Over the past week, both the print and digital editions of the third book that I’ve co-authored with Natalia Pasternak have been released. This marks five years since our lives intersected, and this time, following “Science in Daily Life” and “Against Reality,” the title is “What Nonsense!” In this book, which is currently only available in Portuguese, we delve into a variety of systems, doctrines, and beliefs that share a common feature: they make false assertions about how the Universe – or at least the part inhabited by Homo Sapiens – operates.
Some are examples of classical pseudoscience. Others are of mystical or artistic origin. Some oscillate between the two, positioning themselves as mysticism or art when they face scientific criticism, yet claiming scientific credibility when selling their ideas to the public. Regardless, they all present depictions of physical and biological reality that contradict the world’s facts, as validated by the most reliable science available. These misleading depictions, if taken seriously, can lead to serious damage to our finances, our emotions, and our health. They offer maps that have the traveller wandering in circles, or worse: leading them in the opposite direction to their intended path.
Examples of the fallacies we expose and dismantle in the book include the purported enhancement effect of homeopathy’s infinitesimal dilutions, the psychodynamic unconscious theory of psychoanalysis, the vital energy concept of reiki, archaeological remnants attributed to astronaut gods, and the astrological influence on human personality. It isn’t particularly useful to replicate, in this context, the facts and arguments that confirm these ideas as fallacies – if that were feasible, we wouldn’t have needed to write almost 400 pages. However, it might be worthwhile to discuss the choices involved in this project a little more.
Of course, we are aware that this is a “controversial” book, in at least four respects.
Firstly, in the most obvious sense: much of the content contradicts common sense, and even some academic-intellectual consensus. To use another cliché, this is a book that takes the reader out of their comfort zone. We do not do this out of malice, obstinacy, or to shock the bourgeoisie, but because it’s necessary. Individuals who are navigating their interactions with the world using flawed maps and poorly calibrated compasses deserve a warning, even if these maps and compasses are typically safeguarded from the most cutting criticism by a blend of social convenience and intellectual laziness that occasionally passes for politeness.
Secondly, as a consequence of the first, we are highlighting, on a highly visible platform, significant cracks and ruptures in the theoretical and practical foundations of systems that provide income or social prestige (or both) for many people. Paraphrasing the epigraph of our second book, “Against Reality,” it’s challenging to convince someone of a truth when their livelihood crucially depends on ignoring that truth. Regarding this, the best thing to say is that we didn’t fabricate anything – all the factual claims made in “What Nonsense!” are grounded in high-quality scientific work and are properly cited. The opinions and conclusions offered follow logically from these facts. Furthermore, it’s only fair that the public has access to a critical evaluation of the therapies and systems discussed in the book, presenting an alternative to the barrage of outlandish promises and hollow self-praise that promoters, defenders, and sellers of these ideas flood the media and social networks with. “What Nonsense!” is a droplet of sobriety in a vast ocean of intoxicating marketing.
A third potential point of controversy is the so-called “aggressive tone” of the title: what does “nonsense” mean? Who do we hope to convince by referring to people’s treasured beliefs as “nonsense”? The title has a backstory related to Natalia’s personal experience, which we share in the book, and it lends a gentle and even slightly humorous edge to the choice – but of course, you have to read the book to learn the specifics.
Beyond the autobiographical backstory, the choice of “What Nonsense!” partly stems from one of our inspirations, the Spanish book series ¡Vaya Timo! It also comes from a desire to make a cultural impact and bring the wider issue of pseudoscience into public debate: a book titled “Pseudoscientific or Empirically Unwarranted Current Beliefs” probably wouldn’t garner as much attention.
The fourth way in which the book is likely to incite “controversy” is by serving as fodder for crude trolling attempts, on apps and social media, by the most audacious and disgruntled entrepreneurs and zealots. If history serves as any indication, this wave of negativity has a specific target here in Brazil – Natalia Pasternak.
She is, of course, the more notable, recognisable, popular (and photogenic) half of our author duo. We’ve had book signings where a reader has collected her autograph, glanced at me – the short-sighted, portly guy at the next table – and asked, “But who is this guy?”
Given the disparity in visibility, it’s somewhat understandable that most of the criticism (as well as the praise) is directed her way. But the imbalance is more than just quantitative. The vitriol aimed at Pasternak, ranging from infamous puns involving her name to grotesque lies about her life and career that, if they don’t constitute slander and defamation, come perilously close – you can practically see the hatred seeping from the corners of the tweets – is deplorable. As for me, when they remember to target me, it’s weak jokes and feeble attempts at disqualification.
Part of this can perhaps be explained by her high public profile, but it’s hard not to detect a whiff of misogyny as well. Of the four “controversies,” this is the least productive and the most irrelevant – except perhaps as a subject for sociological, psychopathological, and cultural analysis.
When it comes to questions of “who is it aimed at” and “who is the audience,” the initial answer is culture at large. We aim to challenge the prevailing epistemic complacency and bring certain issues that have been overlooked, or only discussed among enthusiasts and specialists, into a wider arena. The second answer relies on understanding the composition of the audience. In regard to any pseudoscience, we can categorise the population, albeit roughly, into the following groups: entrepreneurs, zealots, believers, uninformed, curious, skeptics, and indifferent individuals.
Entrepreneurs have a significant investment in pseudoscience – either as its creators or as individuals who have made it the centrepiece of their business models and lives. They can be charlatans (knowingly selling nonsense), or they can be genuinely convinced. Zealots are always sincere, functioning as the ardent fans and apostles of the entrepreneurs, with a considerable emotional investment in the doctrine. Believers are firm supporters of pseudoscience, but their emotional investment is noticeably less than that of zealots.
Uninformed individuals lack significant investment (financial or emotional) in the topic, but believe in pseudoscience simply because they’ve never encountered a compelling counter-argument, or because they constantly see the topic portrayed positively in the media. They might think, “If there was something wrong with it, someone would’ve warned me by now, right?”
Curious individuals have heard about the topic and would like to know more. Skeptics acknowledge that nonsense is nonsense, but are concerned about its impact on individuals and society. And the indifferent individuals either don’t care or aren’t even aware that the pseudoscience in question exists.
In this demographic stratification, our goal is to alert the indifferent, empower the skeptics, satisfy the curious, enlighten the uninformed, and provide believers with ample material for reflection. It’s unlikely that we’ll receive an honest and fair hearing among the zealots and entrepreneurs, but perhaps, just perhaps, we may plant a seed of doubt in some of them.
“What Nonsense!” doesn’t originate in a vacuum. In addition to the Spanish books in the ¡Vaya Timo! series, clear influences include collections of skeptical articles by Martin Gardner, primarily his pioneering work, “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science,” from 1957. His most comprehensive collection, “The Night is Large,” which compiles texts written between the 1930s and 1990s, was published in 1997. Gardner passed away in 2010.
If we wish to trace the lineage further, we could reach what is sometimes regarded as the first popular science book of the modern era, Sir Thomas Browne’s “Pseudodoxia Epidemica,” published in 1646, subtitled “Inquiries into Vulgar and Common Errors.”
“The first, the father of all causes of common errors, is the common infirmity of human nature, evidence of whose deceptive condition is found in none other than the mistakes we make,” writes Browne. Science emerges precisely from the recognition that human fallibility is a universal condition – that no genius, leader, messiah, or priest is immune. Ultimately, we are all susceptible to nonsense.
