Contemporary Authors

• Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science W.W. Norton & Company (New York, NY), 2017

1. Not a scientist : how politicians mistake, misrepresent, and utterly mangle science LCCN 2016029048 Type of material Book Personal name Levitan, Dave. Main title Not a scientist : how politicians mistake, misrepresent, and utterly mangle science / Dave Levitan. Edition First edition. Published/Produced New York : W.W. Norton & Company, [2017] Projected pub date 1704 Description pages cm ISBN 9780393353327 (pbk.) Library of Congress Holdings Information not available.

• Yale Environment 360 - http://e360.yale.edu/authors/dave-levitan

  Dave Levitan is a freelance journalist based in Philadelphia who writes about energy, the environment, and health. His articles have been published by Reuters, SolveClimate, IEEE Spectrum, and Psychology Today.

• LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/davelevitan/

  Dave Levitan
  Science journalist
  Self-employed New York University
  Greater Philadelphia Area 170 170 connections
  Send InMail
  Experience
  Self-employed
  Freelance Journalist
  Company NameSelf-employed
  Dates EmployedMar 2005 – Present Employment Duration12 yrs 5 mos
  Science, health and environmental journalist. I have written for Scientific American, Yale Environment 360, Slate, OnEarth, Conservation, and many others, as well as for numerous medical trade publications and professional societies.
  Factcheck.org
  Science Writer
  Company NameFactcheck.org
  Dates EmployedJan 2015 – Nov 2015 Employment Duration11 mos
  Slack Inc.
  Staff writer
  Company NameSlack Inc.
  Dates EmployedJan 2004 – Apr 2005 Employment Duration1 yr 4 mos
  Education
  New York University
  New York University
  Degree Name MA; Science Field Of Study Journalism; Health and Environmental Reporting Program
  Dates attended or expected graduation 2009
  Haverford College
  Haverford College
  Dates attended or expected graduation 1999 – 2003
  Haverford College
  Haverford College
  Degree Name BA Field Of Study English
  Dates attended or expected graduation 2003
  Featured Skills & Endorsements
  Journalism See 4 endorsements for Journalism 4
  Kenneth Candido and 3 connections have given endorsements for this skill
  Copy Editing See 3 endorsements for Copy Editing 3
  Andrew Lavin and 2 connections have given endorsements for this skill
  Editorial See 2 endorsements for Editorial 2
  Kenneth Candido and 1 connection have given endorsements for this skill
  View 7 more View 7 more skills
  Interests
  Haverford College
  Haverford College
  16,608 followers
  Haverford College
  Haverford College
  12,819 followers
  Factcheck.org
  Factcheck.org
  108 followers
  New York University
  New York University
  435,136 followers
  New York University
  New York University
  467,778 followers

• W. W. Norton & Company, Inc - http://books.wwnorton.com/books/Author.aspx?id=4294992739

  Dave Levitan is a journalist whose work has appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Scientific American, Slate, and many other outlets. He lives near Philadelphia with his wife.

• Dave Levitan - http://www.davelevitan.com/

  I am a journalist, focusing on an array of scientific topics, and especially their intersection with policy and politics. I have written for a wide variety of outlets, and I am the author of a book: "Not A Scientist: How politicians mistake, misrepresent, and utterly mangle science." It is published by WW Norton.
  NOTaSCIENTIST_cover.jpg
  ORDER NOT A SCIENTIST NOW:

  Amazon
  Barnes & Noble
  IndieBound
  Click here to see a list of scheduled events related to the book, as well as some radio/podcast interview links.

  You can check out some examples of my work below, and you can see a (largely) complete list of where I've published here.

  I have an undergraduate degree from Haverford College, and a Masters degree in journalism from NYU's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program. Thanks very much for visiting!

• Vox - https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/4/20/15339844/science-climate-change-republican-party-march-for-science

  The most common tricks politicians use to muddle inconvenient science
  “I think my primary message would be learn to appreciate evidence.”
  Updated by Sean Illing@seanillingsean.illing@vox.com Apr 20, 2017, 10:30am EDT
  TWEET

  SHARE

  Boston Globe / Getty Images
  On Saturday, thousands of people will march on Washington in support of science. And they’ll do so for very good reasons: Science, under the Trump administration, is under assault. As Vox’s Brian Resnick noted recently, the Trump administration has proposed cutting around $7 billion from science programs, including stifling research funding for the EPA and the National Institutes of Health.

  In this interview, I talk to Dave Levitan, author of the new book Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science. A how-to guide for spotting nonsense, Levitan’s book highlights the rhetorical tricks and logical errors politicians use when they distort science for political purposes. Here, we discuss the ideological roots of science denialism and why it’s so important for citizens to demand evidence in support of policy claims.

  Sean Illing
  Your book is about spotting the common rhetorical tricks that politicians use when they’re distorting science for political purposes. Can you cite a couple of examples?

  Dave Levitan
  The whole idea for the book came about when I started seeing patterns. Cherry-picking data is probably the most familiar. The tendency to draw on a single data point in support of some broader argument, like Sen. James Inhofe did with the famous snowball on the Senate floor. Or taking a very specific subset of data, like Ted Cruz did when he claimed there hasn’t been any global warming for 17 years. That might be the most commonly seen one where you really just pick and choose exactly which study and data point, which subset or source to use, and then conveniently draw on that when it aligns with your political narrative.

