Ok so last thread on #ScienceFictions by @StuartJRitchie covering the epilogue, the appendix, and my overall thoughts. To spoil the surprise I went in expecting to like this book and found I loved it. I’d put it up with Demon Haunted World and Bad Science as books to recommend. 
I also think Stuart deserves a hat tip for the public service he did writing this book. Immersing yourself in frauds, publication bias, and crappy studies for a few years is depressing. It would be hard not to become jaded. And I think it did take some toll.
Yet... Stuart remains a believer in, and advocate for, good science. And on this point he reiterates a consistent theme throughout the previous chapters that despite all the perverse incentives for science to improve it still requires *scientists* should do better.
Similarly he emphasizes how important it is that advocates for science, & people in general, be more critical. That’s one of the core foundations of science and it should be celebrated. Here I am 100% on board. Open Science isn’t some new concept, it’s old ideals in a new bottle.
He also addresses the issue of whether a book such as this couldn’t be counterproductive given how often science is under attack from politicians, conspiracy theorists, and others. His answer is no, we have to be honest and that will actually serve as a shield from critics.
This is a point that is so simple and yet I see so many people fail to apply. Acknowledging flaws and uncertainty actually can bolster your argument because it makes it clear that you are being (more) even handed. Culture war veterans would do well to heed this.
Anyway the end of the Epilogue is heartening. As Stuart asserts that science’s solution to its problems are found by *doing more science* while grappling with the unfortunate limitations that are brought about by humans being involved.
The final section of the book is an Appendix that offers helpful step by step advice for people on how to read and assess a scientific paper. This is a topic I teach undergrads every term and I use many of the same heuristics Stuart does. It’s a good primer for students.
So final thoughts: As I said, I really like this book. I think it’s timely and highlights lots of serious problems in an accessible way without giving into doom or conspiracy mongering. The solutions presented range in practicality but that’s ok. Some thing’s will work and we...
...need to be willing to try. The journals of null results were a good idea but the reality meant they weren’t a practical solution. Unfortunate, but now we have registered reports and meta-science journals. Should we have journals just for high quality replications too? 🤷🏻♂️
Many things are worth trying but it’s also important to recognize the success of thing like the Open Science movement which Stuart rightfully cheerleads. It isn’t perfect, there is bitter infighting & debates about priorities but such is the nature of efforts that involve humans.
I’ve seen significant changes occur even over the duration of my PhD and I’m always heartened by the fact that younger researchers seem to have less attachment to specific theoretical models, greater willingness to collaborate, and more openness to negative results.
Things are improving. Anyway, the other point where the book succeeds is in introducing people to the realities of the scientific process and research, if I wanted someone to understand my job(barring the teaching part) I’d tell them to read the first few chapters here.
I already know of some scholars who are incorporating the book into their undergraduate courses and I think I will be too. On a personal note, it was also a pleasure to read something that almost entirely ignored the culture wars. A refreshing break! So thanks @StuartJRitchie!
