Customer Reviews

The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I'm a scientist, an astronomer specifically, and I'm not really the target audience here I suspect (even though in the line of work I have had to respond to a number of "Borderlands" claims). Objectively this is a 3-star book, but the sleight-of-hand marketing biases me against it.

This is a semi-scholarly work written by a science historian. Most of the essays revolve around Darwin, Wallace, and evolution. With these essays, and a handful of others, Shermer takes a historical approach to the "borderlands of science" to look at the process of how scientific theories develop to acceptance. He looks at very few cases of the current borderlands, and of those he does he makes generally weak arguments (and not scientific ones) with correspondingly weak conclusions. An early chapter on remote viewing is the exception.

The wordcount here is limited, but I wanted to point out some specific problem points. In the chapter asking if Sagan was "a great scientist," one questioning his rejection from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Shermer compares his publications to "the creme de le creme" of scientists: Gould, E. O. Wilson, Jared Diamond, and Mayr. The comparisons involve number of honorary degrees, popular articles, advisory groups, books, etc. There is NEVER a comparison of his scientific publication rate or citation rate versus NAS ASTRONOMERS, a primary criterion for the NAS membership who understands that publication practices vary from field to field. Shermer sets up a straw man and knocks it down, the same thing he accuses pseudoscientists of doing. He never comes close to making an argument about whether or not Sagan was a good scientist, merely that he was a well-known one who was highly regarded for his popularization.

I liked the idea of the chapter on the "Amadeus Myth," which is a topic worthy of comment, but not the execution. We like to make myths of our heroes. But here is another straw man, where Shermer's "genius" is equated to practicing math tricks and never very well characterized. Prodigies are not discussed.

Cosmology is noted as suffering from a bias against "historical science." This is far from true, I assure you. Origins programs in astronomy get funding far ABOVE their non-historical competitors.

A whole chapter is spent discussing whether or not punctuated equilibrium represents a "paradigm shift" of evolution. This is the semantic playing field of a science historian, and of little interest to actual scientists.

Shermer indeed would seem to have such a bias against what he calls "nonscience" topics that he gives them almost no mention. While he lumps, for instance, "Big Foot" in with some poor company, he later quotes anthropologist Krantz in another chapter on another subject; Krantz is one of a number of credible scientists who take the topic seriously. The same cannot be said for his other "nonscience" topics, yet all get rated equally at 0.1 with no discussion.

Indeed, despite Shermer's interesting discussion about a spectrum of "science," his spectrum seems to correspond to his idea of the ideas' correctness, NOT their scientific validity. What is validity (to play Shermer's word games)? All topics can be validly studied using the tools of science. Some are routinely, and some are not. He should have used a different term. I found myself losing trust in Shermer.

When Shermer finds that SETI pioneers are primarily first-born rather than later siblings as in most other scientific revolutions, he finds a way to argue it away in terms of their religion. I did not see this sort of multiple parameter analysis in the comparison sample, so should I believe it? Or did he just invoke the same kind of wishful thinking he criticizes in others?

I had many more problem points that kept my "doubt-o-meter" ringing at regular intervals.

What my criticisms mostly boil down to is that Shermer writes and acts as a science historian much better than he does as a scientist. He gives hints all too often that he doesn't think like a scientist, and this made me distrustful while reading.

This is a shame. I used to subscribe to the Skeptical Inquirer, but let that lapse since that magazine too often took lazy pot shots at the same easy targets again and again. Shermer, and Shermer's magazine the Skeptic, for the most part shoot at more interesting targets, but I'm afraid not as well as they should.

What I'm looking for is a detailed users' manual for a Baloney Detection Kit (as Carl Sagan called it.) I'd hoped to find this in one of Shermer's previous works, Why People Believe Weird Things, and I'd hoped to find it here. In both cases, the first part of the book did exactly this, but somewhere along the way it turned into case studies of debunking, rather than the process of debunking. (That's okay: they're well-written.)

Michael Shermer's background is psychology and ultra-long-distance cycling; he's written a number of books on cycling and analysis of (and refutation of) Holocaust deniers. He's also president (apparently for life) of the American Skeptics society and a reasonably good writer. In this book, Shermer spends a lot of time talking about the scientific method, its strengths and potential flaws -- and, more importantly, its system for dealing with its flaws (which he claims "sets science apart from all other knowledge systems and intellectual disciplines" -- a heady claim I wish he discussed more.)

Since this is supposed to be a review of Borderlands and not Weird Things, I'll just say that if you like this, you'll like the other as well. In The Borderlands Of Science, he analyzes beliefs that are at defensible, beliefs that could (or were once thought to) be scientifically accurate. Among these are, for instance, ramifications of cloning, confirmation bias in explaining racial differences in sports (about which Malcolm Gladwell has also written), and a whole, whole lot of discussion of Alfred Wallace. Wallace and Charles Darwin were both responsible for the theory of evolution. Wallace is not remembered as widely for a number of reasons, which are explored in frightening detail in roughly 3.5 of the 16 chapters of this book. Shermer did his doctoral thesis on Wallace, not coincidentally. The ratio of stuff-about-Wallace-or-Evolution to everything-else, by chapter, is 3:7; Shermer is pretty focussed on this specific discussion.
The book has four sections: a short introduction (which is quite heavy in skeptical theory, exactly what I wanted) and the main body, discussing borderlands theories, people, and history. In theories, he tends to stray a little from 'why people believe weird things' into 'why stupid people believe weird things' (as he did in the book of the same title) and that's fun. He covers a lot of quite current topics (like cloning, Wacky Unified Field Theories, the importance of Punctured Equilibrium in the evolution of evolutionary theory.)

In section two: people, he discusses the Copernican revolution and its effects, then goes off about Alfred Wallace. Here, he does something weird that needs more discussion. In analyzing Wallace, he constructs a psychological profile, which he derived by having a large number of Wallace experts fill out a survey of the "strongly agree, 9, 8,.. 3, 2, strongly disagree" sort, and then uses the results of these surveys to fill in his discussion of why Wallace became a scientific spiritualist, for instance. It's an interesting technique that he also uses with Steven Jay Gould and Carl Sagan. It is tempting to ask how much confirmation bias exists in a survey of this sort, though. Since I've already let the spoiler out of the bag, Shermer discusses Gould and Sagan, spends some time doing a statistical analysis of Sagan's greatness as a scientist (by comparing published papers by topic with a number of other contemporary, canonically great scientists) and pauses briefly to smack Freud upside the head in a somewhat snarky comparison of Freud and Darwin.

Finally, in section three: histories, he does a lovely discussion of the myth of pastoral tranquillity, including a quick summary of four ancient civilizations that probably managed to destroy themselves through environmental stupidity without (as he puts it) any need of Dead White European Males coming in and inflicting devastation from outside. Shermer then analyzes (and debunks) the theory of transcendent genius, the Mozart Myth, as he calls it, and goes back to two more chapters on Wallace and evolution, in a discussion of the Piltdown Man hoax and why that should (but doesn't seem to have) support the idea that science can be self-correcting and learn from its mistakes.

I like what Shermer is doing, and he writes well and readably. If I sound a bit impatient, it's because I want him to be writing about the application of critical thinking rather than case studies, and when he starts out writing just what I want to read, then goes off in a different direction, he leaves me standing at the intersection saying "hey, wait, this isn't the bus I wanted." The book could stand to be either edited down into two books: a Wallace analysis and a case studies in how science inspects itself discussion, or edited up with a clearer discussion of the math involved in his statistical analysis of Sagan or his psychological profiling of people. In the end, I liked it, I learned a fair bit from it, and I would recommend it to people who want to learn more about both critical thinking and science history.

