Remember your high school science textbooks' dry-as-dust rundown of "The Scientific Method?" Well, here's the intro to scientific reasoning you *should* have gotten back then: A ferociously intelligent, smoothly written guide to thinking rationally about the natural world.

The title promises a comprehensive, clear-eyed look at the Loch Ness mystery written by an author with an open mind. The book delivers on that promise, and the result is a delight to read. Bauer walks you, surefootedly, through sixty-odd years of Nessie sightings, as well as reactions to them by the public and the scientific community. If you want a reliable, detailed, neutral study of the Loch Ness mystery--here's your book.

The icing on the intellectual cake is that Bauer is interested in more than just Loch Ness. He makes clear in his introduction that he wants to explore how science works and, once again, the book delivers. Bauer walks you, again surefootedly, through concepts like "data" "proof" "theory" and so forth, carefully leaving in the kinds of grey areas that working scientists have to deal with. Two of the best chapters in the book are titled "Bad Reasons for Believing" and "Bad Reasons for Not Believing." Together (especially in the context of the entire book) they're one of the best discussions of scientific reasoning I've ever read.

Recommended for anyone with a serious interest in science . . . even if you don't really care whether there's anything bigger than a trout in Loch Ness.

This book, is, without doubt, one of the best volumes to be published on the mystery of the Loch Ness Monster. Bauer speaks sensibly of the enigma and provides both positive and negative information to the reader. Bauer produces academic analytical skills as well as those gained by the physical search of Loch Ness to support his undoubted knowledge which he imparts in most readable prose. I thoroughly recommend this work to anyone interested in the case Loch Ness Monster, it provides virtually everything one would need to know.

For any skeptic willing to question their own foundations, this book is a must. Not only is it an excellent companion to the works of Michael Shermer and like-minded skeptics, it adds a much needed dose of reality to said skeptical works. It seems a vocal few have boldy proclaimed what science is and is not. H. Bauer provides a blueprint (along with his previous work Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method) for what "raw' science truly is, undiluted with politics or beliefs.

To really grasp what is going on with Big Science and why there is such resistance to new ideas, you need a copy of Dr. Henry Bauer's Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena and Other Heterodoxies published this year by the University of Illinois Press. Henry H. Bauer, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Science Studies Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and the author of several other books like The Enigma of Loch Ness: Making Sense of a Mystery and Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, which we recommend almost monthly to our listener and guests on ....

The most original aspect of this book is the way that Dr. Bauer has of defining normal, revolutionary, premature, and "pseudo" science in terms of the three facets of data, method, and theory. He makes detailed comparisons of the actual working practices in natural science, social science, and denigrated science and reexamines notorious cases from this fresh perspective. Normal science doesn't try to do anything revolutionary in any of these three facets, according to Bauer. As he says, "Scientific "revolutions" (quantum mechanics, relativity) change only one of those at a time. Looking for novelty in two of the three simultaneously produces "premature" science: Mendel's theory of genetics, Wegener's theory of drifting continents - ignored or rejected by science for decades. Novelty in all three areas characterizes looking for Loch Ness Monsters or UFOs or studying psychic phenomena; the difficulties are enormous and the chances of success slight, but that doesn't make the quest useless or to be criticized."

Some of our favorite subjects that have been dismissed as "pseudo science" are reexamined as "scientific" with this perspective, and Bauer relates the search for the giant squid, the search for extraterrestrials, pre-Clovis people in the Americas, cold fusion, the idea that HIV causes AIDS, and much more.

Bauer is a humorous writer and acknowledges that his critics will probably not be able to keep from being nasty. He recommends that if the skeptics insist on being nasty, they should at least distinguish genuine knowledge-seekers from self-promoting confidence tricksters. As he points out, many cryptozoologists, parapsychologists, and ufologists are perfectly honest, genuine seekers of understanding (while some mainstream researchers are not very honest).

For an unusually unbiased, yet scientific, approach to some of the subjects that are "borderland" respectable - sometimes called pseudo-science, sometimes admitted into science, but generally still controversial ("how much don't we yet know about electromagnetism and living processes! About archaeoastronomy!") you must read this book.

Very valuable discussion of science; science, technology, & society (STS)

I consider this short book by Professor Bauer a must read for any person, scientist or non-scientist, who wants a concise but thorough discussion of the way science works, and of the myth, really ideal, of the scientific method, and most importantly, of what the author calls STS: science, technology, and society. I found the book remarkable because Professor Bauer is a practicing scientist, yet he delineates a philosophy of science from a very objective, dispassionate point of view. While he rightly praises science much in the last chapter, most of the rest of the book focuses not only on the limitations of science and scientific knowledge, but which sciences really are and are not scientific as he defines it. Clearly the fact that Professor Bauer has been the dean of arts and sciences at Virginia Tech has given him a balance between science and the arts, and has allowed him to see science both as an insider and an outsider.