  Another really common one is where they claim that because there is still some degree of uncertainty around whatever the subject happens to be, then that means we shouldn't do anything about it. Climate change is a great one for that, but it dates back much farther. Conservatives used the same tactics for delaying action on acid rain in the ’80s, for example. President Reagan would say, "Well, we still have to study this and figure out what's going on. There's not enough data to do anything."

  First of all, they were wrong. There was plenty of data. We knew exactly how to deal with acid rain and ended up fixing it pretty well. So that one comes up a lot, the idea that because there's any degree of uncertainty that we shouldn't do anything, which is of course ridiculous because every scientific measure ever taken has a degree of uncertainty and always will.

  Sean Illing
  These sorts of stall tactics are effective, in part, because they’re not really frontal attacks on the science. The goal is to muddy the waters, to throw enough doubt into people's mind so that they can't or won't object to actions that run counter to the science.

  Dave Levitan
  Yeah, I think that's right. Politicians like James Inhofe and Lamar Smith are exceptions to this inasmuch as they quite explicitly deny the scientific consensus. But, generally speaking, it’s rare to see people take what is accepted science and try to claim that the opposite is true.

  Sean Illing
  In a 2014 interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer, Mitch McConnell was asked if he agreed with the 97 percent of climate scientists who say that humans are contributing to global warming. His response was familiar: “We can debate this forever … I’m not a scientist. I’m interested in protecting Kentucky’s economy.”

  The “I’m not a scientist” line has become all-too-common, and it’s the basis of your book title. Why is this refrain bullshit in your view?

  Dave Levitan
  The basic reason is it's absurd for politicians to have to tell us what they're not an expert in. They don't say I'm not an economist. They don't say I don't have a degree in Middle Eastern studies or civil engineering, yet they're still perfectly willing to opine on these issues. So it's sort of a bizarre subset that they think it's a reasonable thing to say.

  Science is easier to paint as this unknowable, mysterious thing when it's just another field that most politicians are not experts in. But they're not experts in most fields. Most of them are lawyers. So it’s disingenuous to hide behind this “not a scientist” cover when it comes to, say, climate change and then decide to take policy positions anyway.

  It's really just a dodge that's specific to science and to me highlights the sort of disdain for expertise that we see sometimes from politicians.

  Sean Illing
  You say it’s a disdain for expertise, but I don’t think so. Isn’t this really about ideology? People are fine with experts so long as they arrive at desired conclusions.

  Dave Levitan
  Perhaps. Part of the problem is that science feels distant, something that’s done in labs behind closed doors somewhere else. It’s just harder to approach.

  Sean Illing
  I think you’re running away from my question here. I’ll put it another way: Is there any doubt that Republican climate skeptics would happily embrace the science if 97 percent of researchers concluded that climate change is a liberal phantasm?

  Dave Levitan
  Oh, for sure. If the science somehow flipped and all scientists came to another conclusion that this wasn't actually true, it's overblown, we're fine, then of course they would flip their position.

  Sean Illing
  I get that this isn’t a partisan book, but you really go out of your way to avoid the obvious conclusion, which is that this is overwhelmingly a Republican problem. It’s not exclusive to Republicans, but the vast majority of examples you cite come from Republicans. Why not acknowledge that?

  Dave Levitan
  The point of the book is more the rhetorical techniques rather than the why behind it. I wanted to be able to provide a tool for seeing through political speech even though right now this is largely a Republican problem.

  I'm also trying to be somewhat charitable. Science is tough and people do misunderstand the details, so it's hard to call it all lies. While I totally acknowledge that it might be frustrating, I'd say it might be a little more useful to just try to see what they’re actually doing, rather than try to understand why they’re doing it.

  Sean Illing
  Can you cite an example of a prominent Democrat playing rhetorical games with science?

  Dave Levitan
  It's tough. The Democrats do appear in the book a few times, but their errors tend to be very minor and subtle and not generally deceptive. It's tough to find an example of left-wing politicians flatly lying about science. I think GMOs is probably the only one and I can't think of a specific statement off the top of my head, but there have certainly been Democrats who get the science on that very wrong.

  I don’t claim in the book that is exclusively a Republican problem, but it’s damn close.

  Sean Illing
  As you know, there’s going to be a big march for science rally in Washington this weekend. Do you think that’s a good idea?

  Dave Levitan
  I think it's great. The idea that scientists should somehow stay out of the politics has never made sense to me. We don't ask other fields to stay out of politics. Just because a scientific truth is true no matter who says it, doesn't mean those people shouldn't say it or advocate on behalf of it.

  So yeah, I think it's a great idea for scientists to get more involved. I’m not sure what will become of it, though. Hopefully, we get an increase in public discussion of the most pressing issues in question, like climate change or NIH funding. We shouldn’t cede these conversations to loud, anti-science voices.

  There are people who actually know what they’re talking about — we should hear from them as much as possible.

