Scrape wikipedia-science: 366 new, 4 updated, 388 total (kb-cron)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+title: "Programming the Universe"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:05:51.677188+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmos is a 2006 popular science book by Seth Lloyd, professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The book proposes that the Universe is a quantum computer (supercomputer), and advances in the understanding of physics may come from viewing entropy as a phenomenon of information, rather than simply thermodynamics. Lloyd also postulates that the Universe can be fully simulated using a quantum computer; however, in the absence of a theory of quantum gravity, such a simulation is not yet possible. "Particles not only collide, they compute."
+
+
+== Reaction ==
+Reviewer Corey S. Powell of The New York Times writes:
+
+In the space of 221 dense, frequently thrilling and occasionally exasperating pages, ...  tackles computer logic, thermodynamics, chaos theory, complexity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, consciousness, sex and the origin of life—throwing in, for good measure, a heartbreaking afterword that repaints the significance of all that has come before. The source of all this intellectual mayhem is the kind of Big Idea so prevalent in popular science books these days. Lloyd, a professor of mechanical engineering at M.I.T., takes as his topic the fundamental workings of the universe..., which he thinks has been horribly misunderstood. Scientists have looked at it as a ragtag collection of particles and fields while failing to see what it is as a majestic whole: an enormous computer.
+
+In an interview with Wired magazine, Lloyd writes:
+
+everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information—ones and zeros. ... Atoms and electrons are bits. Atomic collisions are "ops." Machine language is the laws of physics. The universe is a quantum computer.
+Gilbert Taylor, writing in Booklist of the American Library Association, said that the book:
+
+offers brilliantly clarifying explanations of the "bit," the smallest unit of information; how bits change their state; and how changes-of-state can be registered on atoms via quantum-mechanical qualities such as "spin" and "superposition." Putting readers in the know about quantum computation, Lloyd then informs them that it may well be the answer to physicists' search for a unified theory of everything. Exploring big questions in accessible, comprehensive fashion, Lloyd's work is of vital importance to the general-science audience.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Digital physics
+Decoding the Universe, a 2007 book by Charles Seife
+Seth Lloyd
+Simulation hypothesis
+Simulated reality
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Official website
+Ultimate physical limits to computation, Nature, volume 406, pages 1047–1054

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questions_of_Truth-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+title: "Questions of Truth"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questions_of_Truth"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:05:52.829359+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Questions of Truth is a book by John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale which offers their responses to 51 questions about science and religion. The foreword is contributed by Antony Hewish.
+The book was launched at a workshop at the 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting in Chicago, and then in the UK at a discussion at the Royal Society chaired by Onora O'Neill, in a week when it was also featured on the Today Programme.
+
+
+== Key themes and ideas ==
+
+The book grew out of questions generated at a website organized to communicate Polkinghorne's ideas. It groups selected questions under seven topics:
+
+Leading questions gives an overview of Polkinghorne's views on nine questions, including science and religion, the existence of god, and atheism.
+The concept and existence of god begins with "Can God's existence be proved?" and addresses The God Delusion, omniscience, predestination and the Trinity.
+The Universe considers the Big Bang, the anthropic principle and a theory of everything.
+Evolution starts with "Is evolution a fact or a theory?", discusses intelligent design, which is deemed an unfortunate use of language and a theological mistake, and explores whether the mind can be explained by evolution.
+Evil suggests that "The evil that is not the result of human sin seems to be the result of the workings out of the natural laws of physics and biology" and considers the Devil, cancer and original sin.
+Human being suggests that Adam and Eve refer to the first spiritually conscious human beings, that the soul is something logically distinct from the body but not a separate physical entity, and that conscience is "our deepest understanding of right and wrong".
+Religion begins with "Is atheism a form of faith?", suggests that "For each part of the Bible you have to ask what kind of writing it is and what God is trying to tell us through it", and considers the Resurrection and that "God will not force us to accept his love ... [but] will save everyone he can - no-one will be excluded because God did not want them."
+Each question is followed by the responses of Beale and Polkinghorne, sometimes as a single answer and sometimes by the two authors individually. Its three appendixes constitute a third of the book:
+
+Anthropic fine-tuning draws on Martin Rees's book Just Six Numbers to illustrate the point that if the fundamental constants of physics were slightly different then no intelligent life could exist in the Universe. It then considers multiverse ideas and especially Lee Smolin's cosmological natural selection, which, it suggests, has problems from physics and evolutionary dynamics. It also discusses notions of complexity and improbability.
