Roach: Spook
From Scienticity
Revision as of 22:31, 31 October 2007
| Scienticity: | 
|
| Readability: |
|
| Hermeneutics: |
|
| Charisma: |
|
| Recommendation: |
|
| Ratings are described on the Book-note ratings page. | |
Mary Roach, Spook : Science Tackles the Afterlife. New York : W. W. Norton & Company, 2005. 311 pages, with bibliography.
I have previously read a and noted a book my Mary Roach, Stiff. That one was concerned with what happened to human bodies after death; Spook is concerned with what happens to that part of the human which is not the body – if there is such a part – after death.
Her approach is along the lines of pop journalism without being too silly about it. She enjoys a bit of good humor but, to my taste, the humorous bits stay subservient to the stories she's telling and the narrative she's putting together. It's not exactly relevant but it's my impression that Ms. Roach's sense of humor, or sense of proportion, or sense of comic timing, has improved or become more sophisticated since her last book. This time I had very few groans, many more chuckles and raised eyebrows from her observations.
Most definitely a non-scientist, she takes a look at many different aspects of the paranormal: attempts to weigh the soul, trying to visualize the soul, communicating with the dead, mediums and spiritualism, ectoplasm, electromagnetic fields, ghosts, and near-death experiences; and takes her best shot at evaluating the "evidence" with from her best rational stance, working out her own conclusions rather than trusting one or another authority. She does a good job of it too, and I don't think I'm saying that just because she decides that most of it is nonsense. Still, she seems to remain hopeful, but far from delusional.
Here is a position statement from her introduction:
Most of the projects that I will be covering have been – or are being – undertaken by science. By that I mean people doing research using scientific methods, preferably at respected universities or institutions. Technology gets a shot, as does the law. I'm not interested in philosophical debates on the soul (probably because I can't understand them). Nor am I going to be relating anecdotal accounts of personal spiritual experiences. Anecdotes are interesting, occasionally riveting, but never are they proof. On the other hand, this is not a debunking book. Skeptics and debunkers provide a needed service in this area, but their work more or less assumes an outcome. I'm trying hard not to make assumptions, not to have an agenda.
Simply put, this is a book for people who would like very much to believe in a soul and in an afterlife for it to hang around in, but who have trouble accepting these things on faith. It's a giggly, random, utterly earthbound assault on our most ponderous unanswered question. [p. 14]
And, on the humorous but interesting side, here's a footnote after my own heart:
Medical treatises were eminently more readable in Sanctorius's day [c. 1690]. Medicina statica delves fearlessly into subjects of unprecedented medical eccentricity: "Cucumbers, how prejudicial," "Phlebotomy, why best in Autumn," and the tantalizing "Leaping, its consequences." There's even a full-page, near-infomercial-quality plug for something called the Flesh-Brush. (p. 83)
Those with an interest in these topics will find the bibliography helpful.
I have one complaint about a passing scientific misstatement. On page 200 she refers to E-L-F and explains that it stands for Extremely Low Frequency [radiation], "as in background radiation. As in microwave ovens and overhead power lines." Actually, extremely low frequency implies very, very long wavelengths, generally 10 meters or more. On the other hand, background radiation (as in left over from the big bang) and microwave radiation have wavelengths that are in the centimeter range, and power lines generate ultra low-power radiation, not ELF.
I have another complaint, directed at the book designer, that seems particularly niggling but that annoyed me nonetheless, although it certainly wouldn't keep me from reading the book. Ms. Roach writes fun footnotes (as we saw above), and I read them all regardless of what they were noting. However, when I wanted to look back in the text to see where the note was noted, I found it very difficult to locate the spot because the asterisks were small, indistinct, and easily confused with quotation marks and other punctuation.
-- Notes by JNS
