very well known in Britain except superficially. BUT......
Far from Steiner being unscientific or inclined to vague anti -scientific notions ( which may indeed infect some of the enthusiasts Taverne lambasts) he was in every way extremely scientific in the true sense; even writing books on epistemology and later extending the scientific sense to the spiritual world as well as that of the senses.
Taverne may not know this or doubt it and feel justified in lumping Steiner with what he considers unscientific dreaming;, even he may consider him the source of it .I strongly disagree but he is entitled to his opinion.He even can imply that some Nazis were given to this sort of enthusiasm and unscientific ideas.
But it is really a terrible slur to imply that in some way Anthroposophy is the source of Nazism. almost like blaming Lincoln for the death of John Wilkes Booth . ( I cannot quite find a good analogy) In other words anthroposophy is TOTALY OPPOSED to racism and the idea of "racial thought." In fact it proclaims free thought which comes from the individual spirit and is not tied to race business war or ambition. Unlike some other examples.....
When Mr Taverne links Steiner to the vague elements in the Green aganda , we may demur ; but when he states baldly twice that steiner was a member of the NSDAP we are in the realms either of repetition by heresay of utterly inaccurate information ; and therefore unscientific negligence of a high order ; or of a deliberate lie intended to mislead and confuse a public with interest in these matters. Only Mr Taverne can tell us which.
|
|
Read with Caution
Rating (1)
Date: 2008-10-31
0 out of 1 customers found this reveiw helpful
If you intend to buy this book then do so with extreme caution. Margaret Cook in her review in The Guardian observed that much of Taverne's `discussion is rather rant than reason' and pointed to his tendency to declare as absurd any argument he doesn't understand. But more worrying are his gross distortions of history and his total misrepresentation of those individuals involved in the ecological and organic movements in the twentieth century. His attacks, for example, on Rudolf Steiner and the Anthroposophical Movement are a total fabrication and a complete falsification of the facts. Taverne, relies on Anna Bramwell's book Ecology in the 20th Century: A History, to argue that Steiner was a member of the Nazi party in it early days. This is completely untrue and although some of the Nazi leaders were interested in the agricultural methods developed by Steiner, he never embraced any right wing ideology nor joined any political parties. Indeed he was frequently attacked by right wing extremists and at one point in the early 1920s he was forced to call off his lecture tours in fear of his life from right wing groups. Taverne uses no primary source material to support any of his arguments in this book and one can only say that if you decide to buy it then it is a good lesson on how history should NOT be written.
Dr. Kenneth Gibson
|
|
Polemical Nonsense
Rating (1)
Date: 2008-07-07
1 out of 4 customers found this reveiw helpful
"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, and refuses to recognise objective science.
I have two main issues with the book. I basically 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 be wholly arrogant. As a result he argues certain points unnecessarily to death, while conveniently glossing over those environmental arguments which are less easy for him to swallow. The review by the FT of this book says everything else which needs to be said.
|
|
The Eco-fundamentalists principal goal seems to be the wanton and total annihilation of rational debate.
Rating  (5)
Date: 2008-01-05
1 out of 3 customers found this reveiw helpful
An absolutely fantastic book.
In an ideal world, one not controlled by doomsayers, fear-mongers and sensationalist headline grabbers - this excellent book would be on the school science curriculum throughout Europe.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (which makes a refreshing change!).
Just read it!
|
|
Eulogy to science
Rating  (4)
Date: 2007-12-07
3 out of 3 customers found this reveiw helpful
Dick, Lord Taverne, Liberal-Democrat peer but former barrister and 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, and in the West in general, have come to regard science with suspicion and distrust whereas until just fifty years ago it was seen positively (but perhaps rather too uncritically) as a source of further developments that would make the world a better place.
He deals initially with three specific examples: alternative medicines (mostly snake oil, at best placebos), organic farming (not as good for the world as you might think) and 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-all 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 and completely" irrespective of any new evidence about them. He points out the similarity of this approach and 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 and 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 really 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 and 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, and 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 allegation that GM potatoes were demonstrably unhealthy led to talk of "Frankenfoods" and 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 and other papers, and 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, and 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 and prejudices, and their science a crusade to prove their old argument right in the face of mounting evidence that they are wrong. Equally, all too human social networks and obligations undermine peer review and 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, and sadly that is not also the case.
|
|
Retail Price: £18.99
Amazon.com's Price:£3.30
That's 83% Off!
 |
|