SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Abominable Science! Media Round Up

by Daniel Loxton, Sep 03 2013

Abominable_Science_cover-576pxAs we finish the first full month of release for Abominable Science!, I’m pleased to say that a number of reactions and reviews have emerged. My co-author Don Prothero and I have also had the pleasure of a number of interesting interview conversations about the book.  I thought that I might take a moment to round up some of the press highlights to date:

  • Wall Street Journal: book review (paywall);
  • The Times of London: book review (paywall);
  • Nature: full page book review (paywall);
  • Discover magazine: “Hot Books in September” book review;
  • National Geographic Daily News: interview with Loxton and Prothero;
  • National Geographic Phenomena blogs: book review by Brian Switek;
  • BBC Focus magazine: book review, plus sidebar interview with Loxton (print only);
  • BBC Focus magazine podcast, August 2013: interview with Loxton;
  • The Scientist magazine: book review;
  • Inside Higher Ed: book review;
  • Publishers Weekly: book review;
  • Library Journal: Starred Review (July 2013, print only);
  • MonsterTalk podcast #68: interview with Loxton and Prothero (a personal favorite of mine!);
  • Doubtful News: preliminary review;
  • The Rob Breakenridge Show: live radio interview with Loxton, NewsTalk 770 Calgary & 630/CHED Edmonton;
  • Strange Frequencies Radio podcast #251: webcast live interview with Loxton and Prothero;
  • Virtual Skeptics podcast #52: live-streamed video;
  • Columbia University Press text interview with Prothero and Loxton
  • Los Angeles Magazine: book review;
  • Central Time on Wisconsin Public Radio: live radio interview with Loxton and Prothero on August 21, 2013;
  • Skepticality podcast #213: interview with Loxton and Prothero;
  • Cryptozoologist Matt Bille’s thoughtful critical review of the book;

And on a less positive note,

Like Daniel Loxton’s work? Read more in the pages of Skeptic magazine. Subscribe today in print or digitally!

4 Responses to “Abominable Science! Media Round Up”

  1. Tom says:

    Congratulations! As I was reading the WSJ review over the weekend, I was picturing Loxton strapping Prothero to a chair and affixing those Clockwork Orange eye clamps in order to force him to read the Journal. “Look, Don, it’s not entirely evil.”

    • Dragonfly says:

      I wish someone would answer that one guy’s comment on the wsj book review. I would, but I don’t have the time to argue with someone on the internet this weekend. :(

  2. Mr. B says:

    I own this and it’s good. Will it convince anyone with the common sense approach to looking at Bigfoot, Yeti, Nessie, etc? Hope so, but I doubt it. Had a good smirk (hearty laugh? big sigh?) at the negative reviews. Why I look at those reviews on amazon is beyond me. Self-inflicted pain, I guess. Anyway, the “bigfoot community” can’t see past their noses. They don’t get it. Tantrums. Rant reviews (which is typical for amazon) that are bones to pick.

  3. Kenny Tew says:

    This should be a reply to dragonfly, but I cant reply directly on my phone and the website won’t let me post from my work computer.

    It isn’t so much a review as a series of assertions pasted in from creationist websites. In one example an attempt to smear science is made thus,
    “The American Museum of Natural History has a life-sized African diorama with a hairy male and female ape-like homonids walking upright—based on a set of footprints!”
    This is pasted word for word from a creationist site without reference and is wrong for so many reasons.
    1) The criticism of an artist’s work that is displayed at the American Museum of Natural History has nothing whatsoever to do with this book.
    2) Artists reconstructions are not part of the scientific evidence; they are a way of representing the findings to the public.
    3) The hominid reconstructions are not based upon the Laetoli tracks alone; in fact many Australopithecus afarensis (our current best candidate for the tracks) specimens had been discovered and well researched before the model was made. It was based upon these discoveries.
    So in summary this particular element of the review is both completely irrelevant and completely wrong. I have not bothered with the rest of the review, it deserves no attention because it is so poor.

    I would post this on the wall street journal website, but can’t without paying for a subscription.