Human beings have unlimited imaginations. Connect two things in time, and some people are likely to assume a cause-and-effect relationship. As a result, many beliefs are based on nothing more than coincidence. Since science is a fairly new human activity, many beliefs that are now established in science started as beliefs built on associations or thought experiments. Michael Shermer, publisher and editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine shows us the importance of that transition and how it is made. The book lacks the examples to completely establish its thesis, but will definitely give you new things to think about in the examples it does consider.

The book is divided into three parts: Borderlands Theories; Borderlands People; and Borderlands History. A borderland of science is the mental space where there is some factual evidence that is evolving to pin down how or why the phenomena occur. But the pinning down isn't very far along. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is a good example. It is based on nothing more than a belief that there is intelligent life in the universe which wants to communicate with us. The approach to listening has been evolving with scientific discipline that will improve. Until we "hear" something though, it is hard for this activity to become mainstream science. Hypnosis is another good example of where science can explain some of the behavior (the "hidden observer" phenomenon in the mind), but not all. This places hypnosis in the borderlands area. I thought that the borderlands concept was a valuable one, and was glad that I learned it.

The book goes on to give you ten tests you can use to help establish whether a theory has anything to it. This list will probably save you from rushing off to follow some ideas that you happen to watch on a television show. In fact, the book is very good at explaining why much of what you see on television about phenomena makes no attempt to establish the scientific fact of or disprove the claims about what is going on.

Our thinking can become sloppy. There is an excellent section on the connection between race and success in sports that will make you rethink everything that you ever thought you knew in this subject. Why is it that no one claims that the Chinese have a genetic advantage in playing ping-pong? Did you know that it was once reported that Jewish people had a genetic advantage in playing basketball? Nature, nurture, opportunities and incentives are well explained in this section.

In the people section, you see how the psychological profiles of the scientists play a big role in how they pursue their work. Those who are very open to new ideas can get drawn off into nonsense if they are not careful. You will also learn a little about how birth order affects our willingness to accept or challenge existing scientific ideas. With too little openness, the plain truth can be missed.

There is a detailed example of how Darwin's approach to natural selection was more successful than the work of his closest counterpart, Alfred Russel Wallace. I found the example to be a trifle extended for my taste.

You will also get a look at why Copernicus was so revolutionary, and engendered such a strong reaction. Carl Sagan is explored and explained in a nicely balanced way that added to my understanding of the man.

In the history section, the eco-terrorism of destroying the trees on Easter Island to move the statues is told as a cautionary tale of how we can create problems for ourselves if we are not far-sighted enough. Mr. Shermer also makes a good argument for making scientific debate into an opportunity for a plus-sum game (where everyone benefits) rather than a zero-sum game where only one scientist can win.

The book ends on a humorous note as the Piltdown man hoax originally fools people, but is eventually exposed. We need discipline in our science or it can be as foolish as not using the scientific method.

Although Mr. Shermer doesn't say so in the book, you will definitely get the impression that he assumes that any scientifically untested idea is probably junk. On the other hand, many areas of human experience will probably not get scientific testing anytime soon. There simply isn't the interest or the money available to do so. It seems to me that we need some method to move ideas that look promising along towards science at a faster rate. I was struck recently that although it has been known for many years that people in Okinawa live a long time, it inexplicably took scientists more decades than necessary to get organized to study what this might mean. The result can be read about in The Okinawa Program. In the meantime, many less worthy projects were pursued on how to "cure" sick people who are just being hurt by their lifestyle. Mr. Shermer needed to address this problem of scientific slowness to work on the obviously important in order to make this a five-star book.

After you finish enjoying this book, I suggest that you try out the ten tests on an area where you think you are dealing with a borderland issue. This might be how the stock market works, whether chiropractic care is helpful in some situations, or the effectiveness of acupuncture. See if the tests help you to take more useful actions as a result.

Advance rapidly toward knowledge through carefully-tested observation!

Shermer's book is an attempt to classify various lines of research into science, nonscience, and `borderlands' science, but he follows no rigorous methodology. Instead, he subjectively classifies various theories, practices, and lines of research into his three categories, based upon how popular certain theories are among mainstream scientists, and how much the theories, practices, and lines of research appeal to his narrow scientific fundamentalism.