  Sean Illing
  What can individual citizens do to guard against the distortions and tricks you write about in this book?

  Dave Levitan
  I think my primary message would be learn to appreciate evidence. I really wish that your average reader of news would keep in mind that evidence is important and just because someone said something doesn't make it true. That’s true for people on the right or left, for scientists themselves, and for everyone. People have to back up their claims with evidence.

  If individual citizens have this in mind at all times, I think they’d do a better job of spotting bullshit and lies. Make sure that people show their work, that their policy pronouncements are backed up with reliable data.

  This is not a difficult thing to do, but it matters.

• Gizmodo - http://gizmodo.com/what-its-like-being-a-sane-person-on-the-house-science-1790387102

  What It's Like Being a Sane Person on the House Science Committee

  Dave Levitan
  12/23/16 12:00pmFiled to: TRUMP'S AMERICA
  62.7K
  160
  31

  Artwork by Jim Cooke
  Congressional Committee tweets don’t usually get much attention. But when the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology sent out a link to a Breitbart story claiming a “plunge” in global temperatures, people took notice. The takedowns flew in, from Slate and Bernie Sanders, from plenty of scientists, and most notably from the Weather Channel, which deemed Breitbart’s use of their meteorologist’s face worthy of a point-by-point debunking video.

  There is nothing particularly noteworthy about Breitbart screwing up climate science, but the House Science Committee is among the most important scientific oversight bodies in the country. Since Texas Republican Lamar Smith took over its leadership in 2012, the Committee has spiraled down an increasingly anti-science rabbit hole: absurd hearings aimed at debunking consensus on global warming, outright witch hunts using the Committee’s subpoena power to intimidate scientists, and a Republican membership that includes some of the most anti-science lawmakers in the land.

  The GOP’s shenanigans get the headlines, but what about the other side of the aisle? What is it like to be a member of Congress and sit on a science committee that doesn’t seem to understand science? What is it like to be an adult in a room full of toddlers? I asked some of the adults.

  “I think it’s completely embarrassing,” said Marc Veasey , who represents Texas’s 33rd district, including parts of Dallas and Fort Worth. “You’re talking about something that 99.9 percent—if not 100 percent—of people in the legitimate science community says is a threat….To quote Breitbart over some of the most brilliant people in the world—and those are American scientists—and how they see climate change, I just think it’s a total embarrassment.”

  Paul Tonko, who represents a chunk of upstate New York that includes Albany, has also called it embarrassing. “It is frustrating when you have the majority party of a committee pushing junk science and disproven myths to serve a political agenda,” he said. “It’s not just beneath the dignity of the Science Committee or Congress as a whole, it’s inherently dangerous. Science and research seek the truth—they don’t always fit so neatly with agendas.”

  “I think it’s completely embarrassing.”
  Suzanne Bonamici, of Oregon’s 1st District, also called it frustrating “to say the least” that the Committee “is spending time questioning climate researchers and ignoring the broad scientific consensus.” California Rep. Eric Swalwell called it the “Science” Committee in an email, and made sure I noted the air quotes. He said that in Obama’s first term, the Committee helped push forward on climate change and a green economy. “For the last four years, however, being on the Committee has meant defending the progress we’ve made.”

  Frustration, embarrassment, a sense of Sisyphean hopelessness—this sounds like a grim gig. And Veasey also said that he doesn’t have much hope for a change in the Science Committee’s direction, because that change would have to come from the chairman. Smith has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign support from the oil and gas industry over the years, and somehow finds himself in even greater climate change denial than ExxonMobil.

  And of course, it isn’t just the leadership. The League of Conservation Voters maintains a scorecard of every legislator in Congress: for 2015, the most recent year available, the average of all the Democratic members on the science committee is 92.75 percent (with 100 being a perfect environment-friendly score). On the GOP side of the aisle, the average is just over three percent.

  (I reached out to a smattering of GOP members of the Committee to get their take on its recent direction. None of them responded.)

  Bill Foster, who represents a district including some suburbs of Chicago, is the only science PhD in all of Congress (“I very often feel lonely,” he said, before encouraging other scientists to run for office). “Since I made the transition from science into politics not so long ago, I’ve become very cognizant of the difference between scientific facts, and political facts,” he said. “Political facts can be established by repeating over and over something that is demonstrably false, then if it comes to be accepted by enough people it becomes a political fact.” Witness the 52 percent of Republicans who currently believe Trump won the popular vote, and you get the idea.

  I’m not sure “climate change isn’t happening” has reached that “political fact” level, though Smith and his ilk have done their damndest. Recent polls suggest most Americans do understand the issue, and more and more they believe the government should act aggressively to tackle it.

  “Political facts can be established by repeating over and over something that is demonstrably false, then if it comes to be accepted by enough people it becomes a political fact.”
  That those in charge of our government disagree so publicly and strongly now has scientists terrified. “This has a high profile,” Foster said, “because if there is any committee in Congress that should operate on the basis of scientific truth, it ought to be the Science, Space, and Technology committee—so when it goes off the rails, then people notice.”

