The Heretics, by Will Storr

Review: The Heretics – adventures with the enemies of science, by Will Storr

It was a new experience for me to read a book where people pop up in the text that I have had mail conversations with, met for a cup of coffee, or had dinner with. People that are acquaintances of mine and that I have as friends on facebook. This implies that this review will be biased in some way but one lesson from the book is that all reviews are biased anyway, because they are the product of a mind that is defending its own conception of how the world is. I also recognised a lot of the books referred to in the text as standing in my own bookshelf, so it is no surprise that The Heretics was a very suitable birthday gift that I devoured quickly.
In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that one reason that I liked the book might be that within the skeptics movement I am somewhat of a heretic myself due to my Christian believes. I am sure that there are also some Christians that consider me to be a heretic but that is not the kind of Christians I hang around with.

The Heretics in the book are people that have a world-view that is very different from the scientific one and who often feel that they are treated unfairly by the scientific establishment. Some have had to leave academia after, as they see it, being branded as heretics. Others may see it as that they had to leave since they gave in to what they wished to be true instead of following the evidence.
In the book many of the biases that we suffer as humans are discussed, not least how we tend to see what we want to see and stop investigating an issue after we have found sufficient evidence to confirm our preconceived ideas of how the world should be. The refreshing and interesting thing with this book is that it apply this also to the scientific community and the skeptics. Because if these biases are human and scientist and skeptics are human there is a risk that also scientists and skeptics will be victims of these biases.
Will Storr describes how he talks to skeptics that are against homeopathy (as we are) without having read the scientific studies and without having tried to look at the evidence themselves. And he juxtapose this with believers in fringe theories and pseudoscience that also haven't read the research and can't remember what was the name of that article that proves beyond a doubt what they believe is true. He has a very good point although I don't agree with it 100%.
No person can be up to date with all research in all fields and at some point we have to trust the people that can give a summery of the research. If you believe that an authority has more knowledge than you of a topic, use the same scientific method as you would use, and is an honest person, it is all right to trust what that person says. At least until evidence to the contrary materialise. In the skeptic community we are interested in the promotion of science and critical thinking in general and are just a little less trusting of our leaders than the believers. So we skeptics should show some humility in regard to our believes.
Unfortunately on the other side you often find the ”experts” that are not trying to avoid bias and are not up to date on the scientific research, and you find people selling ideas and products with a confidence that they have no ground for. To me there is a difference between the skeptic taking an overdose of homeopathic sleeping pills to make a point without being as well read as Edzard Ernst and the homoeopath selling homeopathic anti-malaria pills without understanding what it is, how it works and if it works.
But the book is not about the skeptical movement it is about what it is like to be a human. Storr tries to understand not just how the heretics can hold their believes and preach them to others but also why they hold those believes. And he is not afraid to scrutinise himself and the stories he uses to justify his own beliefs and opinions. He gives a glimpse of the humans, some are easier to understand than others, some take larger liberties with the truth than others to defend their story but they all share the illness and blessing of having a brain. A brain that will create an image of the world as it suits us to see it. Storr doesn't spend much time describing science as the solution to our faulty vision but that is the way he treats it. What makes the book interesting is that he doesn't divide everything into black or white, pseudoscience and science, some people are just better at applying critical thinking even to themselves, but no one is perfect.
For a moment consider the opinions that you have about global warming, the Middle East, GMOs, the distribution of wealth, and all the other opinions that you have. What opinions that you have are wrong? You know that not all of your opinions can be correct, but you have no way of telling which of the things that you believe at this moment are incorrect. Some opinions no one can say if they are correct or not, but that doesn't help. No one is perfect, we don't live in a black and white world. That is what is important and that is what this book is about. In my mind the moral of the story is that the virtue of humility is still very important. We who want to think of our selves as guided by science must listen to what people experience and doubt our old truths enough not to miss new knowledge. In my opinion (which might be wrong), Storr have written a book that all skeptics should read since it is not the hero story that we are used to. We still need and we also have, heroes in the skeptical movement but we should not have any saints. It is also a book that highlights the human condition of having a brain that creates an image of reality and not a reflection of it and what problems that will follow because of this difference. It is a book that will let the interviewed heretics question what is sane and what is not, even so far as to entertain that hearing voices in your head is just another way of being sane. Read this book.

So can you be a Christian if you also want to be scientific about things? In this book it is stated that several studies show that religious people are happier than atheist. I doubt that being religious is a choice but if it was, the atheist would be in the same category as smokers, doing something that science know is wrong. (Since this is a written text I should point out to my atheist friends that this last bit is written partly in jest and partly to show that we live life in a complex world without right and wrong answers to many questions.)