Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us

Sara E. Gorman,

Jack M. Gorman

3.91 · Rating details · 150 ratings · 33 reviews

Why do some parents refuse to vaccinate their children? Why do some people keep guns at home, despite scientific evidence of risk to their family members? And why do people use antibiotics for illnesses they cannot possibly alleviate? When it comes to health, many people insist that science is wrong, that the evidence is incomplete, and that unidentified hazards lurk every ...more

Get A Copy

Hardcover, 328 pages

Published September 1st 2016 by Oxford University Press, USA (first published August 1st 2016)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Denying to the Grave, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Denying to the Grave

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.91 ·

Rating details

· 150 ratings · 33 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us

Apr 16, 2017 Shaun rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, read-in-2017, brain-science

This is a book that explores why people ignore science. The conclusion can be summed up in four words, because we are human. The book and its authors also attempt to offer solutions for getting people to listen to science, a task that seems like it should be relatively simple, but that really isn't.

One of my favorite non-fiction topics is the biology of belief and behavior, and this books compliments other things I've read.

Although many of the ideas offered here, as well as a good chunk of the ...more

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

May 12, 2016 Jessica Meats rated it liked it

Shelves: non-fiction

Denying to the Grave is a book on a very interesting concept: why do people believe things even when there is a wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary? The book talks about a lot of general principles, but repeatedly turns to a few specific cases to demonstrate these principles in action. These cases include:
- The belief that vaccines cause autisms
- That owning a gun makes your safer
- That GMO foods are dangerous
- That antibiotics are useful in treating viral infections
- That nuclear pow Denying to the Grave is a book on a very interesting concept: why do people believe things even when there is a wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary? The book talks about a lot of general principles, but repeatedly turns to a few specific cases to demonstrate these principles in action. These cases include:
- The belief that vaccines cause autisms
- That owning a gun makes your safer
- That GMO foods are dangerous
- That antibiotics are useful in treating viral infections
- That nuclear power is extremely dangerous
- That drinking unpasteurised milk is better for you than drinking pasteurised milk

The authors look at the ways in which people start to believe these sort of things, and then they delve into some of the psychological principles that explain why those beliefs stick with us. They look at how much easier it is to remember emotionally-charged information (so reading stories about children getting ill is more likely to stay with you than dull statistics). They look at things like conformation bias (noticing and being drawn to evidence that supports our existing beliefs), group dynamics (automatically siding with members of your group against perceived outsiders), and the fact that it takes a lot more evidence to change our minds than to form an idea in the first place.

One thing I found particularly interesting was that they used a counter example to demonstrate that we can't just dismiss conspiracy theories off-hand. They talked about the tobacco industry and how the companies involved in it were able to, for years, threaten scientists, fudge data, and promote misleading reports in order to dismiss claims about the harms of smoking. By pulling out this example, the authors make it clear how difficult it can be to know which side of a scientific debate is true until you look carefully at the supporting evidence.

Speaking of evidence, throughout the book, the principles being discussed are backed up by evidence, with references to studies and scientific reports. Despite this, there are a few points where the authors speculate on how certain belief-forming approaches might have developed in humans. Given the rigorous supporting of their facts in other places, these occasional divergences into speculation stood out.

I also found it strange the examples that were being used. The book is framed as being about health concerns - so things like gun ownership stood out as not quite following these theme. I admit that getting shot is serious health concern, but compared to topics like the GMO food or the autism-vaccine connection, this point didn't seem to fit with the others.

In terms of the subject matter, I found the book very interesting, but in terms of style, I found it repetitive in places. Some arguments and points would come up in one chapter and then be discussed again in a later chapter. Sometimes, the authors would explain a scientific point or principle, and then explain it again in slightly different wording in the next paragraph. If you're new to some of the principles of psychology and statistics that are discussed in this book, this might be useful to you, but for me it detracted from my enjoyment.

The book also delves into some quite detailed statistics in places. This is important for proving the point about evidence, but it also serves to demonstrate another point the authors make: statistics make dull reading. These were not the most interesting parts of the book.

On the whole, I enjoyed the book. If Goodreads allowed for half stars, I'd put it at 3 1/2. I think it's an important and interesting subject matter, but the style of the book made it a little dull in places.