  The odds of the train jumping back on the rails over the next four years appear slim. Policies that came from the Obama White House, like the Clean Power Plan, are obviously on thin ice with a Trump administration, and without any sort of check on Smith and company it is hard to say just how pro-fossil fuel, anti-climate the committee could really get.

  In the face of all that, what is a sane member of Congress to do? Elizabeth Esty, who represents Connecticut’s 5th district, was among several Committee members to note that in spite of the disagreements on climate, she has managed to work with GOP leadership on other scientific issues. Rep. Swalwell said he will try and focus on bits of common ground, like the jobs that come with an expanding green economy. Rep. Veasey said his best hope is that some strong conservative voices from outside of Congress might start to make themselves heard by the Party’s upper echelons on climate and related issues.

  An ugly and dire scenario, then, but the Democrats all seem to carry at least a glimmer of hope. “It’s certainly frustrating and concerning but I’m an optimist,” Esty said. “I wouldn’t run for this job if I weren’t.”

  Correction: An early version of this post misspelled Marc Veasey’s first name. The text has been updated.

  Dave Levitan is a science journalist, and author of the book Not A Scientist: How politicians mistake, misrepresent, and utterly mangle science. Find him on Twitter and at his website.

• The Irish Times - https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/how-to-spot-when-politicians-are-misrepresenting-science-1.3065096

  How to spot when politicians are misrepresenting science
  Unthinkable: Cherry-picking facts and nitpicking are common political ploys

  Tue, May 2, 2017, 01:00
  Joe Humphreys
  1
  Dublin’s March for Science on Earth Day, April 22nd last. Photograph: Nick Bradshaw
  Dublin’s March for Science on Earth Day, April 22nd last. Photograph: Nick Bradshaw

  Share to Facebook
  Share to Twitter
  Share to Email App

  Powerful politicians in electoral democracies have always bent the truth but US president Donald Trump is perhaps unique in turning it into a balloon animal. His speeches are performances as he whips out his own “facts”, mangles evidence and declares: Voilà, a new reality!
  Trump’s primary weapon of choice is what science writer Dave Levitan calls “The Straight-up Fabrication”. Whether he is accusing the Chinese of inventing global warming or claiming vaccines cause autism, “his errors on scientific topics are so blatant, so crude, so lacking in even the most basic understanding of physics or biology or chemistry or any other discipline that debunking them often requires essentially no effort at all,” Levitan writes.
  Not all of Trump’s utterances fall into this category, however. As tens of thousands of people took part in “March for Science” protests last month, the US president tweeted: “I am committed to keeping our air and water clean but always remember that economic growth enhances environmental protection.”
  Trump here deploys a classic deflection technique – described by Levitan as “The Oversimplification” – equating all economic growth with environmentally sustainable and socially responsible economic growth.
  In his book Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science (W.W. Norton & Co), Levitan identifies 10 other common ploys used by those in power to obfuscate or mislead. These include “The Cherry Pick”, “The Butter-up and Undercut” and the “The Literal Nitpick” – something akin to the Catholic practice of “mental reservation”. It’s a timely reference work – a kind of citizens’ guide to identifying public untruths – but Levitan warns “anti-science” does not begin and end with Trump.
  The Philadelphia-based author has taken to documenting examples of political illogicality on Twitter with the hashtag #NotAScientist, explaining: “Vigilance is the only antidote against a flood of misinformation, deception, and backwardness.”

  You identify 12 strategies politicians use to counteract science. Which is most commonly used?
  Dave Levitan: “There are a few that tend to come up more than the others. One of those probably sounds quite familiar to most: the ‘Cherry Pick’. This is a favourite tactic because it can be tough to spot sometimes, and can require a fairly detailed rebuttal.
  Who should you trust and why?
  Idlers of the world unite: Why the work ethic needs to be resisted
  Dear atheists, please stop calling religion a meme
  “For example: ‘There has been no global warming for 17 years,’ was an oft-repeated refrain, referencing the so-called ‘hiatus’ in climate change. That very specific number, 17 – rather than 16 or 18, say – should set off alarm bells, since for something like warming we should be looking for the longest possible trend rather than some tiny subset of data. And by choosing that number, politicians were playing with data to make a strong warming trend look like a flatter line.
  “Any time such specifics are thrown out by a politician, it’s good to think twice. Another commonly deployed tactic is the ‘Credit Snatch’, especially when politicians are up for election. They will cite some grand achievement or other relating to a scientific topic, but neglect to mention the complicated context that may have led to that achievement.”
  How does one counteract ‘The Straight-up Fabrication’?
  “This can be tough at times, since if a politician simply makes something up and offers no particular support or evidence, determining its degree of truth is hard. But the bright spot here is that often, ‘Straight-up Fabrications’ are truly absurd - claims that even those of us without strong scientific training or knowledge of the field in question can see through almost immediately.
  “When these come up, I’d say the most important thing is for all of us – the media, other politicians, citizens – to call them out as loudly and urgently as possible. There needs to be some sort of price to pay when elected officials stretch the truth to such extremes, and we all play a role in exacting that price.”
  nother tactic is focusing on ‘The Certain Uncertainty’, or stalling on making a decision until all the information is in. As a rule, though, isn’t it prudent to advance cautiously on policy matters?
  “Yes, absolutely – and this is why the ‘Certain Uncertainty’ is an effective tactic for politicians to use. ‘Look before you leap’ is, often, a completely reasonable and defensible position to take. The problem arises when politicians advise such a careful approach when the science in question is far from uncertain.
  “Obviously, climate change is the big one here – how many times have we heard a politician say something like ‘the science is unsettled’ or ‘the exact amount we contribute is unclear,’ before telling us we should wait until those uncertainties are eliminated before acting?
  “But in this case, among others, that’s a complete absurdity – when it comes to climate change, we have more than enough precise, confirmed knowledge on the topic to know that we should have been working to cut our emissions dramatically for years now.
  “The point to remember is that every measurement ever taken has some degree of uncertainty, some amount of plus-minus around it. If we waited for absolute, 100-per cent perfect knowledge, we would never achieve anything. But politicians continually throw a wrench in those works by hyping uncertainties, without explaining how those uncertainties are inherent to scientific endeavours in general.
  “It might be good to remember an alternative approach in these situations: the precautionary principle. Even if we don’t know every last detail about a topic, but there is a general consensus that taking action will reduce the potential for harm, maybe we don’t need all those details before acting.”

