What makes a book a work of science

At the end of Michael Shermer's review of Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion (“Arguing for atheism,” Books et al. , 26 Jan., p. [463][1]), we find the following statement: “Dawkins's latest book deserves multiple readings, not just as an important work of science, but as a great work of literature.” The literary merits of this work are for others to judge. The assertion that the book is science is my concern. Science makes observations of the natural world and constructs testable models that explain these data. I would ask my colleagues: Where is the science in this text? What data make it a scientific work? Perhaps it could then be considered a work of scholarship in philosophy. In that case, we would expect references to primary sources and reasoned criticism, taking into account the latest developments in the field. Consider chapter 3, where his refutation of Thomas Aquinas's five ways reveals that Dawkins has read tertiary sources, if that, and makes common mistakes regarding what Aquinas was arguing (i.e., “design” as opposed to “governance”). He could have, for instance, used a recent discussion of the five ways [e.g., ([1][2])] to correct his mistakes and bolster his critique, and that would have at least been scholarship. So if the book contains no data and lacks scholarship, we must question the author's and the reviewer's credibility on this topic. For the reviewer to characterize such a book as science is disingenuous to the extreme. This is exactly the kind of statement, especially in an AAAS publication, that confuses the real issues in science and religion. How is it that these scientists and this respected journal have forgotten their own standards? 1. 1.[↵][3] 1. Davies Brian 1. J. F. Wippel , in Thomas Aquinas: Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives, Davies Brian, Ed. (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2002), pp. 159-225. # Response {#article-title-2} Martinez Hewlett holds a narrow view of what constitutes a work of science—primary research only, secondary sources cited only in discussion of the primary research. To that extent, only the type of articles that are published in the peer-reviewed sections of journals like Science would constitute real science, with everything else relegated to mere popularization. Were this the case, of course, it would obviate many of the greatest works in the history of science, from Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel . If these are not works of science, then what are they? They are higher-order works of science—synthesizing, integrating, and coalescing primary works of science into a unifying whole with the goal of testing a general theory or answering a grand question. This is what Richard Dawkins has done in The God Delusion , addressing what has to be the grandest question of all—God's existence. Dawkins synthesizes, integrates, and coalesces hundreds of experiments, studies, hypotheses, models, and theories to provide a reasoned answer to the God question. One may disagree with Dawkins's conclusions, but if that is the case, then one must specify which experiments, studies, hypotheses, models, and theories that he or she thinks do support the God hypothesis. The fact that Dawkins did not cite this or that theologian or philosopher favored by the reader or reviewer is not his problem. The God Delusion is not intended to be a comprehensive scholarly monograph listing every book and article ever written on the subject. For a science book written for a general audience, The God Delusion provides more than enough references to primary sources to provide most readers with the terms of the debate and the best arguments on both sides. Yes, Dawkins has an agenda, a thesis, a point he wants to make. But that is another characteristic of great works of science, as Darwin himself noted in response to a critique he received that The Origin of Species was too theoretical and that he should have just let the facts speak for themselves: “About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorize, and I well remember someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!” ([1][4]). I call this Darwin's Dictum ([2][5])—all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service—and Dawkins has followed it to the letter. Finally, the fact that Dawkins writes so clearly and cleverly, with literary style, wit, and humor, elevates this work of science to a higher plane of literature. Those who bewail popular science writing typically have no idea how to do it, and if they tried, they would discover that it is actually much harder than technical science writing. To that end, to the usual horizontal divide of science writing into technical and popular (often artificial, in any case), I would add that there is a vertical divide of science writing: good and bad. Although no one fully understands why books land and stay on the New York Times bestseller list, I venture to say that one reason The God Delusion has been riding that wave to publishing success for over six months at the time of writing is that it is a good read. 1. 1.[↵][6] 1. F. Darwin , The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (John Murray, London, 1887), II, p. 121. [OpenUrl][7] 2. 2.[↵][8] 1. M. Shermer , Sci. Am. 282, 38 (April 2001). [OpenUrl][9] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1138989 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1. in text" [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #ref-3 [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 1. in text" [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BLife%2Band%2BLetters%2Bof%2BCharles%2BDarwin%26rft.volume%253DII%26rft.spage%253D121%26rft.atitle%253DTHE%2BLIFE%2BAND%2BLETTERS%2BOF%2BCHARLES%2BDARWIN%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 2. in text" [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DSci.%2BAm.%26rft.volume%253D282%26rft.spage%253D38%26rft.atitle%253DSCI%2BAM%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx