Negative Positive
Title: good book, but flawed.
Review: Gardner centers his attacks on what he terms "psuedo science." Having read the book carefully, I got the impression that Gardner would attack anything that doesn't fit the scientific paradigm. The scientific method he extolls is nothing more than a rehash of skepticism. In fact, all science can be reduced to skepticism. Skepticism is one of the oldest philosophical positions in the world. I strongly agree with skepticism as a method of investigation, however Gardner fails to realize that those he criticizes are also skeptical. Charles Fort for instance was skeptical of data that science ignores. Yet in this book Gardner criticizes him without mercy. This seems very odd. Gardner makes several good points on being doubtful of claims and to investigate them. On this I completely agree. However his use of skepticism is seriously biased. I recommend the reading of this book,but keep a skeptical mind on Gardners claims.
Is the review positive or negative? 