Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
Published 2008 · 85,000 words · about 6 hours at an average pace · Nonfiction, Science & Nature
How hard is Bad Science to read?
Bad Science scores 30 out of 100 for difficulty on ReadingRate, making it moderately challenging. The score is a weighted composite of nine measures: four of how hard the prose is to parse, five of how hard the meaning is to extract.
- Vocabulary: 40 out of 100
- Medical and statistical terminology explained clearly. Some pharmaceutical jargon.
- Sentence structure: 30 out of 100
- Abstraction: 40 out of 100
- Statistical reasoning and experimental methodology require some abstract thinking.
- Information density: 55 out of 100
- Dense with scientific evidence, case studies, and statistical explanation.
- Narrative indirection: 100 out of 100
- Direct polemic. Goldacre tells you what's wrong and then proves it.
- Symbolic density: 100 out of 100
- Evidence-based argument. No symbolism.
- Ironic distance: 35 out of 100
- Goldacre's sarcastic, combative style provides consistent ironic distance.
- Resolution withholding: 100 out of 100
- Each chapter debunks its target completely.
- Structural complexity: 20 out of 100
- Self-contained chapters targeting different forms of bad science.
How Bad Science is regarded
Bad Science holds a literary regard score of 48 out of 100, weighing its place in the canon, its critical reception, its influence on other writers, and the standing of its author. Regard is measured separately from difficulty: a demanding book is not necessarily an admired one.