About.com Rating



Scientists are not dispassionate or disinterested observers. They care deeply about the subjects they are investigating and nearly as deeply about the theories they have for explaining the data they uncover. This is not a bad thing ? after all, if it weren?t for that passion, no one would care enough to do the work in the first place. As much as anything else, science is driven by stubborn pigheadedness: a person or persons who tenaciously cling to their theories and ideas, relentlessly pursuing data and research in the hopes of coming across clues which might prove them right.

In the end, however, they still have to submit their data and ideas to others for review. If the only support they end up producing is their own faith, then their field will move on without them. If, however, their stubborn tenacity has led them to interesting data that no one else has come across, then they will be vindicated. Thus, no matter how dogmatic an individual may be, the system itself tends to remain very undogmatic and disinterested.What this means is that while the ends may look nice and neat, the actual process does not go along quite as scientists and others imagine that it should.

The ideals of science may have value and they can serve to lead us on the proper path, but it would be wrong to assume that reality very often matches those ideas. This is demonstrated over and over as Waller examines the actual historical record of numerous ?luminaries? of science, researchers and scientists whose work is generally regarded both inside and outside scientific circles as having revolutionized how we live and/or how we view the world.

Included among those whose reputations and history are given a closer look are Louis Pasteur (he suppressed data that didn?t fit his ideas), Joseph Lister (who had a high rate of death due to unsanitary conditions in his hospital wards), Arthur Eddington (who ignored two-thirds of his data when testing Einstein?s theory of relativity), and Alexander Fleming (who played almost no role in the development of penicillin).

Two topics covered in the book which might be of interest to nonbelievers are the chapter on the famous debate between Thomas Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, and the chapter on the introduction of anaesthesia to women going through child labor. In both cases, the common beliefs of not only atheists and skeptics but also others in society are likely wrong.

With regards to the debate over evolution between Huxley and Wilberforce that occurred in June, 1860, the most common belief seems to be that Huxley wiped the floor with Wiberforce?s arguments, showing his opposition to evolution as unthinking, unreasoned, and unintellectual. The reality, however, may be quite different. There is evidence that Huxley was not a very effective speaker, that Wilberforce and his supporters walked away with the feeling that their ideas carried the day, and that many who watched the debate or heard about it later concluded that Darwin?s ideas rested upon a shoddy foundation.

With regards to the use of anaesthesia in obstetrics, it is widely believed that there were fierce religious objections to this on the grounds that God had ordained in the Bible that women must endure pain when delivering a child. Trying to relieve that pain was thus to be regarded as a violation of God?s plan. But the evidence for such objections is lacking to say the least. James Young Simpson wrote a response to such anti-anaesthesia arguments, but it seems more likely that he was answering his own doubts and perhaps forestalling objections that might arise in the future. But they never did and no one really cared.

The title of this book is misleading because there is very little about Einstein in the whole work; aside from the Eddington experiments, you?ll struggle to find any mention of the physicist who serves as an example of how a scientist can experience brilliant insight about how the world works. That aside, this is a wonderfully written book with very readable and lively prose ? its audience will be anyone from the curious lay reader to research scientists who would like to go back and review some of the faulty history of science they were once taught. Indeed, I wouldn?t be surprised to see this put on the reading list for classes in the History or Philosophy of Science.

« Back...