+Brain and consciousness suggests that "pretty much everything in the universe has a physical aspect and an informational aspect, neither of which is more foundational than the other", and that informational entities like the Mass in B Minor cannot be considered as material objects. It proposes that "your body and your mind are different aspects of you", and that the inherent uncertainties of neuron firing mean that the brain is not fully deterministic.
+Evolution begins by pointing out that, since Augustine, Christians have not taken the Genesis creation accounts "literally", and that key developers of the current theory (e.g. Gregor Mendel, Ronald Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Simon Conway-Morris and Martin Nowak) have been Christians, suggesting that there is no conflict between Christianity and evolution, that small genetic changes can have big effects, that genetic determinism is mistaken, and that there are evolutionary benefits to religion.
+
+
+== Reviews ==
+Julian Baggini, writing in the Financial Times, said that Polkinghorne has no problems reconciling his faith with his science and suggests that "despite the complexity of some of the scientific issues discussed", the book "is a commendably clear read".  He says "it is a pity that the people most likely to buy this book are those simply seeking intellectual reassurance that their faith is not irrational.  Those who would most benefit from reading it are in fact fundamentalists who think that evolutionary science must be wrong, and overconfident atheists who believe that the religious are manifestly irrational."
+A. C. Grayling wrote a highly critical review in the New Humanist. He states that the responses to questions concerning science and religion boil down to three strategies, God of the gaps, inference to the best explanation, and religion and science explain truths in different domains. He considers the first two refutable by undergraduates, and for the third strategy to work, he contends that one has to "cherry-pick which bits of scripture and dogma are to be taken as symbolic and which as literally true" in order to conveniently avoid the possibility of direct and testable confrontation with science. He concludes the review by expressing his outrage at the Royal Society's decision to allow its premises to be used for the launch of the book, as in his opinion this amounts to having "the superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research."
+Physics World commends the authors for handling the diverse readership, skeptics and believers, in a "remarkably even-handed way", but laments that concerns with specifics of Christian doctrine may limit the book's appeal; however, scientifically minded readers may find the extensive appendices a good starting point. The reviewer concludes that the book provides valuable insight for those interested in the science and religion debate.
+In addition, some periodicals have included brief reviews. Publishers Weekly said, "Many readers will welcome this accessible format, but some may find the blurring of science and theology confusing." The Library Journal described it as intriguing and thought-provoking work, and said that John Polkinghorne was “a kind of antidote to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris for the intellectual theist or Christian." Episcopal Life says the book offers "some interesting conclusions". Ian Sample, reflecting over his interview with Polkinghorne for The Guardian, stated that there was much in the book that he found offensive, especially the idea that God needs to remain hidden from his creation lest they be completely overwhelmed, a notion Sample describes as "a bit patronising".
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Book's official website Archived 2021-08-17 at the Wayback Machine

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReAction!_Chemistry_in_the_Movies-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+title: "ReAction! Chemistry in the Movies"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReAction!_Chemistry_in_the_Movies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:05:55.249616+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+ReAction! Chemistry in the Movies (2009, ISBN 978-0-19-532692-5) is a nonfiction book about movies, chemistry, and chemistry in the movies by Chemistry Professor Mark Griep and Artist Marjorie Mikasen published by Oxford University Press USA. The authors were awarded an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant in the area of Public Understanding of Science to research and write the book.
+This book is about the chemistry when it is part of the narrative. Most of the examples are contemporary popular feature films while some are documentaries, shorts, silents, and international films. The book uses the dualities personified by the benevolent Dr. Jekyll on one hand and the evil Mr. Hyde on the other to describe how chemists and chemistry are portrayed in the movies.
+There are 10 chapters, the first five of which have dark chemical themes and the second five of which have bright chemical themes. The chapter titles are:
+
+1. Dr. Jekyll's Mysterious Transformative Formula
+2. Invisibility Steals the Seen: Chemistry Creates Criminal Opportunities
+3. Isomorphs of Paranoia: Chemical Arsenals
+4. Bad Company: The Business of Toxicity
+5. A Master/Slave Narrative: Drug Addiction and Psychoactives
+6. Inventors and their Often Wacky Chemical Inventions
+7. Hard Science = Hard Evidence: Forensic Chemistry and Chemical Detectives
+8. Chem 101: Learning by Doing
+9. Good News: Research & Medicinal Chemists Making a Difference
+10. First, Do No Harm (but Before that, Self-Experiment)
+According to several reviews, the book's strength is when it explores what might be the real chemicals that inspired the fictional compounds found in certain movies.