  It seems scientists and politicians will always be in conflict as they pursue different goals. What might bring them closer together?
  “Yes, depressing as it may be, there likely won’t come a time when suddenly the worlds of science and politics line up perfectly. There will always be special interest groups, and industries, and money in politics that will make it worthwhile for some politicians to try and sneak bad science past the public.
  “I think the best antidote to this issue is, unfortunately something of a long-term process: increasing scientific literacy. Pushing for better Stem [science, technology, engineering, maths] education, and just generally increasing the appreciation for science in kids and in all levels of education, will eventually create a society where there is a much higher political price to pay for anti-science attitudes.
  “But, again, that isn’t something that can happen overnight. Something that can happen overnight is that scientists themselves can run for office. This is a movement that is starting to take off in the US, where groups have sprung up to help train people with science and technology expertise how to get into public office, at levels ranging from local school boards and town councils all the way up to the federal government.
  “Not only would this have an immediate effect on specific policies emanating from government – in that scientific expertise will help better inform how the government approaches everything from healthcare to climate research but it would also, again, simply make the political environment more friendly to science and less forgiving of anti-science . . . which would be a good start.”
  Ask a sage:
  Question: Why do liars get elected?
  Niccolo Machiavelli replies: “Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.”

7/2/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1499039702085 1/3
Print Marked Items
Levitan, Dave. Not a Scientist: How Politicians
Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle
Science
Wade M. Lee
Library Journal.
141.19 (Nov. 15, 2016): p106.
COPYRIGHT 2016 Library Journals, LLC. A wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution
permitted.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/
Full Text:
Levitan, Dave. Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science. Norton. Apr.
2017.208p. illus. notes, index. ISBN 9780393353327. pap. $15.95. SCI
Science journalist Levitan exposes the various ways that politicians have misused or dismissed scientific claims to
further their agendas. The book lays out a taxonomy of rhetorical devices employed, devoting a chapter to each. From
the outright untruths (often easily refuted) and use of scare tactics to games with attribution, such as hiding
untrustworthy sources, taking credit for a predecessor's policies, or being selective in what facts are used to generalize
about an issue, these tactics are laid open, and numerous examples are given. While the author covers the expected
intersections of science and public policy, morality, or business interests (drug legalization, vaccination, abortion,
climate change), sometimes the science is stretched to cover other fields, such as immigration being tied to public
health. Though Levitan claims to be attempting a nonpartisan treatment, virtually all of the examples are Republican,
and the few Democrat or leftist cases are minimized. The final message of this book is to be vigilant and skeptical
about all scientific claims used to support a political agenda. VERDICT A valuable guide to spotting and dissecting
obfuscating rhetoric from those in elected office.--Wade M. Lee, Univ. of Toledo Lib.
Source Citation (MLA 8
th Edition)
Lee, Wade M. "Levitan, Dave. Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science."
Library Journal, 15 Nov. 2016, p. 106. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA470367269&it=r&asid=95b69f71acc852c7ba2fe73f41962a7b.
Accessed 2 July 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A470367269
7/2/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1499039702085 2/3
Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake,
Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science
Publishers Weekly.
263.44 (Oct. 31, 2016): p65.
COPYRIGHT 2016 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Full Text:
Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science
Dave Levitan. Norton, $15.95 trade paper (208p) ISBN 978-0-393-35332-7
In this breezy read, science journalist Levitan contends that when politicians talk about science, "they end up spewing
misinformation and errors virtually at every step." He goes on to argue that detecting these inaccuracies is fairly easy:
"This book groups these rhetorical and logical errors into clear types to help you find them when they arise, and to cut
through the misinformation once you've Spotted them." He focuses on 12 such types, including cherry-picking facts,
ignoring follow-up studies that yield contrarian results, ridiculing scientific studies by ignoring the context in which
they were performed, and simply fabricating results. Levitan presents a range of examples that demonstrate his point,
including controversies over fracking and vaccination, but he devotes most of his time to climate change, using
political statements about the topic to illustrate most of his 12 types of error. In each case, he presents a politician's
argument and then follows up with a readily understandable explication of the underlying science. The book is
accessibly written but sarcasm-heavy, and it superficially flits from topic to topic. Levitan professes to focus on