I received an advanced copy of the e-book in exchange for an honest review. ...more

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

Dec 02, 2016 Art rated it it was amazing

Shelves: sociology, read-in-2016, published-2016, science

The outcome of last month’s election taints the reading of current social science books, such as those that examine truth and reason as well as fact and science. The incoming fact-impaired and anti-science administration fails to understand these virtues. And that makes it all the more urgent to read these books and glean what lessons we can. In time, a new crop of books will explore science and reason in the new administration.

Denying to the Grave, written by a father and daughter, examines wh ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Mar 16, 2017 Matt Hunt rated it it was ok

Shelves: non-fiction, health-psychology, science, 2017

It all boils down to humans are emotional, social, random animals, not rational, reasonable predictable models.

I'm giving this two stars not because I disagree with anything they had to say, I just found it a bit dull. I wanted some new insight and thought from it but I'm left in exactly the same place. Except I know another book that says lots of things I agree with but hasn't helped my thoughts develop any further.

They probably deserve more than two stars. But fuck it, I'm being miserable to ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jun 02, 2016 Mark rated it it was amazing

Cognitive decision-making processes that worked reasonably well for humans in a less complex environment are now obstacles in processing highly complicated and, often, ambiguous issues.

Denying to the Grave explores the many neurological, social, and psychological reasons why every one of us can accept something that is false, and hold on to it even in the presence of compelling and overwhelming data against a belief.

In the span of six chapters, each fairly long, Sara and Jack Gorman tack specif Cognitive decision-making processes that worked reasonably well for humans in a less complex environment are now obstacles in processing highly complicated and, often, ambiguous issues.

Denying to the Grave explores the many neurological, social, and psychological reasons why every one of us can accept something that is false, and hold on to it even in the presence of compelling and overwhelming data against a belief.

In the span of six chapters, each fairly long, Sara and Jack Gorman tack specific areas that contribute to our cognitive dysfunctions when it comes to having to think about, process, and make decisions about data and facts as they pertain to science and research. The Gormans use a number of examples throughout the book to illustrate how common reasoning processes by people, including scientists, can lead to wrong conclusions. These examples include vaccines, GMO, gun ownership, and nuclear power. Even if you don't agree with some of their positions, don't let their specific points of view on these deter you from understanding how the broader cognitive and emotional functions combine to lead people toward decisions.

Throughout these chapters the Gormans discuss how and why our brains default toward shortcuts (thinking about things is highly energy and time expensive), why our decisions are so tied to emotions (empathy helps us get along with larger society), why we prefer the specific over the abstract (stories and anecdotes are easier to grasp than statistics), and why these so often lead to wrong decisions when it comes to issues that require greater thought and processing. They describe how initial impressions get stuck by acting like a opioid drug in our brains: when our held beliefs are affirmed, they activate our brains' pleasure centers. Conversely when we hear conflicting data, our fear responses are triggered, meaning changing our minds is an uphill battle and that the reward for the change must be greater than holding on to current beliefs.

The concluding chapter ("Conclusion") lists several guiding principles and solutions that we ought to take for ourselves and influence adoption in the society at large, so that future generations will better understand the nuances of science and be more open to reviewing past beliefs and changing their minds when the data warrants.

The Gormans admit that some people will never change their minds on some issues, in spite of the data and facts, and how much the suggestions provided in this book are employed. This book is not for these kinds of people.

This book is for two broad groups: 1) those who are already very science-minded and want to learn how to communicate their positions more effectively; and 2) those who may not be as knowledgable and educated in science, who may be on the fence about some or many issues, but are at least open to some degree to understanding issues and making better decisions through rational thinking.

I think this book is very valuable to all who want to understand better why they think the way they do, why there are people who don't think the way you do, and to know how and when to communicate our beliefs and positions. Although this book deals specifically with issues of science, I think many of the principles apply to and can be borrowed by other fields.

(Advance Reading Copy provided by published through NetGalley.) ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 06, 2019 Hector López rated it really liked it

Human nature, so complicated!