+
+Dr. Jekyll's 'Hyde formula'
+The invisibility drug monocaine from The Invisible Man film of 1933
+The 'green speck' and 'black object' extraterrestrial matter from The Andromeda Strain of 1971
+Elvis' GOOP varnish from the Clambake film of 1967
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+2008 Nebraska Public Radio Interview by Jerry Johnston titled “Chemist, Artist Explore Chemistry in the Movies” Archived 30 October 2010 at the Wayback Machine
+Oxford University Press "ReAction! Chemistry in the Movies"

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_at_the_Crossroads-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "Science at the Crossroads"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_at_the_Crossroads"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:05:59.919087+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Science at the Crossroads was an anthology of the contributions of the delegation from the Soviet Union which attended the Second International Congress of the History of Science. Joseph Needham provided a foreword. It was republished with a new foreword and introduction in 1971. Alfred Rupert Hall wrote a scathing review, claiming that it had little impact in the Soviet Union and that most of the contributors' careers led, rather, to the prison camp and the execution squad.
+
+
+== Contents ==
+The 1971 edition included:
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pleasure_of_Finding_Things_Out-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pleasure_of_Finding_Things_Out"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:05:49.360531+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Pleasure of Finding Things Out is a collection of short works from American physicist Richard Feynman, including interviews, speeches, lectures, and printed articles. Among these is his famous 1959 lecture "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom", his report on the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, and his speech on scientific integrity in which he coined the term "cargo cult science". The original foreword was written by Freeman Dyson.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Norman, Eric B. (2000). "Reviewed Work: The Pleasure of Finding Things Out by Richard P. Feynman". The American Biology Teacher. 62 (9): 678. doi:10.2307/4451014. JSTOR 4451014.
+Root-Bernstein, Robert (1999). "The Dubious Pleasure of Yet More Feynman". American Scientist. 87 (5): 462–464. JSTOR 27857907.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poisoner's_Handbook-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+---
+title: "The Poisoner's Handbook"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poisoner's_Handbook"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:05:50.561037+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York is a New York Times best-selling non-fiction book by Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer Deborah Blum that was released by Penguin Press in 2010.
+
+
+== Synopsis ==
+In 1918, New York City appointed Charles Norris, Bellevue Hospital's chief pathologist, as its first scientifically trained medical examiner. The book, about Norris and Alexander Gettler, the city's first toxicologist, describes the Jazz Age's poisoning cases. Before the two began working in the medical examiner's office, Blum pointed out in her book, poisoners could get away with murder. The book covers the years from 1915 to 1936, which Blum described as a "coming-of-age" for forensic toxicology. "Under (Norris's) direction, the New York City medical examiner's office would become a department that set forensic standards for the rest of the country," Blum wrote.
+While a guest on National Public Radio’s "Talk of the Nation/Science Friday" to discuss the book, Blum told host Ira Flatow that she wrote the book because "I've always been interested in poison. I wanted to write about the mystery of how (poisons) kill us.”
+
+
+== Reception ==
+Reader's Digest named The Poisoner's Handbook one of its Top 10 best crime books, saying, "This is science writing at its finest that reads like a mystery novel."
+The New York Times placed the book on its Top-rated List on March 5, 2010. In its Sunday book review, the Times said The Poisoner's Handbook was "structured like a collection of linked short stories. Each chapter centers on a mysterious death by poison that Norris and Gettler investigate."
+The book was listed as a New York Times bestseller in paperback nonfiction in February 2011. Also, Amazon named The Poisoner's Handbook in its Top 100 Best of 2010.
+"Not only is The Poisoner's Handbook as thrilling as any 'CSI' episode," wrote reviewer Art Taylor with The Washington Post, "but it also offers something even better: an education in how forensics really works."
+Kirkus Reviews described the book as, "The rollicking story of the creation of modern forensic science by New York researchers during the Prohibition era."
+Barnes and Noble's editor's review said this: "The book is an unexpected yet appropriate open-sesame into a world that was planting seeds for the world -- with lethal toxins and cutting-edge tools -- that would later, darkly bloom."
+Glen Weldon from NPR Books said:  "Rigorously researched and thoroughly engaging, The Poisoner's Handbook is a compelling, comprehensive portrait of the time and place that transformed criminal investigation, and made it much more difficult for that most insidious of murderers to escape the law."
+
+
+== Documentary ==
+PBS optioned The Poisoner's Handbook for TV and produced it as an episode of American Experience. It premiered on January 7, 2014.