There really is no need for this book. The celebrated philosopher Karl Popper brilliantly solved the problem of the demarcation between science, and philosophy, ideology and nonsense decades ago, and his work has been endorsed by scientists from Einstein to Hawkings. The criterion is testability. Scientific theories are theories that are capable of being tested by experiment or observation. Our theories can never be proven correct, although a single counter-instance can prove them wrong.

One can sum up Popper's famous demarcation between science and non-science by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability. Accordingly, theories that are not falsifiable in principle cannot claim to be scientific, and so belong to metaphysics, ideology, or pseudo-science.

Popper's criterion of testability provides a clear, logical way of separating science from ideology and philosophy. Hence, string theory is not science but philosophy, as it currently makes no predictions capable of being tested. Popper argued that Marxism started out as a scientific theory: it predicted that capitalism would lead to increasing misery among the masses, and then be overthrown by revolution and replaced by socialism; it also predicted that this would occur first in the most technically developed countries. When the so-called worker's revolution first occurred in then-backward and agrarian Russia, supporters of the theory did not accept this as a refutation: the theory was simply modified so that it became immune to falsification. In other words, Marxism was transformed into an ideology.

The universal property of scientific theories cannot be stressed enough. A scientific theory cannot be merely speculation about a particular fact or an isolated event, because nothing new and non-trivial can be predicted from such a speculation. This point has to be stressed, because it has caused a great deal of confusion among philosophers and historians of science. For example, Shermer writes in the book:

"Popper's attempt to solve the problem of demarcation ... between science and nonscience begins to break down in the borderlands of knowledge. Consider the theory that extraterrestrial intelligent life exists somewhere in the cosmos. If we find out by making radio contact through the SETI program then the theory will have been proven absolutely ... But how could this theory ever be falsified?"

Shermer's mistake is his categorization of the statement `extraterrestrial intelligent life exists somewhere in the cosmos' as a scientific theory. It is no such thing. It is merely speculation about a specific fact, from which no non-trivial predictions follow. (For instance, it does not follow from this that such life would want to contact us, would share our values, would be friendly toward us, and so forth.) It is no more a scientific theory than the statement `there are white swans somewhere on the lake.' Such statements about specific factual matters can indeed be confirmed, even proven `beyond all reasonable doubt.' But this is only because they are not universal statements. Scientific theories are universal statements about how facts fit together, and from such universal statements follow predictions about specific facts. So, from the universal statement `all swans are white' follows the prediction that `the next swans we will see on the lake will be white.' The former is a (simple) scientific theory; the latter a prediction about a specific fact that follows from the theory, and that may used to test the theory.

Note that Shermer would have formulated his idea as a scientific theory if he had stated it in a universal, testable form, such as: "life arises quickly wherever there is water and an average temperature above freezing, and given a few billion years, some of this life will become recognizably intelligent." This is a universal statement that relates specific facts to each other, can be used to make predictions about how much intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy, and can be tested (at least in principle) by sending probes to planets in which conditions for life appear to have been appropriate for a few billion years. If intelligent life is not found, then the theory is refuted, and must either be abandoned or modified.

It is precisely at the "borderlands of science" that Popper's criterion works so well. Parapsychology for instance, most certainly is a science to the extent that it makes predictions capable of being tested. But Shermer gives little attention to this field, as it conflicts with his ideology of materialism.

Shermer is not a scientist, but an historian. And as an historian he has no excuse for being woefully ignorant of the history of science. At one time reports that rocks sometimes fall from the sky (what we know call meteorites) were dismissed by most scientists as superstitious fantasies. The idea that the continents could drift was ridiculed for decades. Even X-rays were considered an elaborate hoax. Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, and Shermer has simply not learned that popularity of ideas cannot be used as a guide to separate science from nonsense.