Sara Gorman evidences it, but she also insists on the rational behavior value (whatever this implies), no matter how hard it was. In this case, in epidemiological environments and other controversial topics related to health.

However, it allows me collaterally, to understand more the politician's strategy and the scientist's convicing limitations.

Excelente lectura, redacción certera, se percibe la academia por detrás, aunque nada que no supiera antes y con frecuencia ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

May 12, 2016 Ann rated it it was amazing

Shelves: arcs, books-reviewed

In "Denying to the Grave," authors Sara and Jack Gorman have created a book that, frankly, I wish everyone would read. As an undergraduate and later a graduate student, I took a number of courses in psychology and public health, so much of the material presented (on cognitive biases, persuasion, group dynamics, and so on) was already familiar to me. Even so, I came away from this book with a deeper understanding of these topics, and perhaps more importantly, a sense for how I might apply this in In "Denying to the Grave," authors Sara and Jack Gorman have created a book that, frankly, I wish everyone would read. As an undergraduate and later a graduate student, I took a number of courses in psychology and public health, so much of the material presented (on cognitive biases, persuasion, group dynamics, and so on) was already familiar to me. Even so, I came away from this book with a deeper understanding of these topics, and perhaps more importantly, a sense for how I might apply this information to my own life. Having spent most of my working life in research jobs, I have great respect for scientific reasoning and the scientific method. But I am often dismayed by how little others appreciate and understand science and how it works. Too often I see friends and acquaintances (even those I've always considered intelligent) fall prey to pseudoscience and fail to apply basic scientific reasoning. From what I've read in this book, I can now see why my efforts to educate them may have failed and what methods might be more successful in the future. All that said, this is not just a book for academics and scientists. The content of this book would be helpful to anyone who comes into contact with scientific information in their daily lives--and let's face it, we all do. Although unfortunately the writing is dry in the way most academic writing is, concepts are presented clearly, such that even a lay audience would not have too much trouble following along. This book would also be a great resource to professors and instructors of psychology trying to cultivate critical thinking in their students--many examples discussed in the text could be incorporated into lectures and in class activities. Though I fear this book may not be enticing enough to lay readers, I hope that some will have the patience and take the time to read this book.

**I received an advanced review copy of this book from NetGalley and Oxford University Press in exchange for an honest, unbiased opinion.** ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 17, 2018 Gwen rated it liked it

Must read for anyone looking to better understand confirmation bias. Good first steps in closing the gap between medical science and poor behavior choices. Underlying dynamics could explain the widening gap between experts in general and the broader community.

I recommend this book to journalists, political science enthusiasts and anyone in the medical field hoping to pave the way toward healthier behavioral choices.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

May 18, 2018 Stefanie rated it really liked it

I gave it an extra star for the dire importance of the information and the message of this book. I love reading nonfiction in the social sciences (it's both my job and my preferred form of entertainment), but I got bogged down from time to time. Still, it's worth the read.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 29, 2017 Peter McKenzie-Brown rated it it was amazing

Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts that Will Save Us
by Sara Gorman and Jack Gorman
2017; Oxford University Press; Oxford

This book is about the politics of bad science. Here are a few examples.

• Phony science, based on a sample of 12 individuals, created the cult of anti-vaxxers. These are the people who refuse to vaccinate their children against disease because they think it will induce autism in them.

• News stories about outbreaks of the Zika virus, for example, created panic in the ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 15, 2016 Craig Hassler rated it did not like it

I am in the process of reading this book but found some things that disturbed me right off the bat:
1. I'm reading book in November, 2016 but it's copyright is 2017.

2. Oxford University Press seems to indicate a "status" of veracity not deserved especially since date is more recent than book was actually published indicating a need to make the "research" seem more current. Haven't most scientific discoveries happened w/ random people investigating observations/theories in their own private labs w ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 11, 2017 Heather rated it really liked it

Recommends it for: Kristie Saumure

Shelves: nonfiction, librarianship, health

A wide-ranging examination of the many reasons people denying scientific evidence, with a particular focus on health evidence. There is a tendency among health care experts to attribute the attitudes of anti-vaxxers and those with other false health believes to a lack of "health literacy," which essentially just means we need to educate people better, and the public needs to learn not to believe everything they read on the internet (OK, I'm oversimplifying a bit). But this doesn't explain some o ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 02, 2016 Susan rated it it was amazing