Thus the main thrust of the book is to show that what is most vital for the layperson is not to attempt to become "scientifically literate," which the author claims would be a very time-consuming task, even for a college student, but rather to see that science is a human activity whose theories and models are limited not only because scientists are human, but because almost without exception scientific "truths" are at some point superseded by better "truths," a process which repeats itself ad infinitum. It is therefore far better for the layperson to try to understand science's relationship to technology and society. The book does cover the relationship between science and technology well, but the author seems to be content to let the reader explore science's relationship to society through other sources, which I did not see in the references. Still, this is a very minor shortcoming in my view because of the many great insights and sources which he does provide.

A key point stressed by Prof. Bauer in different contexts is that the power of science is that it is agreed on by consensus, but that does not always mean that the consensus is right, again because humans are fallible, and because data is *always* interpreted according to a theory or some other bias. The author, as have many other philosophers of science, refutes the common belief that in science knowledge is

gained exclusively by strict Baconian impartial induction. Examples are cited where scientists could not accept data obtained wholly by scientific methods because it didn't fit their prejudices.

The chapter called "The So-Called Scientific Method" is the best I've read on why the empirical scientific method, while a wonderful ideal to strive for, is nevertheless a myth. Prof. Bauer makes many important points, such as that some sciences (physics) are theory-driven, while other sciences are observation-driven (geology); some sciences can make precise theories through specific experiments (physics and chemistry), while other sciences (cosmology and paleoanthropology) cannot run experiments and are thus very "data deficient." As well chemistry, Prof. Bauer's specialty, is itself sub-divided into disciplines that work according to different methodolgies.

Another chapter that is also outstanding is the following chapter, "How Science Really Works." Prof. Bauer uses as the main theme the excellent analogy devised by Michael Polyani of scientific problem solving as a puzzle of different teams communicating with each other, getting at the truth, piece by piece, separately but in tandem nevertheless. Another theme that is very helpful in this chapter is the author's cogent distinction between textbook science and frontier science. Textbook science is almost always reliable because it has passed the test of time through repeated verification. On the other hand, frontier science, which is unfortunately what is usually reported in the news precisely because it is "new" and exciting, often turns out to be dead wrong. The chapter also discusses those levels of science between these two "extremes." After reading this chapter I feel that I now have a much clearer way to assess the truth of whatever science I might be reading about.

There is much more to this book than I can go into here. Again, I recommend it very highly to those who want a clear and insightful perspective on science and STS.

I took a class from Professor Bauer at Virginia Tech (the title eludes me) about pseudoscience - Loch Ness monster hunts, cryptozoology, UFO's, Cold Fusion, Kirlian Photography, Psychic/Palm Readings, etc. - and this was a supplemental text for the class. The book really explores how the Scientific Establishment/Hierarchy operates and how it isn't all that "objective" after all. Scientists are people, after all, and with that comes all the animosities, territoriality, envy, back-stabbing, and greed that all people exhibit. Radical discoveries by groups of people may get ignored, dismissed offhand, or viciously attacked by the establishment so as to preserve the integrity and perceived authority that the establishment weilds. Science is not an immaculate, dust and static free process - there are struggles and paradigm shifts all the time - and the general public tends to think it is just the opposite. I recommend this book for anyone who likes to challenge conventional modes of thinking and re-examine some of the longest-standing illusions about science ever created.

This is a curious book written by a man who really ought to know what he is talking about. Professor Bauer was first a scientist himself (in electrochemistry), then a college administrator, and most recently the Editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. He is also the author of several books, including Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method. He is also an avowed believer in the existence of the Loch Ness monster (he wrote a book on it) and a defender of quasi- or pseudo-scientific ventures from the debunking of people such as those at, e.g., the Skeptical Inquirer.

Bauer's main thesis here is that scientific knowledge is not absolute, and indeed that scientific knowledge at any given time in history has been wrong. I believe he is correct in this assertion. His extrapolation that scientific knowledge is not entirely accurate today is also something I would not want to argue against. But his understanding of the purpose and goal of science, and his understanding of the method and function of science seems at times a bit Quixotic.

One of the charges he makes is that the common perception of the scientific method itself is wrong. He delineates this on page 35 as "hypothesize, test, accept-or-reject." I am astonished that he considers THIS the scientific method. (After all, he wrote a book on the subject.) He is leaving out the first two essential steps, namely that of "observation" and "questioning." First a scientist observes. The scientist (or anybody) sees something happening, or sees something of interest, or hears something, or smells something. It could be anything at all. That observation then raises a question in the scientist's mind. The scientist asks why? How did this come about? What caused this? What IS this?

So we have two steps ignored by Bauer, after which we do have the hypothesis, that is, the idea or theory or guess as to what this is or why it happened, etc. Then comes the testing of the hypothesis, and then the sharing of the results with others, and finally the testing by others for conformation.