But Shermer is an intellectual lightweight who is simply out of his league when discussing the philosophy of science. If you want to read something really magnificent on the subject, I recommend "Replies to my Critics", in The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Part II, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp.

I do enjoy reading Michael Shermer. His skeptical attitude towards life is one I appreciate. I am a little more sympathetic towards theological thought myself, perhaps, but his feelings about science reflect mine very closely. His most important idea may be his ability to draw a line of demarcation between the requirements and goals of what constitutes scientific thought and those modes of thought that, while valuable, are clearly not scientific. People need to understand that there are rules as to what makes an idea truly scientific and that many ideas are clearly unscientific despite the window-dressing.

Here Shermer expands his ideas of separation of church and science a little more closely by examining what he calls "the borderlands of science." He is trying to make a distinction between those things which are on the fringe but still good science and those things that are clearly not scientific. It is a good distinction to make since, as Shermer points out, all revolutions in science were once "fringe" ideas. I was particularly taken with his example concerning aliens (i.e. extra-terrestrial life). Though there has never been a UFO encounter with a solid basis in fact (taking all of these "experiences" beyond the realm of science), SETI is science, albeit science on the fringe.

It is in his discussions of individual scientists where Shermer oversteps himself a bit. He tries to give us a picture of the type of mind it takes to be open to fringe ideas and still be scientifically oriented. It is a worthwhile idea and he has interesting things to say about scientists like Darwin. However, I found his use of the "five factor personality inventory" to be disturbing close to various types of pointless psychology and not very revealing. I also found his dominant interest in Stephen Jay Gould, Alfred Russel Wallace and Carl Sagan to get a bit boring after awhile.

Still, Shermer is clearly a very careful thinker with important things to say. I appreciate his support of the scientific ideal and his attempts to separate scientific modes of thought from other types of knowledge. Unfortunately, the people who most need to read this, probably will not and, even if they did, would be close-minded to his points. For the open-minded, there is much to gain from this book. There are many things here to chew over in your mind. I might point you to some of Shermer's other books first (Why People Believe Weird Things and How We Believe) which are better than this one but The Borderlands of Science remains a worthwhile read.

In Why People Believe Weird Things, Shermer touched upon belief systems and just as the title says. He then wrote How We Believe (one of my favorite books of all time), which went deeper into belief systems and how they work. Where the first book focused on the paranormal and pseudoscience end of the pendulum's arc, Borderlands... focuses on the other end: science. Shermer puts his money where his mouth is and applies what he's learned from How We Believe to scientific thinking. While it is easy and fun to debunk all the whackos and kooks who believe in UFO's and the like, it takes greater courage to turn that same skeptical lens against the base you stand upon. Science's critique of itself is what makes it closest to the truth. Shermer shows that belief systems often encroach upon the scientific method and mess up the results. Shermer is today's scientific nietzschian.

Computers operate from a "switch-on, switch-off" binary system--an alternating "either/or" series of ones and zeros. Scientific theories, however, should not be divided into only two categories. For, in addition to (1) NORMAL SCIENCE (theories that are considered, by the consensus of most scientists, as being "solid") and (2) NONSCIENCE (theories that are considered, by the consensus of most scientists, as being "mushy" pseudoscience or nonsense), a third category should be added: (3) BORDERLANDS SCIENCE ("fuzzy" theories concerning which the jury is still out).

In this work on the philosophy and history of science, Michael Shermer, the founding publisher and editor-in-chief of SKEPTIC magazine...and the Director of The Skeptics Society, provides a helpful chart describing three sets of scientific theories:

* NORMAL SCIENCE. Heliocentrism, evolution, quantum mechanics, big bang cosmology, plate tectonics, neurophysiology of brain functions; punctuated equilibrium, sociobiology/evolutionary psychology, chaos and complexity theory, and intelligence and intelligence testing.

* NONSCIENCE. Creationism, holocaust revisionism, remote viewing, astrology, Bible code, alien abductions, Big Foot, UFOs, Freudian psychoanalytic theory, and recovered memories.