Shelves: books-read-in-2016

Many years ago I taught AP Psychology. This book covers what I considered the most important part of that curriculum for my students - how to recognize the pitfalls of human thinking processes. Scientific and statistical reasoning fundamentals are lost on many average citizens and even the most educated and intelligent among us fall victim to flaws in human thinking. Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, availability huerisitic, causation vs. correlation, Type 1 errors, Type 2 errors, multi c Many years ago I taught AP Psychology. This book covers what I considered the most important part of that curriculum for my students - how to recognize the pitfalls of human thinking processes. Scientific and statistical reasoning fundamentals are lost on many average citizens and even the most educated and intelligent among us fall victim to flaws in human thinking. Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, availability huerisitic, causation vs. correlation, Type 1 errors, Type 2 errors, multi causality, null hypotheses, and lack of certainty in any experimental design results are all discussed in this book.

The authors use as examples the anti vaccine movement, the anti GMO movement, and the anti ECT movement to show that science has produced legitimate evidence to support vaccines, use of ECT and GMO and yet there are millions that refuse to believe the evidence when presented. The "how" of its presentation as well as the "who" of the presentation has an impact on whether any one's position can be changed.

Lack of critical thinking skills, lack of understanding of the use and abuse of statistics, and the ignorance of how experimental design is carried out and replicated is rampant in our society. It is NOT taught in our schools and that is why I believed it to be one of the more important aspects of my course. It was also one that often made my students stop and stare in amazement at the everyday examples I gave in class. This book would provide for me and for them more examples of our flawed thinking processes and the rabbit holes they often lead us down.

Refusing to question our conclusions when new evidence is presented - or even when old evidence is presented in a less threatening way - is the basis of denial. And denial is a powerful defense in not only addiction, but in our everyday society.

I highly recommend this book to those who want to see "how" we think ( process) is so often the problem in and of itself and not the content of what we are thinking about - whether it be GMO's, or vaccines, or ECT, or the recent political chaos and blatant flawed thinking that is rampant in every news cast on any channel. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 11, 2017 Kay rated it really liked it

It's just so refreshing to read a book written by two really smart people, in this case highly educated father and daughter healthcare/health-related professionals. I'm always looking for ways to increase acceptance rates of information--especially that not understood by most people. So many (probably me included) are quick to dismiss those who are more knowledgeable and go with the gut or what one believes should be true. They address chief health-related concerns. The disconcerting thing is--t ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 10, 2017 Andrew rated it really liked it

A great study of the fears and cognitive biases that lead people to adopt and hold onto irrational positions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Much deeper, broad-ranging, and empathetic than I expected.

The lessons learned here are readily applied to other domains, such as (cough) US politics. It deserves to be widely read.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 25, 2019 Uninvited rated it it was amazing

We all think that the main reason some people cling to unscientific notions, like, e.g., believing vaccines cause autism, or that gmos cause cancer, is mainly misinformation and/or stupidity. Although those reasons may exist in some cases, this book opens up a whole new perspective on why this happens. It might be the case that criminal negligence due to denial of scientific reason may not (always) be caused by misinformation/stupidity, but by different reasons, which can be acknowledged and add ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 06, 2020 Lindsay Bolender rated it really liked it

Overall, this book was useful. It details the whole ton of science behind why people deny facts, and successfully debunks the myth that it’s always because people are uneducated or ignorant. A lot of the science was old news to me, having studied the psychology of education, but there were some things I didn’t know, and some things I hadn’t considered in the context of science denial. There were also some useful ways to think about how to approach a denial conversation in a way that will be succ ...more

flag Like · see review

Sep 21, 2018 Melissa rated it liked it

Very interesting topic as it pertains to my career and impacts how I would teach regarding vaccines etc. Not a top pick for most people however this could pertain to anyone who is interested in understanding how and why we make our decisions and stick to them/promote these ideas. I love this kind of stuff!

