The Undercover Philosopher by Michael Philips

Billed as a guide to scams, delusions and lies I was hoping for something more systematic in this book. Maybe a tour of bad thinking, poor argument types and delusions together with their debunking.

Instead Philips focuses on the fallibility of the mind, the weaknesses of induction (in its many forms), why research studies aren't all their cracked up to be and why faith positions (at least in his view which is profoundly simplistic) are questionable. Some of the preceding is interesting and fun - particularly if, like me, you like to go to dinner parties and puncture blowhards and the delightfully ignorant. However, the weakness of memory and the poverty of incentives for honesty in critical environments are well documented ideas and much of this wasn't really enlightening. I can sympathise because Philips is clearly attempting to craft something for the lay man but for me it doesn't quite work because it never honestly grapples with examples that make a difference in every day life. Whilst it's interesting to know that less than 10% of corporate fraud is typically uncovered by their actual auditors this isn't really a guide to uncovering lies, shams and delusions.

Philips has an interesting discussion of scientism and post modernism but in both cases he's attacking extreme positions (although scientism is, almost by definition, an extreme position, Post modernism in most guises isn't.) and it's simply too easy to shoot those straw men down. Yes materialism is a profoundly parochial,  flawed and weak philosophy of the universe, coming as it does from a time when we couldn't even imagine atoms or EM fields etc. but really I think he would have made it more accessible if he's looked at the idea of a realist/anti-realist view of the world and explored why materialism can only exist at the far uncritical edge of the realist position and why that in itself should give us pause to wonder just what we have to sacrifice to accept a materialist view of the universe.

The final section is about 'faith' positions but it feels rushed and unnuanced. There is a lot to be discussed when considering faith positions - especially given the human minds approach to knowledge and memory but he doesn't tie any of that up and nor does he offer the thought that much of this needs careful handling if we're going to remain open minded. It's a shame really as bits of this make for good quoting but much of it is instantly forgettable.