nobe4 / Posts / The science of Quack, a book review _

I read a lot of “scientifically written” books¹. Even when their subjects are far from my normal interests, I always appreciate the explanations and history behind them. So when I found a book titled “Coming Back. The Science of Reincarnation”, I was really excited!

Alas, rarely has a book caused me so much frustration and confusion. I felt compelled to write about it, to showcase all the ways it failed.

This is also a rant. You’ve been warned.

Note: this review concerns the reasoning, not the subject. In order to focus on the form, I mostly use X for the subject, book for the book, and author for the author.

Book’s stated aim, repeated in the title and preface, is to explain the science of X:

X is not a “belief system,” or a psychological device […], but a precise science […]. - preface

Most X literature is poorly informed, highly speculative, superficial and inconclusive. - preface

Great! This is building up to a promising read. Gotta love a touch of “others have misunderstood this topic” and “I will set the record straight” in a book. Though a common quackery tactic, it still makes for an enjoyable setup.

I know little about X, so I was happy to read about it and see how science explained it.

Unfortunately, the book repeatedly uses authority, tradition, anecdote, metaphor, repetition, and attacks on skeptics as substitutes for evidence. I have grouped these patterns by theme here.

Science as branding ¶

The book calls X a science but offers claims without methods, data, or clear criteria under which they could be tested or falsified.

Scientists have failed to explain X by means of the physical laws. - introduction

The failure of current physical explanations does not support X. It only identifies a gap in current knowledge. Treating that gap as evidence for X is an argument from ignorance.

The book even claims to use evidence and logic without presenting an argument:

Author appeals to the evidence of our senses and logic, so we may accept its teaching with some degree of rational conviction and not blindly. - chapter 1

Scientific inquiry controls for errors through measurement, controls, and reproducibility. The book does none of that.

The book comes closest to a scientific approach in an interview with a heart surgeon, who admits his limits:

It would be nice to start experimenting, but I don’t know how you are going to get data on any of these things. - chapter 3

That’s a reasonable admission, as he is not an expert on X.

Author immediately disregards that restraint:

The facts are already there. It simply has to be presented for modern understanding. If the doctors and scientists of the world can help man understand the science of X, this will be a great contribution. - chapter 3

No. Just no. Present your “facts”, open them to scrutiny, and don’t just claim their value.

At the same time, book also criticizes unscientific reporting:

Sensationalistic […] weekly tabloids are rife with unscientific notions about X, presenting “startling new evidence” practically every week. - chapter 7

That’s true. News outlets publish many unscientific ideas, but it is ironic for this book to distance itself from them.

He then cites so-called “valid” research:

These types of carefully and scientifically conducted experiments seem to lead us almost unchallengeably to the conclusion that X must exist in some form. - chapter 7

Author fails to name the experiments and scientists. Even a carefully conducted experiment does not make its conclusion “unchallengeable.” That is the opposite of science.

X is a […] term that defines a law of nature analogous to the modern scientific principle of action and reaction. - chapter 8

“My thing is kinda like your thing, and your thing is scientific, so mine must be, right?”

Claims without evidence ¶

The book presents its conclusions first and treats the missing argument as a minor detail.

Every seven years one’s old body is completely rejuvenated. The self […] remains unchanged. - introduction

The seven-year claim is itself false: cells renew at different rates, and many neurons last a lifetime. Even complete replacement would not establish the existence of a soul.

Consciousness is a concrete example of the presence of the soul. - chapter 1

The book declares the connection without demonstrating it. This reads less like “The Science of Reincarnation” and more like “Reincarnation is real, trust me bro”.

The same pattern appears in claims about medicine and biology:

As far as heart transplants are concerned, there is no question of success, unless the recipient’s soul enters into the transplanted heart. - chapter 3

In sexual intercourse, if there is no soul, there is no conception, no pregnancy. - chapter 3

No evidence is offered for any of these claims. Author just expects us to take his word for it.

The causal reasoning gets worse:

The living entity creates his own body by his personal desires […] the tiger wanted to enjoy the blood of other animals […], it supplied him the body of a tiger. - chapter 5

This reverses cause and effect. A tiger does not acquire its body by wanting blood: its body and evolutionary history shape its appetite.

