Bruce, Great news about the book. I do not feel qualified myself to give you an opinion on it, nor do I probably have time at the moment to read it. One of the reasons for the latter fact is that I am currently reading Rupert Sheldrake’s new book (The Science Delusion). I have to assume you have read this and have probably discussed some of his points in your own book. As regards your book, it would probably be useful if you could give us the present contents page or a list of headings dealt with. Certainly, I will be buying the book when it comes out.
I'd love to attempt the task Bruce. Do I assume correctly that you're looking for an assessment of 'mission accomplished' and 'suitability to purpose' rather than a proofreading?
One thing that came to mind when I read the title of your book. Do you see a connection between the wide-spread use of Bayesian methods and the current state of science?
@Al - that's not part of the argument - although I regard Bayesian methods as a kind of parody of science.
30 January 2012 at 05:17
*
This is the title of a 'book' I have 'finished' in the past couple of days - and sent to the publishers for consideration.
The title is pretty self-explanatory (I hope) - the 'book' is about the (utter) degradation of science by dishonesty.
(I say 'book' because it is only about 28,000 words - although even 28K is 'meaty' compared with Thought Prison.)
This is probably as good a point as any to gather views on the book, since it may help to give me an impression of how far I have succeeded in my aims - and any problems can easily be fixed at this stage.
So... if any of this blog's regular commenters would like to be what-I-believe-is-termed a beta-reader for this book, then please send me an e-mail.
(I'm not asking-for nor wanting a copy-editor nor a sub-editor - but rather a few descriptive impressionistic critical sentences.)
"Not even trying - the corruption of real science"
5 Comments -
Bruce,
Great news about the book.
I do not feel qualified myself to give you an opinion on it, nor do I probably have time at the moment to read it.
One of the reasons for the latter fact is that I am currently reading Rupert Sheldrake’s new book (The Science Delusion).
I have to assume you have read this and have probably discussed some of his points in your own book.
As regards your book, it would probably be useful if you could give us the present contents page or a list of headings dealt with.
Certainly, I will be buying the book when it comes out.
27 January 2012 at 19:16
I'd love to attempt the task Bruce. Do I assume correctly that you're looking for an assessment of 'mission accomplished' and 'suitability to purpose' rather than a proofreading?
Rgds,
Chuckles
27 January 2012 at 20:49
@Chuckles - yes, that's right. E-mail me.
28 January 2012 at 06:14
Dr Charlton,
One thing that came to mind when I read the title of your book. Do you see a connection between the wide-spread use of Bayesian methods and the current state of science?
29 January 2012 at 22:41
@Al - that's not part of the argument - although I regard Bayesian methods as a kind of parody of science.
30 January 2012 at 05:17