science, but his critique of politicians can be applied to virtually all disciplines and largely amounts to suggesting that
constituents use critical thinking skills when listening to political speech. (Jan.)
Source Citation (MLA 8
th Edition)
"Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science." Publishers Weekly, 31 Oct.
2016, p. 65. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA470462557&it=r&asid=165efe9b50c2e41c40813977a66a7cab.
Accessed 2 July 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A470462557
7/2/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1499039702085 3/3
Levitan, Dave: NOT A SCIENTIST
Kirkus Reviews.
(Mar. 1, 2017):
COPYRIGHT 2017 Kirkus Media LLC
http://www.kirkusreviews.com/
Full Text:
Levitan, Dave NOT A SCIENTIST Norton (Adult Nonfiction) $15.95 4, 18 ISBN: 978-0-393-35332-7
A look at how trends in political rhetoric are used to undermine scientific evidence.In 1980, then presidential candidate
Ronald Reagan uttered a now infamous preface to a statement disputing the amount of sulfur dioxide emitted into the
atmosphere by cars: "I'm not a scientist...." Journalist Levitan highlights Reagan's succinct deflection as a precedent
and entry point into the upside-down world of misinformation and science denial that would be parroted and
paraphrased by succeeding generations of politicians through the present. The author organizes his chapters around
strategies of misinformation highlighting the methods in which politicians, usually Republicans, manipulate data and
public perception to cynically sow doubt in scientific fact. With chapter headings such as "The Oversimplification,"
"The Straight-Up Fabrication," "The Cherry-Pick," and "The Blame the Blogger," it's clear that Levitan doesn't think
their tactics are subtle or terribly ingenious. However, as he shows, underestimating these brazen tactics overlooks their
startling efficacy. Though the author's examples of political misinformation skew predominantly Republican, he
qualifies this perceived bias by flat-out stating this majority is simply a reflection of the party's unfortunate
abandonment of mainstream scientific values. The most obvious and discussed subject is climate science. As the most
pressing scientific issue of the day, climate change is given ample pages for Levitan to work out the incredibly
erroneous and egregious falsehoods peddled by the GOP to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence and community
consensus that climate change is caused by human consumption of fossil fuels, among other things. Other subjects of
discussion include the debate on embryonic life and the cutoff for abortion, the anti-vaccination movement, and
genetically modified organisms. Levitan's levelheaded examination of these rhetorical gymnastics is a vital antidote to
and warning against a dangerous, regressive future. A no-holds-barred takedown of political idiocy and the terrifying
reality of science denial.
Source Citation (MLA 8
th Edition)
"Levitan, Dave: NOT A SCIENTIST." Kirkus Reviews, 1 Mar. 2017. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA482911514&it=r&asid=d2fa24eb419d091537c19a8cc6514e90.
Accessed 2 July 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A482911514

Lee, Wade M. "Levitan, Dave. Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science." Library Journal, 15 Nov. 2016, p. 106. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA470367269&it=r. Accessed 2 July 2017. "Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science." Publishers Weekly, 31 Oct. 2016, p. 65. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA470462557&it=r. Accessed 2 July 2017. "Levitan, Dave: NOT A SCIENTIST." Kirkus Reviews, 1 Mar. 2017. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA482911514&it=r. Accessed 2 July 2017.

• Washington Independent Review of Books
  http://www.washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com/bookreview/not-a-scientist-how-politicians-mistake-misrepresent-and-utterly-mangle-sci
  Word count: 951

  Book Review in Non-Fiction, Science
  Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science
  By Dave Levitan W.W. Norton & Company 272 pp.
  Reviewed by Nick Wolven
  February 16, 2017
  In the war of ideas, truth-dodging pols tend to value intentions over probabilities.

  The title of Dave Levitan’s Not a Scientist comes from a speech given by Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan was addressing a major environmental concern of the time, acid rain, which is caused in part by sulfur dioxide.

  “I’m not a scientist,” Reagan admitted in his folksy way, and continued: “But I just have a suspicion that that one little mountain out there [Mt. Saint Helens] has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind…”

  The facts were otherwise, but that hardly mattered. With his canny bit of syncrisis, Reagan had essentially admitted that he considered facts unimportant, or anyway less important than his own “suspicion.” In effect, Reagan’s phrasing established a contrast between science and common sense.

  Who you gonna trust, he might as well have said — those snooty folks in the white coats? Or decent, levelheaded people like me?

  Levitan sees Reagan’s trope as a hallmark of science denialism, a rhetorical license for unrestrained flimflam. “I’m not a scientist,” a politician begins, and goes on to butcher scientific knowledge in whatever way suits his purposes. Sometimes the speaker cites a scientific claim but muddles or distorts the facts. Sometimes the speaker presumes to speak for the scientific community, but only cites maverick or disreputable sources. And sometimes a speaker says things so nonsensical that concepts like truth or evidence hardly apply.