+
+
+== Awards ==
+Finalist for 2010 Agatha Award in Best Non-fiction
+Awarded Best Adult Nonfiction of 2010 by the Society of Midland Authors
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Publisher's book page
+Author's book page

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ragged_Edge_of_Science-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+title: "The Ragged Edge of Science"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ragged_Edge_of_Science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:05:53.962271+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Ragged Edge of Science is a science book by L. Sprague de Camp, illustrated by Don Simpson. It was first published by Owlswick Press in 1980.
+The book is a collection of twenty-two articles (two of them book reviews) on various curiosities and wonders exploring the boundaries between science and pseudo-science. "The[ir] common thread is [their] skeptical takes on subjects that are often muddled by paranormal and pseudoscientific claims." De Camp viewed such phenomena from a skeptically rational viewpoint, pointing out the fallacies in supernatural and otherwise fantastic explanations. His debunking efforts were an important and characteristic feature of his nonfiction, and the present collection is a notable instance of it.
+The book's constituent articles were originally published in a variety of science magazines, science fiction magazines, and other publications from 1950 to 1976.
+
+
+== Contents ==
+"Preface"
+Long Ago and Far Away
+"The Mayan Elephants" (from Astounding Science Fiction, v. 45, no. 4, Jun. 1950)
+"Faery Lands Forlorn" (from Science Fiction Stories, v. 6, no. 3, Nov. 1955 and v. 6, no. 5, Mar. 1956)
+"The Pyramids of Kush" (from Science Digest, v. 63, no. 4, Apr. 1968)
+"The Falls of Troy" (from The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, v. 38, no. 3, Mar. 1970)
+"The Quarter-Acre Round Table" (from The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, v. 39, no. 1, Jul. 1970)
+"The Tower of Mystery" (from Science Digest, v. 68, no. 4, Oct. 1970)
+"The Street of the Dead: Teotihuacan" (from Science Digest, v. 68, no. 6, Dec. 1970)
+"Tula and the Vanished Toltecs" (from Science Digest, v. 71, no. 4, Apr. 1972)
+Round About the Cauldron
+"The Mystic Trance" (from Future Combined with Science Fiction Stories, v. 2, no. 4, Nov. 1951)
+"The Mountain of Light" (from Science Fiction Quarterly, v. 1, no. 6, Aug. 1952)
+"The Great Charlatans" (from Science Fiction Quarterly, v. 2, no. 2, Feb. 1953)
+"A Modern Merlin" (from Dynamic Science Fiction, Jun. 1953)
+"The Mysterious Kabbalah" (from Fate, No. 79, Oct. 1956)
+"Bridey Murphy and the Martian Princess" (from Science Fiction Stories, v. 7, no. 4, Jan. 1957)
+"The Great Satanist Plot" (from Exploring the Unknown, no. 20, Jun. 1953)
+"So You Want to Be a Prophet?" (from the Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, Feb. 20, 1966)
+Science and Pseudo-Science
+"Worlds in Collision" (book review) (from Astounding Science Fiction, v. 45, no. 2, Apr. 1950)
+"The So-called Fourth Dimension" (from Future Combined with Science Fiction Stories, v. 2, no. 3, Sep. 1951)
+"How to Talk Futurian" (from The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, v. 13, no. 4, Oct. 1957)
+"The Great Pseudomath" (from Fantastic Universe, v. 8, no. 6, Dec. 1957)
+"The Decline and Fall of Adam" (from The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, v. 45, no. 5, Nov. 1973)
+"Chariots of the Gods?" (book review) (from Amra, v. 2, no. 65, Apr. 1976)
+
+
+== Synopsis ==
+The essays in the book fall into three general categories, dealing with ancient civilizations and certain unscientific theories regarding them, occult-related subjects, and pseudoscience in general. Anecdotes from history and de Camp's travels to some of the locales he writes about pepper the narrative.
+The first eight chapters fall into the first category. Discussions of Bronze Age Troy and the ancient Sudanese civilization of Kush counter romantic speculations with a resume of what is known of them from historical sources and archaeological investigations. In contrast, the section on King Arthur, of whom little factual information has been established, puts to rest unverified notions regarding him by tracing the development and elaboration of his legend down through the ages. The chapter on the Maya debunks diffusionist theories seeking the origin of their culture in Old World civilizations rather than from indigenous factors. Later sections about Teotihuacan and the Toltecs serve more as general introductions to these cultures. There is also a brief discussion of the Tour Magne, a Roman ruin in Nîmes, France, and a chapter on myths that discounts them as reliable reportage of prehistoric events.
