Thread by @garwboy

The more I've thought about this, the more I feel it really boils my p*ss.

It takes everything that decent conscientious science, academic, and investigative writers do (and yeah, I include myself in this), and gleefully spits in our face

/1

https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1480293206013227010

It takes most multiple attempts to get just one book published. If they succeed at all. Which the majority don't

IMHO, getting a book published is a privilege that should be respected, not a God given right for you to spew any old shite at a potential readership

/2

And that's doubly true if you're claiming to be imparting important, potentially-life-altering ideas and notions to anyone who might read it. In that case, you should be doubly sure your claims and arguments are solid, backed up by evidence, even if just from a moral POV

/3

But, some might say, what if the influential ideas you want to write a factual book about don't have enough evidence to support them?

Easy. You ask me, you have basically two options here

1. Change the book
2. Don't write the book

/4

There's also the option 'Write a book about your unsubstantiated theory, send it via unsolicited email to a mid-level neuroscience author, then get furious at him for not immediately validating it and rejecting all existing science'

My inbox suggests that's a popular choice

/5

And before any of the usual JH fans get on their severely-unjustified moral high-horse, yes I absolutely do practice what I preach.

E.g. my next book is delayed by a year, because I had to re-write it THREE TIMES, as the existing evidence didn't match my original assumptions

/6

Could I have written my original book, by cherry picking sources, and published it anyway? Probably, yes

Would I have been able to sleep at night if I did? No

For some baffling reason, my writing seemingly influences a lot of people. I'd feel sick if I exploited that.

/7

Case in point

My next book concerns the loss of my father and the experience of grief and intense emotion while in lockdown-induced isolation.

It's more personal and subjective than anything I've ever done.

Here's a screengrab of the last page of the first draft

/8

To clarify, my book about my own deeply personal experiences includes nearly a thousand references/sources.

Because people are more readily influenced by emotional communications, which I felt meant I should be *more* rigorous, not less. I suspect JH has a different approach

/9

Tbh, this JH thing grates on me so much because I come at it from the opposite direction.

I was amazed to get a book deal in the first place. I'm not a reputable scientist, I've no body of credible research to underpin my credibility. I was just some idiot with a blog

/10

Ergo, my thinking was that, if I get to write something an actual mainstream book, I can't afford to *not* be as thorough as possible with my sources and evidence. Because people could rightly turn to me and say 'Why should we listen to you?'

/11

I've still not really got a good answer to that question for what it's worth. But seeing as people do seem to take me seriously regardless, I'd say *not* feeding them a stream of self-serving BS is the absolute bare minimum I should do.

/12

My stuff's by no means perfect. I'm one bloke with all of humankind's scientific understanding to draw from. Obviously my own views/biases are going to creep in somewhere. Same goes for any decent science writer, I'd say.

/13

And people can, and do, criticise my stuff. Happens often, and a lot of the time they've valid points, which I take on board for my subsequent efforts.

But I like to think that, whatever I claim, I can point to some decent evidence and say 'that's why I said that'.

/14

So, seeing someone (who's repeatedly been revealed as unscrupulous and unprofessional) decide he can write books that make deeply unhelpful/actively harmful claims about very import scientific matters, with no relevant expertise or robust evidence

...yeah, it pisses me off

/15

For that same person to assume he can just get his books published by major publishers, endorsed by big names, and given credibility via being validated by the science departments of media publications and platforms, that's even more galling.

/16

The fact that his assumptions are demonstrably correct is the most nauseating, teeth-gnashingly frustrating part of it all.

But the point of this rant is that you can't, or shouldn't, ignore the evidence in favour of what you *want* to be true. So, got to suck it up.

/17

Ultimately, we're awash with literally-deadly misinformation right now. And countless reputable scientists and similar are working constantly to combat it

But that's seemingly of lesser-importance than a well-connected grifter being given free reign to spout utter guff

/18

So yeah, if anyone else wants to accuse me of being 'disrespectful' towards Harri and his efforts, I can just point at this thread.

/end