Astrology then joins the pile:

A man’s destiny is therefore ascertained by the birth time constellation of stars. […] It is a great science. - chapter 5

Ah yes, astrology. When one pile of bullshit cannot support itself, stack another pile on top and call the whole mess science.

Other claims are simply declared perfect:

The laws of X are so perfectly ordered […] - chapter 7

“Perfectly ordered” is not a result. It is a shield against criticism. The book declares its model flawless before showing that it works.

The book also mistakes repetition and age for evidence. It presents similar beliefs from several cultures, then treats their similarity as proof:

Everybody’s done X a thousand times. Just because you don’t remember, it doesn’t mean they haven’t done it. - chapter 1

The book makes the same move with tradition:

Spiritual knowledge is eternally true and does not change with each new scientific theory, X is still relevant today. - introduction

Book, on the other hand, has for thousands of years provided practical, comprehensive, and useful knowledge about the science of X. - chapter 7

Calling a belief ancient and unchanging says nothing about whether it is true. Its age does not protect it from correction.

Faulting the reader’s doubt ¶

Author treats skepticism as a defect in the reader, not a problem with his evidence. The argument is self-sealing: reject the premise, and your judgment becomes the alleged failure.

And there’s this:

The foolish cannot understand X. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this. The quackers […] can see all this clearly. But those whose minds are not developed and who are not situated in quackery cannot see what is taking place, though they may try to. - chapter 1

How condescending can this get? The book promises to explain X, then blames readers for rejecting what it never demonstrates.

Scientists receive the same treatment:

The science of X is completely unknown to modern scientists. So-called scientists do not like to bother with these things because if they would at all consider this subtle subject matter and the problems of life, they would see that their future is very dark. - chapter 5

What are you talking about? Science changes when evidence demands it. Accusing scientists of cowardice does not supply that evidence; it only gives author an excuse to ignore them.

The book also invokes a no true Scotsman fallacy: it asserts that only the “true science of X,” not its derivatives, is correct. This is a cheap trick to avoid agreeing on a nuanced definition.

The term “learned quacker” in this selection refers to one fully learned in the exacting science of X, in comparison with which modern popular X is a foolish exercise in sentimentality compounded with error. - chapter 5

Emotion becomes another defense against doubt:

Sometimes these hypnotic regressions elicit demonstrations of deeply felt emotions that are hard to doubt. - chapter 7

Strong emotion shows that an experience feels real, not that its proposed cause is true. Hypnosis can produce false memories held with confidence, while cryptomnesia can make a forgotten source feel like an original experience. Neither emotion nor confidence establishes X.

Borrowed authority ¶

When the book has no evidence, it borrows credibility from famous people, experts, agreeable interviewees, and spiritual leaders.

Nobel laureate […] often speaks of X. - chapter 1

TL;DR: Nobelitis. A Nobel laureate’s opinion does not prove that X is true. This is a classic appeal to authority.

Chapter 2 stages a “discussion” between author and a Nazi diplomat, but neither discusses anything. It reads like two drunk uncles taking turns agreeing with each other.

I can intellectually appreciate that you’re speaking a philosophy which contains the truth. I don’t doubt it. But how do you make a person feel it? - chapter 2

The diplomat is already convinced by author’s points, so this is a reverential dialogue rather than a genuine exchange. Nothing is explained. He merely agrees with what author believes.

The heart surgeon also gets used as borrowed authority:

[He] said in an interview later that his thirty-two years as a surgeon had left him no doubt that X is true. - chapter 3

His experience is not experimental evidence, and he does not claim expertise in X.

Then author makes the appeal explicit:

You can simply accept X by taking it from higher authorities. - chapter 3

That’s not very scientific now, is it? An argument from authority is a terrible replacement for evidence.

The book later name-drops two more researchers:

The work of quacker1 in the United States and quacker2 in Australia includes carefully documented X experiments - in many cases involving independent observers to ensure integrity. - chapter 7

The book gives no title, date, publication venue, or methodology for either researcher’s work. Without those details, its claims cannot be checked.

