Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science
| This might be|
|But we're not sure|
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, Martin Gardner's second book, is an early classic and foundational text of the movement for scientific skepticism. It contained a fairly comprehensive survey of crank beliefs as they existed in the 1950s.
As per the subtitle of the book, "The curious theories of modern pseudoscientist and the strange, amusing and alarming cults that surround them" are discussed in the chapters as listed.
- In the Name of Science, an introductory chapter
- Flat and Hollow
- Monsters of Doom
- The Forteans
- Flying Saucers
- Alfred Lawson and his “Lawsonomy”
- Down with Einstein!
- Sir Isaac Babson
- Dowsing Rods and Doodlebugs
- Under the Microscope
- Geology versus Genesis
- Apologists for Hate
- Atlantis and Lemuria
- The Great Pyramid
- Medical Cults
- Medical Quacks
- Food Faddists
- Horace Fletcher and Fletcherism
- William Howard Hay and the Dr. Hay diet
- Vegetarianism (“We need not be concerned here with the ethical arguments ...”)
- Jerome Irving Rodale and organic farming
- Rudolf Steiner, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, anthroposophy and biodynamic agriculture
- Gayelord Hauser
- Dudley J. LeBlanc and Hadacol
- Throw Away Your Glasses!
- Eccentric Sexual Theories
- General Semantics, Etc.
- From Bumps to Handwriting
- ESP and PK
- Bridey Murphy and Other Matters
- Morey Bernstein and Bridey Murphy
- a final plea for orthodoxy and responsibility in publishing.
The book was first published in 1952 as In the Name of Science.
In the Preface to the second edition, published in 1957, Martin Garder wrote:
- "The first edition of this book prompted many curious letters from irate readers. The most violent letters came from Reichians, furious because the book considered Orgonomy alongside such (to them) outlandish cults as dianetics. Dianeticians, of course, felt the same about orgonomy. I heard from homeopaths who were insulted to find themselves in company with such frauds as osteopathy and chiropractic, and one chiropractor in Kentucky "pitied" me because I had turned my spine on God's greatest gift to suffering humanity. Several admirers of Dr. Bates favored me with letters so badly typed that I suspect the writers were in urgent need of strong spectacles. Oddly enough, most of these correspondents objected to one chapter only, thinking all the others excellent."