+Chapters in the second category include discussions of memories of previous lives supposedly recovered via hypnosis, the Kabbalah, lives of famous charlatans claiming to have been magicians, such as Cagliostro and Aleister Crowley, the hoax perpetrated by Léo Taxil and others that purported to expose Freemasonry as devil worship, theosophist C. W. Leadbeater, the development of occultist cultism around Mount Shasta in Northern California (demonstrated to have a literary basis), and the origins of the mystic trance, with rational explanations for the visions experienced. A satirical chapter of advice on how to set one's self up as a prophet rounds out the section.
+An account of the early history of Fundamentalist movement to prohibit the teaching of evolution in schools leads off the third category. There is also a biography of Populist politician Ignatius Donnelly focusing on his speculations regarding Atlantis and like matters, and then a speculative chapter regarding future languages, essentially a didactic piece on language change with application to science fictional treatments of time-travel. It leads into a discussion of nonscientific claims about the "fourth dimension" in general. This part of the book also includes reviews of Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision and Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods?, both of which de Camp discounts.
+
+
+== Reception ==
+Critical reviews of the book were generally positive. Writing in the wake of its release, Tom Easton observed in Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact that "[i]f you know L. Sprague de Camp's work at all, you know what to expect ... He's always readable and entertaining, as he sticks his thumbs into gaping holes of fact and logic ... He's full of the straight dope (though he often doesn't go into things as deeply as I would like)." He urged readers to "buy the book." Michael Schuyler, writing for Library Journal, took a more neutral stance, judging only that "[m]ost of these mysteries have been well documented elsewhere, and De Camp [sic] presents no revelations." The book was also reviewed by Darrell Schweitzer in Science Fiction Review v. 10, issue 1 (Spring, 1981), p. 22.
+More recently, an exhaustive review from 2007 sums up the book as "a very pleasant and readable collection of essays, an excellent and classical example of skeptical writing and debunkery of various kinds of pseudoscientific and paranormal nonsense." The reviewer notes de Camp's "accessible, down-to-earth style," humor, and story-telling expertise, as well as "somewhat conservative opinions ... which occasionally show in his writing." Its conclusion is "[o]verall I highly recommend this book."
+
+
+== Notes ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_Brain-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+title: "The Republican Brain"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_Brain"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:05:56.459465+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science — and Reality is a 2012 book about the psychological basis for many Republicans' rejection of mainstream scientific theories, as well as theories of economics and history, by the American journalist Chris Mooney.
+
+
+== Reception ==
+The Financial Times gave the book a favorable review, describing it as an "intelligent, nuanced and persuasive account" of psychological differences in political behavior.
+Alissa Quart, in a New York Times opinion piece, cited conservative writers Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell who equated Mooney's argument with eugenics. It was criticized by American conservative Jonah Goldberg, who tried to associate it with "conservative phrenology". Mooney responded, stating that Goldberg had mispresented his book in several respects. Mooney also stated that Goldberg exhibited "precisely the traits he seeks to deny: ideological defensiveness, a lack of nuance, and a deeply unwarranted and overconfident sense of certainty".  Mooney later rebutted a similar criticism by Andrew Ferguson and stated that Ferguson dismissed science himself while attacking the book.
+Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times that Mooney makes a good point: the personality traits associated with modern conservatism, particularly a lack of openness, make the modern Republican Party hostile to the idea of objective inquiry.
+
+
+== Publication information ==
+Mooney, Chris (2012). The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science — and Reality. Wiley. ISBN 9781118094518.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Antiscience
+Agnotology
+Climate change policy of the United States
+List of books about the politics of science
+Merchants of Doubt
+Politicization of science
+William R. Steiger
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Chris C. Mooney, personal website
+Chris Mooney – The Republican Brain, Interview, Point of Inquiry
+Chris Mooney discusses "The Republican Brain" on MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner on YouTube
+Diagnosing the Republican Brain, Mother Jones

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_War_on_Science-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+title: "The Republican War on Science"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_War_on_Science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:05:57.640443+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Republican War on Science is a 2005 book by Chris Mooney, an American journalist who focuses on the politics of science policy. In the book, Mooney discusses the Republican Party leadership's stance on science, and in particular that of the George W. Bush administration, with regard to issues such as climate change denialism, intelligent design, bioethics, alternative medicine, pollution, separation of church and state, and the government funding of education, research, and environmental protection. The book argues that the administration regularly distorted and/or suppressed scientific research to further its own political aims.