Metaphors as evidence ¶

Author really wants to use metaphors, but he fails to understand how they work. They should illustrate the topic, not just say anything that gets twisted into making sense. Good metaphors are powerful and difficult to come up with.

Author: Water is pure, but as soon as it falls from the sky and touches the ground, it becomes muddy.

Diplomat: Yes. - chapter 2

Rainwater is not chemically pure, whatever that might mean. But even a sound analogy would only illustrate the claim, not prove that X behaves the same way.

Then there is:

The driver of the vehicle has stepped out for a moment, but if he does not return, the car runs out of fuel and the engine ceases to run. - chapter 7

A driver neither supplies fuel nor keeps an engine running by mere presence. The metaphor confuses an operator with an energy source, so it explains nothing about X.

A metaphor can illustrate an argument. It cannot replace one.

From belief to moral control ¶

Book offers little evidence about X, but it reveals the author’s values.

Throughout the book, one constant theme is the misogyny of the author. He never mentions women except as experimental subjects, child-bearers, or extensions of their husbands. It is clear to Author that women are secondary.

These visible objects like wife, children, and property are nothing more than dreams. - chapter 4

By dismissing family and property as dreams, the book devalues ordinary attachments before presenting X as life’s only worthwhile commitment.

If […] a person does not fully utilize his life for X, then he commits spiritual suicide. - chapter 4

Author turns disagreement into spiritual self-destruction. That is plain moral coercion.

The Nazis make an unwelcome thematic comeback with this story:

Once a leader went […] to offer in sacrifice a dull unintelligent human being resembling an animal. - chapter 4

Describing someone as animal-like does not justify sacrificing them. It only hides violence behind a dehumanizing label.

The book smuggles in a universal purpose for human life:

[…] this valuable form of life, which is meant only for self-realization - chapter 6

It offers no argument for it, but then calls the assertion science.

It also offers moral absolution through a word:

This word […] is so auspicious that anyone who chants this holy name immediately gets rid of the resultant actions of sinful activities. - chapter 8

This theological promise is problematic because it grants absolution without meaningful reparation. It’s like saying “sorry” without conviction merely to receive a pardon for one’s misdeeds. That’s just a distraction.

The hierarchy then becomes explicit:

It is only by the mercy of such a qualified guru that one can become free […]. - chapter 8

This makes freedom depend on the approval of a spiritual authority.

Finally, the book moves from belief to instruction:

Children should be instructed about the importance of obeying God’s laws and avoid sinful behavior […]. Parents should make them thoroughly familiar with the subtle laws of X […]. - chapter 8

Parents may teach values and beliefs, but obedience to doctrine is not evidence that its alleged laws exist.

Poor scholarship and editing ¶

The book desperately needs an editor. It contains typos, grammatical errors, and sentences that are difficult to understand. Author really should have had his work checked before it was published.

Chapter 3 is called “X research”. It contains an interview published in a local newspaper, followed by a response from author. The book gives neither the journalist’s name nor the publication date, making the interview difficult to verify.

The stories also contain errors like this:

He addressed the following linesto an infant. - chapter 4

The woo-woo factor was so high that I briefly wondered whether “linesto” was a Latin or Greek word. But no, it’s just a missing space.

There’s also this sentence, which labors the same point four times:

The scientific principles of X do not change with the passage of time; they remain constant, and these timeless stories are as relevant to the modern seeker as they were to those who sought enlightenment in bygone ages. - chapter 4

Calling the principles constant and the stories timeless merely repeats the claim. It does not establish truth.

Conclusion ¶

Non-scientific writing is fine. Fiction, fantasy, theology, and speculation can all offer value when authors state their aims honestly and write with care. This book shows neither honesty nor care.

Its central failure is not one false claim but a pattern: appeals to authority, tradition, bad metaphors, and demands for obedience replace evidence.

This is not science.

I like books, stories, science, and fiction. Even without its scientific branding, the book’s poor sourcing, weak arguments, and careless editing would still disappoint me. Would not recommend.