Most people attack pseudoscience emotionally. That is already a mistake. Pseudoscience does not survive because people are stupid. It survives because the human mind likes coherence more than correction, certainty more than method, and narrative more than evidence. This book matters precisely because it does not treat pseudoscience as a circus of weird beliefs. It treats it as a structural failure of thinking. And that is the right frame. What we have here is not a single-author argument, but an edited collection published by MIT Press, bringing together more than twenty contributions that examine pseudoscience through case studies, analysis, and personal accounts. The book is explicitly concerned with how to recognize pseudoscience, why it spreads so easily, and how to defend real science in a culture that often rewards confidence more than rigor. What the book is really about This is not a book about astrology, conspiracy theories, or miracle cures as isolated curiosities. It is a book about epistemic weakness. About the cognitive, social, and cultural conditions that make nonsense look persuasive. About how bad reasoning borrows the costume of science. About why people with education, status, and access to information still fall for claims that collapse under basic scrutiny. In my view, that is the book’s strongest move: it shifts the conversation from what weird things people believe to why the architecture of belief is so vulnerable in the first place. Strengths 1. It is broader than a simple debunking manual. The book approaches pseudoscience from several angles rather than pretending one explanation is enough. Psychology, philosophy of science, social forces, and concrete examples all enter the room. 2. It treats belief formation seriously. That matters. Mockery is cheap. Analysis is harder. This collection tries to explain the mechanism, not just ridicule the symptom. 3. It is useful for intellectual hygiene. The book does not merely say, “this claim is false.” It helps the reader see how false claims dress themselves up as expertise, courage, dissent, or hidden truth.

Not because I stopped caring about this space. Not because I lost interest in teaching. I got pulled into a serious business scam situation and had to give a lot of my attention to cleaning it up, understanding what happened, and handling the consequences properly. That season took more from me than I expected. But I’m coming back to regular posting now. Slowly, steadily, and with intention. This community matters to me, and I want to get back to sharing useful, practical material here on a consistent basis. I also want to return to live sessions step by step, in a way that actually works for you. So tell me in the comments: What day would be best for live sessions? What time would be most convenient for you? I’d love to build the rhythm around real participation, not guesses. I’m also working on a few new content series for this community. Right now I’ve been sharing books, lessons and insights and I want to expand that with a few more thoughtful formats. Also, I recently started writing my book on Substack. I’ll leave the link here in case you want to follow that process too. Glad to be back here. Let’s rebuild the rhythm together.