+The book was reviewed in Science and Nature Medicine as well as the popular press. It was featured on the cover of The New York Times Book Review and selected as an "Editors' Choice" by The New York Times, which described it as "[a] frankly polemical survey of scientific findings and procedures in collision with political operations."
+Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock (of Super Size Me fame) optioned the rights for the book to create a documentary film, but in 2008 announced that he had released the option.
+
+
+== Reviews ==
+
+
+=== In scientific journals ===
+A review in Science by Naomi Oreskes states the author recounts the 20-year campaign by "influential Republicans—initially in Congress and now also in the White House—in concert with determined allies in private industry and fundamentalist Christian organizations" to systematically deny, disparage and misrepresent scientific information related to public policy. She gave the following list of topics: "acid rain, global warming, the efficacy of condoms in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the health impacts of excess dietary sugar and fat, the alleged link between abortion and breast cancer, the status of endangered species, the efficacy of abstinence-only sex education programs, the therapeutic potential of adult stem cells, and more." Oreskes goes on to detail the tactics used in the attempt to mislead both the public and politicians, "misrepresenting real debates, exaggerating uncertainty, interfering with the activities of expert agencies, trumpeting the views of outlier scientists whose interpretations are rarely to be found in the refereed literature, and attacking the integrity of genuine experts." She states that Mooney points out that multiple misinformation campaigns have involved the same individuals and groups. Oreskes concludes, "Mooney's book makes it clear that when sensible people stand on the sidelines, a great deal of nonsense can be spread."
+Michael Stebbins wrote in Nature Medicine: "This book should serve as a harsh wake-up call to the scientific community and the American public." He stated that Mooney "painstakingly documents the roots of the efforts to undercut the influence of science on national policy and the relentless politicization of US science policy by conservatives working on behalf of the Republican Party." He notes that the author clearly documents the "Bush administrations' attacks on the integrity of science information" listing examples that include some of those mentioned by Oreskes and "undercutting the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act, and stacking agencies and advisory committees with unqualified ideologues." Stebbins credits the book with providing context by detailing the tactics employed by "conservative Republicans" and establishing the roots of these undercutting techniques with examples from the last 40 years. He goes on to state, "Mooney's documentation of the willful manipulation of science on the part of conservatives to suit an agenda is well supported and nauseating." Stebbins addresses two criticisms of the book: the first, that it doesn't explain the science involved, which he explains is not the purpose of the book, and the second, that it doesn't detail the misuse of science by Democrats and liberals, which he dismisses as untrue. He finds issue with the last chapter, which proposes solutions, stating, "His suggestions are sound and well thought out, but seem more of an afterthought than a real goal of the book."
+Daniel Sarewitz panned the book in a review in Issues in Science and Technology, describing it as a "tiresome polemic masquerading as a defense of scientific purity."
+
+
+=== In the popular press ===
+In a positive review in Scientific American, Boyce Rensenberger described the book as "a well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists." Lisa Margonelli of The New York Times Book Review wrote that Mooney "juggled extensive research and sharp arguments [...] with precision and a showman’s wink that made his unpromising subject fun."
+Keay Davidson wrote in the Washington Post that "Mooney's political heart is in the right place" but says "Mooney is like a judge who interprets a law one way to convict his enemies and another way to acquit his friends."
+Writing in The New York Times, John Horgan said of the book that the prose was "often clunky and clichéd", but explains that Mooney "addresses a vitally important topic and gets it basically right." Horgan defends the book against another reviewer's criticism, saying "the journalist Keay Davidson faults Mooney for not acknowledging how hard it can be to distinguish good science from bad... But in many of the cases that [Mooney] examines, demarcation is easy, because one side has an a priori commitment to something other than the truth— God or money, to put it bluntly."
+Stuart Derbyshire, a senior lecturer at the University of Birmingham School of Psychology, praises Mooney and notes that he explained how Republicans had manipulated the uncertainty in science "to ensure that Congress rarely hears any consensus opinion that may damage a Bush policy." Derbyshire agrees with Mooney's claim that there is Republican "flagrant twisting" of research findings and that it "violates the integrity of science."
+
+
+== Media ==
+Mooney was interviewed about the book on Science Friday.
+
+
+== Publishing information ==
+Mooney, Chris (2005). The Republican War on Science. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465046751.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Antiscience
+Agnotology
+Climate change policy of the United States
+The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
+List of books about the politics of science
+Merchants of Doubt
+Politicization of science
+William R. Steiger
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Official website
+Chris Mooney: The Republican War on Science on YouTube