  All these tricks have one thing in common: they subordinate the long-term interests of scientists to the immediate needs of politicians. Those who value science must be alert for such deceptions, and for the caveat, “I’m not a scientist,” that so often precedes them.

  As a guide for the perplexed, Levitan offers a taxonomy of common ways in which politicians undermine science — “a catalogue of swindles and perversions,” to borrow a phrase from one expert in political perfidy. Among these are such familiar intellectual errors as cherry-picking and oversimplification, ad-hominem arguments that demonize people who make unpopular claims, and old-school political maneuvers like insincere flattery or stealing credit for others’ accomplishments.

  Levitan’s powers of classification are sometimes strained by the breadth of his subject. Politicians are mistaken or disingenuous so often, on so many subjects, in so many ways, that a full account of their foibles would become a general study of human nature. He often strays from covering the misrepresentation of scientific research into exposing legislative tussles and everyday chicanery.

  One of Levitan’s case studies, for instance, concerns Robert Lucas, a man imprisoned for illegally building apartment complexes on Florida wetlands. Levitan describes how Lucas’ story was sensationalized by cynical politicians, who used it to level cheap attacks on the EPA.

  The case has some bearing on scientific issues, like the study and conservation of wetland environments, but most of the facts Levitan checks here are legal ones: the length of Lucas’ sentence, the laws under which Lucas was charged by federal prosecutors, whether or not Lucas was subject to any civil lawsuits, and so on. (Many politicians are trained as lawyers, but that doesn’t keep them from mangling legal matters as badly as scientific ones.)

  Still, any book covering both science and politics is bound to get a little bogged down in policy. As a primer in the sins of spin, Levitan’s list looks hard to beat. I particularly recommend chapter six, which shows how politicians dismiss groundbreaking research by describing it in deliberately silly language — a ploy that can be used by cynics and simpletons to mock almost any pursuit. (Ya hear about that guy Newton? Spent all this time trying to prove how if you drop something, it falls on the ground. What a dope!)

  This isn’t a book about how politicians in general abuse science. It’s a book about how certain kinds of politicians abuse science — the kind who garner approving coverage on Fox News. Levitan avers that Republicans as a party have “largely abandoned mainstream scientific viewpoints.”

  Is that fair? A reviewer ought to admit his biases. I think liberals can be overeager to declare scientific questions “settled.” And garbling complex research is a universal tendency. But overall, I’d say Levitan has chosen his targets well.

  If anything, he’s too generous. He refrains from probing politicians’ intentions, looking instead at the substance of their claims. That’s a revealing omission. What’s striking about the enemies of science is that they talk mostly about intentions, while scientists prefer to talk about probabilities.

  A scientist asks, in all earnestness, “How likely is it that humans are warming the atmosphere?” An enemy of science asks, “Why should we trust what scientists say? They could all be deranged by groupthink, or corrupt tools of the government, or perpetrating a giant hoax.”

  Maybe we should ask the question scientifically: “How many scientists are likely to be deranged, corrupt, or hoaxers?” That’s a tricky question. It would take an excellent scientist to answer it.

  Nick Wolven’s writing has appeared in The Year’s Best Science Fiction & Fantasy 2016, Asimov’s Science Fiction, the New England Review, and many other publications.

• American Laboratory
  http://www.americanlaboratory.com/Blog/337121-Book-Review-Not-a-Scientist/
  Word count: 650

  Book Review: Not a Scientist
  Posted: May 1, 2017

  inShare
  5
  Email Print Comments (0)
  Robert L. Stevenson, Ph.D. Robert L. Stevenson, Ph.D.
  The subtitle—How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science—explains the book, Not a Scientist*. With today’s headlines, what could be timelier? However, Dave Levitan explains that the final draft of his book was completed before the 2016 presidential election. Since the election, the MO has changed to confronting science and attacking scientists in many agencies directly. Our colleagues are seen as part of the resistance and are thus distrusted. Of course, this has helped drive scientists even further from the Trump administration and the Republican segment of Congress.

  Levitan analyzes how politicians have tried to put the most positive spin on science to further their prejudice. He catalogs common behavior patterns that politicians employ when dealing with science. Scenarios include oversimplification, which often leads to “trust me.” Cherry-picking involves seeing only data that support the preconceived idea. Levitan coined the acronym “TOADS”—Those who Oppose Action/Deniers/Skeptics—for climate change deniers. “Butter-up and Undercut” is a more complex pattern, where the politician starts off with laudatory words, then sneaks in a zinger or two that supports reversal of goals. “Blame the Blogger” talks about quoting “alternate facts” that are traced to the web, often to a blog. The quality of blogs varies from negative infinity to right on. “Ridicule and Dismiss” is often used in stump speeches to draw laughs and then dismiss the topic as not worth further discussion. Senator Proxmire took “ridicule and dismiss” a step further with his Golden Fleece Awards.

  “The Credit Snatch” is Levitan’s name for a politician taking credit for something that he/she had little or nothing to do with. For example, construction projects take longer than a politician’s term. The successor gets to cut the ribbon, and the dedication plaque usually credits the incumbent and seldom the initiators.

  Levitan advises that the behavior patterns of politicians are timeless; only the situation changes. He concludes that our elected officials are indeed not scientists. “Keep that in mind as they try to sneak their not science past you.”

  My take-away from the book:

  All too often, politicians try to spin science to support their political agenda and prejudices. It is often hard to separate whether the politician actually believes what he or she says or is just mouthing a benign, evasive response. Or, politicians might be just telling their constituents what they want to hear.

  The vast majority of scientific work products are really consistency statements or models that derive value from the fact that the results can be repeated, even if absolute proof is lacking. In my experience with nonscientists, explaining the fine points of consistency statements and “correlation does not prove causation” elicits stares of incomprehension.

  After reading Levitan’s groupings of political behavior, I came to recognize how difficult it is for politicians to communicate to their constituents on complex topics such as fracking, global warming, vaccines, or abortion rights when neither party has scientific training and lacks a working concept of the philosophy of science. Neither seems to recognize that definitive proofs are seldom achievable. The huge distance usually separating the politician from the primary papers confounds this subtle distinction. Too many times, they spout “alternative facts” that grossly misstate the science. I think this is even more true for the American public.

  I recommend this book as good reading for anyone interested in science.

  *Levitan, D. Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science. W.W. Norton: New York, NY, Apr 2017; ISBN 978-0-393-35332-7

  Robert L. Stevenson, Ph.D., is Editor Emeritus, American Laboratory/Labcompare; e-mail: rlsteven@comcast.net.

• The Washington Post
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-spot-a-misrepresentation-about-climate-change/2017/05/24/fee19c1e-0b0c-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.2264bfd27e96
  Word count: 524

  How to spot a misrepresentation about climate change

  Sen. James Inhofe brought a snowball into the Senate as part of his effort to debunk global warming. (Cspan2)
  By Amanda Erickson May 25
  Amanda Erickson is a reporter for The Washington Post’s Worldviews blog.

  Truths are all alike, but every lie is dishonest in its own way.

  That could be the mantra of “Not a Scientist,” by journalist Dave Levitan. Levitan has scoured the public record for politicians’ most egregious misstatements, misrepresentations and manglings of scientific fact. He fact-checks and classifies these “alternative facts,” many about climate change, and creates a taxonomy of untruths that may, he writes, help his readers suss out what’s right for themselves.

  Among his categories: the “oversimplification” (when a politician says, for example, that 2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record, obscuring the complicated science of assessing global temperature); the “cherry-pick” (Sen. James Inhofe gave a master class on this when he brought a snowball onto the Senate floor in 2015 to prove that climate change is a myth); and the “demonizer” (when, for instance, a public official blames a disease outbreak on illegal immigrants).

  subscribe
  Get 1 year digital access for $99$79
  Subscribe today
  [In the Google age, knowledge (without clicking) still matters]

  (Norton)
  In each case, Levitan traces the lies back to the source. He points out that when Rep. Gary Palmer (Ala.) went on the radio in 2015 to say that the government was manipulating climate-change data, the argument in fact came from climate-change denier (and retired accountant) Paul Homewood. On his blog, Homewood offered no evidence to back up his incendiary claim of massive temperature tampering. Even so, that piece was picked up by Christopher Booker of the British newspaper the Telegraph and then shared hundreds of thousands of times. (Levitan calls this type of fib “blame the blogger.” )

  The book offers a common-sense approach for catching misrepresentations. “When a politician makes what sounds like a very specific point — no warming for seventeen years, not sixteen or eighteen — be wary.” And: “Every measurement . . . [has] some margin for error. Pointing that out when it suits a political agenda isn’t an argument; it’s just a smokescreen.”

  Levitan’s analysis is accurate and often interesting. But the book feels terribly light on the “why” — why are politicians so willing to mangle science? How do corporations and other special interests back them up? How did we become a country of scientific know-nothings?

  While the author spends a lot of time debunking myths around climate change, I wish he’d talked about how companies like ExxonMobil spent millions on phony science and research to create the confusion about global warming that so many people now feel, even in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus.

  Instead, though, Levitan sticks to the facts. By doing so, he might miss the bigger picture.

  NOT A SCIENTIST
  How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science
  By Dave Levitan

  Norton. 256 pp. $15.95 paperback

• Scientific American
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-explorers-pet-foxes-science-hucksterism-and-other-new-science-books/
  Word count: 137

  Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science
  by Dave Levitan
  W.W. Norton, 2017 ($15.95)
  “I'm not a scientist” is a line officials love to use to avoid having to acknowledge that what actual scientists say is true—for example, that human-caused climate change is ravaging the planet. “It is a dodge,” journalist Levitan writes, “a bit of down-home hucksterism designed to marginalize those eggheads over there who actually are scientists as somehow out of touch or silly.” He identifies several ways politicians misrepresent science, such as “the certain uncertainty,” in which they argue that “since we don't know it all, we don't know anything.” This well-argued guide should help readers see through such smoke screens and encourage lawmakers to be more accountable and accurate when it comes to science.

Word Count