HOW TO WRITE A BOOK REVIEW

A book review is an essay that evaluates the merits of a recently published work. It describes the major themes of the book and discusses the major strengths and weaknesses of the author’s exposition of these themes. Book reviews usually run around 1000 to 1500 words (4 to 6 double-spaced typed pages). This length is generally sufficient to give the reader a good sense of whether the book is worth reading without going into too much detail. As with any essay, a book review has three parts: an introduction, a body and a conclusion. The introduction should be a single paragraph, and it should be written in an engaging style to grab the reader’s attention. Also make sure to somehow include the name of the author and the title of the book in the first paragraph. In the body of the book review, summarize three to five major themes of the book. Do not do a chapter-by-chapter summary. Rather, consider the major themes that run across chapters and describe these. Oftentimes the author will give you these themes in the introduction or first chapter. Include enough background information so that the audience can follow your discussion of these themes. Consider how well the author develops these themes, discussing both strengths and weaknesses. For example, were there themes that the author did not develop well enough or that the author spent too much time on? Were the arguments clear? Were the arguments convincing? Were there adequate examples given? In the concluding paragraph of your review, evaluate the book as a whole. For example, was the level of writing appropriate for the intended audience? Was the book entertaining? Was it substantive? Did the author convince you of his or her viewpoint? Why or why not? Did the author sufficiently treat opposing points of view? Would you recommend the book to others interesting in learning more about physiological psychology? Your book review should be formatted in standard APA style. Start with a title for your review (not the title of the book!) centered on the first line and your name centered on the second line. Skip a line, and then give the bibliographic information (author, year, title and publisher); this information should be flush left. Skip one more line, and then start your review. You do not need a cover sheet or separate references pages. Please see the sample book review on the following pages. Use this sample as a guide in structuring and formatting your review. Also, please ask if you have questions. (Incidentally, the word count for the following book review is 1300 words.)

Science on a Sweatshirt

David Ludden

Just a Theory: Exploring the Nature of Science. By Moti Ben-Ari. Prometheus, Amherst, NY. 2005. ISBN:

1-59102-285-1. 237 pp. Paperback, $21.

In Just a Theory: Exploring the Nature of Science, computer scientist Moti Ben-Ari gives a simple

heuristic for distinguishing scientific from pseudoscientific theories: If the theory can be written on a

sweatshirt, it is probably a scientific theory. This heuristic works because scientific theories are concise

and coherent; they can either be written out in succinct mathematical notion or in terse language. On the

other hand, pseudoscientific theories lack conciseness because they rely on ad hoc explanations, and

they lack coherence because they are at odds with established fields of science.

The distinction between science and pseudoscience is a theme that runs through the book.

According to Ben-Ari, one distinguishing feature of science is its universality. Although science arose in

Renaissance Europe, it is in no way dependent on European culture. In support of this claim, Ben-Ari

cites the rapid development of science and technology in Japan at the end of the nineteenth century,

even though Japanese culture, especially at that time, was quite different from European culture. This

universality also gives science its strength: “Science is international, so if one country is in the grip of a

flawed theory, scientists in another country can carry forward work on competing theories” (p. 111). Ben-

Ari discusses Lysenkoism and the demise of biology in the U.S.S.R. during the twentieth century. There is

also an important lesson for the United States. The fundamentalism movement may succeed in stymieing

research here in the U.S. in areas it disapproves of, such as stem cells. However, scientists in other

countries will continue pursuing research in those areas, and the end result will simply be that America

will lag behind the rest of the world.

Review of Ben-Ari (2005) Ludden 2

Ben-Ari devotes much of his book to dealing with various misrepresentations of science. One

such misrepresentation is the “They laughed at Galileo” argument, often used to defend pseudoscientific

thinking. Ben-Ari points out that no one ever laughed at Galileo. On the contrary, it was because his

argument was so convincing that the Church viewed it as a serious threat to its religious and political

interests, and that is why it felt compelled to silence him. Such is the case with the theory of evolution

today. Because the argument for evolution is so convincing, it is perceived as a threat by the Religious

Right, who will use any political ploy to suppress the teaching of this theory. Scientists, on the other hand,

do not feel the need to suppress novel ideas, although they may dismiss them if the arguments

supporting them are not convincing. An example of this would be Alfred Wegener, whose continental drift

theory was dismissed by his contemporaries because no known mechanism could account for the drift.

