Truly enjoyable. I would call it a book that everyone should read. ( )

A much more sophisticated book than I had initially expected; it really made me think again about the utility of philosophy. ( )

With respect to the subtitle of how to tell science from bunk, Pigliucci sadly fails to make his case. Sure, there are extensive side trips into differentiation between examples of science and pseudoscience (i.e., evolution vs creationism/ID), but only to illustrate a very specific point rather than a general approach, and he really doesn't address the "how" - for the most part he merely contrasts and states one is science and the other is not. Too easy for proponents of bunk to pick apart (and too easy for proponents of intelligent reason and science to pick apart.)

There is one rambling chapter on logic, philosophy, and the history of science that does nothing to achieve the subtitle. Description of inductive vs deductive schools of thought (a waste of a chapter focusing on philosophical BS) without application is rather silly. This is not to say that Pigluicci is not right, rather, the knowledge conveyed is useless.

A common theme, he offers no real tools to apply to generic instances. This is a collection of sometimes interesting, if verbose, observations about specific contrasts. And a standard pattern of this book is a disjointed soft segue into something purportedly connected to the preceding chapter, followed by an Emeril-ish BAM! of a not quite sequitur sidebar.

One of the better questions posed was whether one needed to be an expert in both science and pseudoscience to be able to tell the difference, but as per the previous chapters, Pigliucci quickly diverged to explaining what constituted an "expert" rather than answer the question. While claiming to provide a way to tell science from bunk in the last chapter, he actually is giving a way to tell bunk "experts" from possible scientific experts. That has value. But not how he thinks.

Mostly unsatisfying, and sadly so. But he gets an extra star for skewering and roasting Deepak Chopra. That was fun. If short. ( )

As the title indicates, the main focus of this is supposedly on the "demarcation problem," that is, how to draw the line between valid science and pseudoscience. I'm not entirely sure how well it achieves that goal, as a lot of what Pigliucci discusses doesn't seem to me to work towards answering that question in any clear and immediate way, although he does tie it all together reasonably well, if very briefly, in his concluding chapter. I also wouldn't say that this is the book I'd recommend for an in-depth discussion of pseudoscience and its characteristics. Most of his specific coverage of that topic consists of some very cursory case studies of individual psuedoscientific beliefs, although his chapter on the famous Dover case (in which a school board attempted to mandate the teaching of creationism in the guise of "intelligent design") is good. (He also has a decent, if perhaps slightly dated, discussion of global warming, although I'm not entirely sure about his choice to, effectively, present his arguments about the subject in the form of a pair of book reviews.)

Where this book is really worthwhile, though, is in the chapters on the philosophy of science -- unsurprisingly, perhaps, considering that this is Pigliucci's main field of interest. These chapters include a thought-provoking examination of the difference between "hard" and "soft" sciences, a history of scientific thinking from the time of the ancient Greeks, and a critique of the extreme postmodernist view of science as having nothing to do with objective reality. I found these chapters fascinating, and very much appreciated Pigliucci's nuanced and thoughtful approach in discussing the powers and the limitations of science as a human endeavor.

Rating: Despite some unevenness, I'm giving this one a 4/5. If this is a topic you're interested in, the worthwhile parts are very worthwhile. ( )

This book is relevant to everything going on in society today, especially as concerns the public perception and interpretation of scientific news and advances. Today you don't have to look hard to find someone peddling some new miracle cure, or claiming that they've discovered some new secret to the universe. And much of this is presented right along with the latest in scientific discoveries on your favorite news channel. But how do you tell the difference between what's really true, and what's utter bunk? That's what this book is all about; it lays out the different criteria one can use to determine what is science, and what is pseudo-science, or even out right nonsense (with or without stilts).

The book is broken up into several sections starting with an examination of the differences between science, fringe science, and pseudo-science. It then examines the discussion of science within the media and how the outreach of some scientists to the media has fared. It further explores the history of science and the relationship it has with philosophy, as well as the future need for the philosophy of science. It ends the book with a look at what criteria we the public can use when trying to determine someone's expertise in a particular area of science in order to determine who we should trust when evaluating claims.

In general the book's writing style was engaging and keeps you moving along, as opposed to other similar books that tend to be a bit dry and sometimes difficult to get through.; there is even a bit of wit and humor thrown in from time to time to keeps things light. The topics are handled without the need for a heavy knowledge of science and I found it to be highly accessible for the general public. If you find yourself struggling to determine which claims are correct, and which are not, among the many news venues available, this book is a good remedy for that. ( )