flag Like · see review

Jan 10, 2019 Ruth rated it liked it

Shelves: non-fic

Very dry and repetitive. Basically tells us what we already knew, that those who disbelieve the scientific evidence generally do so based on emotionally charged “stories” that may or may not be actually true. Solutions are brief and difficult to implement. Not sure that this book will make a difference, but one can hope.

flag Like · see review

Jun 29, 2019 David rated it liked it

Leaving science to scientists is dangerous. Unfortunately, the authors observe, "only after the false notions become embedded in people's minds does the scientific community mount any meager attempt to counteract it." Lastly, posing science as a threat to faith has had far-reaching negative consequences.

flag Like · see review

Nov 20, 2019 Chris Vallancourt rated it liked it

This book discusses some interesting research in why we think the way we do despite evidence to the contrary, but it too often reads like a textbook with very stilted writing. The authors lay out ideas for increasing science literacy, which would be a good start, but how many people want to think objectively?

flag Like · see review

Jun 30, 2017 Ryan rated it it was amazing

This should be required reading. It can be a slow read in spots but the content is excellent and important.

flag Like · see review

Aug 17, 2017 Pamela rated it it was amazing

This book skillfully covers how humans operate and why. Many insights and lucid explanations with many mysteries remaining, of course. Well written.

flag Like · see review

Feb 28, 2018 Mary Evans rated it it was ok

The premise of the book sounds fascinating, but the writing is so dry that I could not force myself to finish it.

flag Like · see review

Aug 20, 2018 Xing Lan rated it it was amazing

This book is brilliant, and the two authors are also excellent. Even though the potential readers are Americans, as a Chinese, I find it useful.

flag Like · see review

May 10, 2020 Rob Lewis rated it liked it · review of another edition

Was on my list before the Rona but is especially timely. We need to do better.

flag Like · see review

Jan 02, 2017 David Tybor rated it did not like it

Great idea. Terrible execution.

flag Like · see review

Jan 23, 2017 Matt rated it really liked it

Shelves: nonfiction, cognition

This book covers tremendously important issues that are relevant in scientific inquiry and beyond. Why do we misjudge risk, believe things in contradiction of direct evidence, and generally behave in irrational ways about health-related subjects? The authors argue that there are multiple answers and no easy fixes. While the style can be dry and the anecdotes repetitive, the concerns are valid. As a society, we need to do a better job at making science accessible and understandable to the average ...more

flag Like · see review

Aug 03, 2016 Pam Thomas rated it it was amazing

This book asks the basic questions "Why do you not vaccinate your children". "Why do you take antibiotics which do not work and most importantly of all Why do you not listen to health related wisdom when offered it. This book is a bit of a challenge asking the self same questions many ask but never get the right answer to.

flag Like · see review

Jul 05, 2017 Mike Klein rated it liked it

A good but ultimately little frustrating read. Yes, the points raised are valid as are their specific examples. Where I ended up frustrated was the idea that scientists--who kind of caused the problem (or at least didn't recognize the problem for a long time), being the ones who will fix the problem. I was not left convinced that their solution would work.

flag Like · see review

« previous 1 2 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Nonfiction

27 users

Psychology

25 users

Science

15 users

Sociology

7 users

Social Science

2 users

See top shelves…

About Sara E. Gorman

Sara E. Gorman

0 followers

Mariah Carey Is Telling Her Own Story (and Recommending Books)

If you haven't heard of record-smashing singer and songwriter Mariah Carey, is there any hope for you? Who else has sold more than 200 million...

Trivia About Denying to the Gr...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Denying to the Gr...

“social amplification of risk,” — 0 likes

“Research has established, however, that despite the fact that benefit and risk are most often positively correlated, they are negatively correlated in our minds. For most people, the greater the perceived benefit, the lower the perceived risk, and the lower the perceived benefit, the greater the perceived risk.36” — 0 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — Denying to the Grave by Sara E. Gorman

Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Sara E. Gorman

Related Articles

Trivia About Denying to the Gr...

Quotes from Denying to the Gr...

See a Problem?

Preview — Denying to the Grave by Sara E. Gorman

Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Sara E. Gorman

Related Articles

Trivia About Denying to the Gr...

Quotes from Denying to the Gr...

new topic
Discuss This Book