However, when the theory of plate tectonics provided the necessary mechanism, Wegener’s arguments

quickly convinced most geologists. As Ben-Ari comments: “Great scientific discoveries are not necessarily

immediately accepted, but the transition period from disbelief to acceptance is relatively short … until the

preponderance of evidence convinces scientists to accept the theory” (p. 92). Ben-Ari goes on to

comment that if there were any plausible mechanism to explain astrology, for example, “scientists would

compete for the honor of discovering the details” (p. 93). After more than two thousand years, however,

no such mechanism has ever been proposed, let alone found.

Another misrepresentation of science is what Ben-Ari calls natural theology, an umbrella term he

uses to refer to creationism and its various mutations, including intelligent design theory (ID). Ben-Ari

does not refute creationist or ID arguments on a point-by-point basis, but he does point out two logical

flaws inherent in all versions of natural theology. The first flaw is that it is based on the “god of the gaps”

argument. Whenever there is a gap in scientific knowledge, especially in the areas of geology and biology,

natural theologists invoke the “god hypothesis”; if scientists fill that gap, natural theologists point out a

new gap. Hence, the “god hypothesis” is unfalsifiable. The second flaw in natural theology involves the

fallacy of bifurcation, which is the assumption that there are only two possibilities for a given situation.

Creationists argue that there are only two explanations for human origins, evolution or divine creation.

They then go on to claim that there are problems with evolutionary theory and that therefore divine

creation is the only plausible explanation for human origins. Ben-Ari attributes the use of bifurcation to a

Review of Ben-Ari (2005) Ludden 3

“lack of imagination in postulating possibilities,” but it could also reflect a sheer ignorance of the subject

matter. Because every culture has a different creation myth (of which Genesis is just one), there is a

multitude of possible alternatives to the theory of evolution.

Ben-Ari is no more sympathetic to the idea of non-overlapping magisterial, or NOMA. On this

view, “Science and religion are deemed to have authority in different areas of human life—science

describes the natural world, while religion prescribes how humans should live their lives in terms of ethics

and morals” (p. 134). NOMA is a philosophy that enables scientists with religious beliefs to reconcile their

faith with their scientific vocation. However, Ben-Ari points out two difficulties with this philosophy. First,

the philosophy of NOMA is too subtle for the ordinary person, who wants simple answers to simple

questions. Second, NOMA can be regarded “as an attempt to evade dealing with religion in scientific

terms” (p. 135) by setting religion off-limits to scientific inquiry.

At the other end of the spectrum, Ben-Ari deals with misrepresentations of science committed by

postmodernists. For example, some postmodernists have interpreted Gödel’s incompleteness theorems

as indicating that mathematics and science are somehow incomplete, and that therefore there are

alternate, equally valid ways of gaining knowledge about the universe. Here, postmodernists use the term

“incomplete” in a way totally inconsistent with the way Gödel used the term. Considering the

postmodernist argument that mathematics is nothing more than a game invented by mathematicians,

Ben-Ari compares math with chess in the following thought experiment. Supposing we came into contact

with an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, would you expect these extraterrestrials to know the

Pythagorean Theorem? Of course we would, even though it would have a different name and notation.

On the other hand, would we expect any of these extraterrestrials to know how to play chess? This is

unlikely, especially given the fact that there are numerous cultural variations of the game on this planet.

To Ben-Ari, postmodernism not only misrepresents science, it also represents a danger to society.

Granted that science has historically been the domain of white Christian men, Ben-Ari argues that the

universality of science nevertheless makes it accessible to people of all backgrounds. However,

“[p]ostmodernism, which champions the right of marginalized groups like women and nonwhites to

different ‘ways of thinking,’ is paradoxically guiding [scholars from underprivileged backgrounds] into

pointless activities that will marginalize them even further, instead of encouraging them to strive for

Review of Ben-Ari (2005) Ludden 4

achievement in activities where their origin is truly irrelevant” (p. 125). Science, then, is the great social

equalizer because it is independent of culture.

Ben-Ari’s clear and engaging writing style makes this book very accessible, even to those who

are not scientifically literate. Just a Theory provides a lucid explanation of the scientific process in

layperson’s terms, and it clarifies the difference between scientific and pseudoscientific thinking. This

book could also serve as an excellent supplementary reading in almost any introductory science or

research methods course at the college level. At the same time, the book is sufficiently thought provoking

for the practicing scientist as well, especially one who has been called on to explain exactly what it is that

scientists do.