Yes, We Have No Neutrons: An Eye-Opening Tour through ...

Mostly good, but some confusions:
Mr. Dewdney confuses diffeent catagories of scientific theory. He in on the mark when he talks about N-rays and cold fusion as examples of bad science. But with IQ tests, psychoanlaysis and SETI the situation is much murkier. These fields are still controverial and it is questionable as to what degree they are "bad science" if at all. In regard to SETI (The search for extraterrestrial intelligence) he says that it is a non-falsifieable hypothesis that there is "extraterrestrial intelligence" and as such is (I presume according to Popper) not science. This is wrong on two counts: 1) The SETI scientists do not assert that there is extraterrestrial intelligence, only that there may be. Since there may be, or may not be, it may be valid to search for it, and 2) Even if they asserted that there was extraterrestrial intelligence, it is not non-falsifiable. To assert that there is extraterrestrial intelligence is to assert that it is not the case that there is not extraterrestrial intelligence. Actually receiving an intelligent signal from space would falsify that hypothesis.

Good but with some key flaws:
I'm happy to see that other reviewers noted Dewdney's excesses regarding the validity of the SETI efforts. Whether or not you think you know what SETI will find, his analysis of SETI's objectives and methodology seems completely inconsistent with his stated theme and has all the appearances of a personal prejeudice. In contrast, he goes out of his way to be fair in his coverage of the cold fusion debacle. I generally enjoy Dewdney's work-- just watch out for his indiosyncrasies here.

Fun for some:
The clever title refers to the cold fusion delusion of 1989. Dewdney also takes apart the Biosphere 2 experiment in Arizona in 1991 where the roaches prospered while the people lost a lot of weight and would never have made it without some artificial help from a CO2 "scrubber." Freud, SETI, The Bell Curve believers and neural nets also come under attack as unscientific. Well, Freud shouldn't even be suspected of being "scientific." In France Freud is read as literature, as is only right. And to attack SETI! Sure it's a long shot, probably a VERY long shot, but what else do we have to do that could possibly reveal anything near as interesting should it succeed? Shame on you, Dewdney. Otherwise, I tend to agree with him, especially about Biosphere 2 which ought to be done again with people who have something close to a clue as to the sort of Herculean dedication and commitment necessary. And bravo for going after the not-too-bright proponents of the antiquated notion of IQ, who think they can define "intelligence," but haven't the foggiest understanding of the real question, "Intelligence for what?" even if they could define it. In other words, this is a fun book if your ox is not being gored.

Good textbook:
This book approaches many topics of "bad science", however the author is extremely biased on a few of the topics. It is an interesting textbook.

Good overview of bad science, using famous examples:
This book takes a look at a number of famous and sometimes influential examples of bad scientific thinking. This book actually made me slightly more sympathetic towards Pons and Fleischmann, as it turns out that their precipitous announcement of cold fusion wasn't entirely driven by their impatience; their university bosses were guilty of pushing pretty hard, too; the book takes you through the whole tale quickly, yet comprehensively. The book also covers the Biosphere 2 story (in all its wackiness) very well in a minimum number of pages. Dewdney explains how these projects deviated from good scientific practice to lead them into disaster. Some other reviewers complain that Dewdney was unfair to the SETI folks; I think he simply was trying to explain that their project--searching for extraterrestial signals--is not really scientific in that it can never be proven wrong. If you don't find any, you just keep searching, using different methods. He might have compared it to exploration rather than to science, since SETI researchers are "exploring" the universe by way of looking for patterns in electromagnetic energy (rather than by spaceship). Dewdney also takes apart the silliness that is Freud and the concept of IQ, both of which, unfortunately, took hold with vast numbers of people to this day. Dewdney talks about how the IQ might be a measure of SOMETHING, but if we can't define "intelligence" consistently to begin with, it is at the very least a misnamed measurement that has been widely abused. Dewdney adds that IQ is a good example of the situation where many mathematical equations are often recruited to the cause of bad science; apparently, some researchers think that the more equations you publish in a paper, the more likely the concept will be accepted! Overall, this is a fast read that will give the reader a few good examples of how science can go off the rails.