Counterknowledge


This slim volume is a well aimed blast at what should be relatively small proportion of our society who believe in some facile and provably untrue beliefs. Yet, as we know, there are all too many people who follow suspect “nutritionists”, waste money on homoeopathy, pay too much attention to 9/11 mythologies, and read “history” books that are quite simply works of fiction.
You’ll be unsurprised to learn that I am, metaphorically, sitting in the choir stalls as the author, Damian Thompson, preaches to me. In that respect, it’s perhaps more important that a wider audience than “un-believers” like me read this book.
The book starts with a well-aimed attack on Creationists. But interestingly, the author, who as well as being a Daily Telegraph leader writer, is also Editor-in-Chief of the Catholic Herald. So while some areas are familiar to Richard Dawkins followers (homeopathy, astrology, etc), this isn’t a full scale attack on religious beliefs. Early on in the book, the author makes clear his beliefs and those of many others, that science and religion can live side by side, and evolutionary theory doesn’t really affect those beliefs. Indeed he also takes aim at what he sees as worryingly close dabblings with Intelligent Design by those high up in the Vatican.
While I might be well aware of some of the more ludicrous “history” books that litter our bookshops’ shelves like the forerunner to The Da Vinci Code, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, I really didn’t know the story of 1421: The Year China Discovered The World. This is a title I’ve seen regularly on the shelves of Waterstones and Borders, and while I’d been a little intrigued by it, I’d never picked it up. I certainly won’t now, since I’ve learnt that it’s basically all made up. Indeed, when the thesis of the book is laid out, it’s hard not to reject it even then. It’s clear that all concerned with the book knew of its shortcomings. But it’s sold in its thousands, and the since it paints their society in a great light, the Chinese have adopted it with welcome arms.
I was pleased to see that Bad Science’s Ben Goldacre gets plenty of credit in the medical and scientific areas of Counterknowledge. I look forward to Goldacre’s own forthcoming title.
And the author isn’t shy in attacking the worrying tendency of many Islamist societies to adopt many of the same arguments that Creationists and holocaust-deniers have adopted before. While there might seem to be little in common between them, you only have to look as far as the Iranian president to realise the danger of this if it’s left unfettered.
The dangers of misinformation from MMR in the UK to AIDS/HIV in South Africa are clearly explained.
The book is all very readable in tone, and written from a knowledgeable viewpoint. I suppose that I’d have perhaps liked a few more original examples, since all those highlighted have been documented previously (even though I hadn’t necessarily been aware of them all). That said, it’s the lacking we have in our society – and our willingness to accept untruths, that are our real shortcomings. Why does the NHS support homoeopathy? And why does Boots sell the drugs? Why are proper academic institutions getting into bed with the likes of Patrick Holford? Why are major publishers happy to market and distribute books which they know must be complete fiction?
Cash is the obvious answer. And that’s really not good enough.
Open your eyes a little and read this book. It also has a companion website which is pretty substantial and worth adding to your blogroll.


Posted

in

Tags:

Comments

One response to “Counterknowledge”

  1. Rob Hopcott avatar

    Sometimes, one really feels like the little boy who shouted out that the Emperor had no clothes.
    There are so many things believed by so many people that appear hugely unsupportable and, indeed, damaging to people’s lives.
    Part of the problem comes, I think, from the fear people have of looking rediculous if they do not support the ‘conventional wisdom’.
    However, in a free society (sort of), where anyone is entitled to advance an opinion, it is difficult to see how one can militate against people advancing absurdities.
    The final issue is the difficulty of actually establishing ‘truth’. Philosophy abounds with thorny problems such as ‘are you a figment of my imagination?’ It is also very difficult to prove a negative. They say God exists. I doubt the truth of their statement but how do I prove it?
    Keep up the good work speaking out for the truth, even if is feels sometimes as if you are saying the Emperoror has no clothes.