That's the scientific method, and it is really just common sense codified. The reason that it has proven so revolutionary, and has brought about the advanced technology we enjoy today (technology is a result of science) is that it differs fundamentally from the very poor methods that previously held sway in human history, mainly that of following authority and accepting authoritative knowledge without question. By the way, the usual complaint made about the scientific method (and Bauer makes this complaint as well) is that it is not actually how scientists work. Instead of working from observations to a hypothesis, sometimes they have the hypothesis first and then look for ways to support it. True, but humans can be creative; or indeed, the observations might be purely mental, or even subconscious.

Another misunderstanding implicit in Bauer's book is the idea that scientists think science is working toward some sort of objective truth, or that there are absolute laws of nature that science is incrementally getting closer and closer to unraveling. But what science really does is extend our ability to manipulate the environment to our advantage (or in some cases, to our disadvantage). Science allows us to see further into the past, into the cosmos, into the very small. The idea that science could actually discover the ultimate laws of the universe is really a popular misunderstanding not believed in by most scientists today. In a sense it's a holdover from the "clockwork universe" concept derived from Newtonian mechanics that ended with relativity and quantum mechanics.

Belief in absolute knowledge or ultimate law is anathema to science, and is instead the stuff of religion. I believe Bauer knows this, but for some reason didn't find it convenient to present that view in this book. I wonder why. I also wonder why he believes in the Loch Ness monster. He mentions Nessie several times in the text, but never gives a hint as to why he would believe in something seemingly so unlikely. Perhaps he is saving that for a revision of his opus on the subject from 1986.

The really strange thing about this book is that sometimes Professor Bauer indicates that he does understand what science is about, as for example on page 68 he writes, "Scientific theories are very useful, but they are not true." This is exactly right. More saliently, we can add, even if they were "true" how would we know it? We only know what works, what is "useful." Science works and is very useful indeed. In fact, one of the glaring failings of this book is to spend two hundred and thirty-some pages denigrating science without giving the slightest hint of anything better, or indeed of anything nearly as good.

So what he's done is set up a straw man (a misconception of what science is, its methods, and its presumption) and then shoot it down. This is a familiar tactic usually employed by New Age pundits or postmodernist socialists. It is rare in professors of chemistry.

Despite all this I think Bauer makes many valid points and serves a public good in drawing our attention to the limitations of science. Clearly science in not in any sense a way of deriving concepts of good and bad or distinguishing right from wrong. Sometimes it is good to be reminded of that.

Part 1 of Mr Bauer's book- 'The Story of the Velikovsky Affair'- is presented and reads like a fair summary of the whole controversy. On the face there presides reason, fairness; the impartiality of a judge's summary. But the unwary reader is not prepared for the true motives of this book, the subtle but quite blatant intention of the author to deliver not a judge's deliberation but a prosecutor's summing up.....
Part 2 is called, 'Velikovsky, Right or Wrong?', throughout which the reader is presented more than once with an awkward feeling; an awkward question- 'Is this book REALLY fair... or could I be the victim of some barrister's rhetoric?' It becomes increasingly clear that this book is an ATTACK upon it's subject disguised as an even-handed and fair account, which leads to the book's negative conclusion about Velikovsky.
To see Bauer's true position- not the moderator but the persecutor- there's no need to delve within the specifics. The gift of this book to the fair minded reader is that, really, it's all so plain.
Just stand back and observe, for instance, that NO analysis is made of ANY of V's historical work in any way and already it is clear. References to V's science are only in the form of selective criticisms, and these deliberately limited to the broadest and most speculatory of V's theories. To say as well that these references are ALL that Bauer uses to successfully brand V a 'pseudo-scientist' and we are left with a work of the most simple character. No space is devoted to V's scientific application of history or the areas in orthodox science (carbon dating, archaeology, astronomy) which undoubtedly bare out his theories- as well as those that don't. Although the positive aspects of V's work are never denied by Bauer, he consistently underplays these while referring in detail to the negative. In overview we see the prosecutor exposed. He has to tread between the lines and limit his case to that which is easily muddied and confused.
Beyond Velikovsky is weighted; it is unfair and biased. NO discussion is held on any of V's actual theories- only a pedantic and misleading analysis of SOME of his scientific references and approaches.
Bauer deals with such a narrow spectrum of V's work that the book itself suffers from bad structure- the first two parts concluded and the main conclusions reached before it is half through. The reader is left only to peruse a series of space filling chapters in part 3- 'Beyond the Velikovsky Affair'- with such offerings as 'Motives for Believing' and 'Means of Persuasion' and 'Realities About Science'.
Thus, by showing us a corner of the picture; a piece of the puzzle, Bauer reveals to us the smallness and the entirety of his ambitions. This book could never have been conceived as a fair, impartial analysis. The book I read was a pedantic, narrow and deceptive piece of scholarship.