* BORDERLANDS SCIENCE. Superstring theory, inflationary cosmology, theories of consciousness, grand theories of economics (objectivism, socialism, etc.), SETI, hypnosis, chiropractic, acupuncture, cryonics, and Omega Point theory. Shermer wrote his doctoral dissertation on the life of work of Alfred Russel Wallace, codiscoverer (with Charles Darwin) of the theory of evolution by [the mechanism of] natural selection ("the survival of the fittest"). It is no surprise, then, that three chapters of Shermer's book deal with Wallace, and provide a case study of "the boundary problem" in science. In his excellent rehabilitation of a man overshadowed by Darwin, Shermer describes Wallace as a "heretic-scientist" and "heretic-personality," a person who embraced not only solid science (the theory of evolution) but also mushy pseudoscience (spiritualism and numerous paranormal oddities).

Shermer's chapter on Carl Sagan is disappointing and his use of "fuzzy" social science theories, while interesting, are unconvincing. He deconstructs "The Beautiful People Myth" (nostalgia for an alleged Golden Age) and "The Amadeus Myth" (the claim that geniuses are qualitatively, rather than quantitatively, different from the rest of us). Other investigations deal with cloning, racial differences, punctuated equilibrium, Copernicus's "heretical" heliocentric theory, and "The Hero Myth" (Sigmund Freud). A concluding chapter chronicles "The Great Bone Hoax: Piltdown and the Self-Correcting Nature of Science."

How should one categorize Shermer's book of essays? Not according to a binary system, but according to a continuum: solid, mushy, and fuzzy. Although the essays are uneven in quality (concerning some, the jury is still out), all in all, THE BORDERLANDS OF SCIENCE is fascinating, thought-provoking, and provocative.

Truth be told, I didn't like this book as much as I liked Shermer's other book, "Why People Believe Weird Things." It was a little less to the point, and seemed more to want to prove Shermer's belief system--with which I concur--than the other book.

However, among the things I liked about this book right off was that it established no sacred cows. Shermer began with a historical analysis of sort of institutional skepticism, mentioning, for example, that godfather (sorry) of skepticism, Martin Gardner. He covered a number of concepts, including an issue covered in a recent issue of "Skeptic" magazine which he edits: why is it that blacks dominate in sports? The fact is, they don't! He discusses the viability of some items, despite their prominent place in, say, Hollywood, of things like cloning. In an important part of the book, Shermer evaluates on a "fuzzy fraction" scale of .9 (highest) to .1 (lowest) what is normal science, what is borderland science, and what is nonscience. There are quite a few .9s, including that elusive tidbit I have a hard time figuring out, quantum mechanics. But some subjects get less than that, e.g., neurophysiology of brain functions (.8) and intelligence and intelligence testing (.3!) Of course, the nonsciences, astrology, bible code, alien abductions, and others, get a .1. But this exercise was helpful particularly because of the borderlands science, "in the borderlands between normal science and nonscience." A nonscientist like myself may assume that these are "true" sciences. But Shermer gives superstring theory, for example, only a .7; theories of consciousness, SETI and hypnosis only a .5. And he does give chiropractic, one of the (sometimes legitimate) punching bags of some skeptics a .4. So he doesn't flat out reject it, just challenges it.

To be honest, I wasn't sure of the author's point in the middle portion of the book. He covers some interesting material, e.g., whether Darwin was really a pioneer, whether he had changed "paradigms." But he included in that discussion a system he'd set up with Frank Sulloway who'd written a book on personalities likely to rebel, in essence. I mean the chapters were pretty interesting. In one, he discussed Darwin and his contemporary, Alfred Russell Wallace, the latter of whom also got into spiritualist trends of his time, such as phrenology and seances. Again, it was interesting, but I wasn't not sure what his point was, to discuss why Darwin rejected some of those fads while Wallace accepted them. And the chapter on Carl Sagan, part of that section, again, was interesting, but I'm not sure why it was included. For instance, people-myself at one point-resented Sagan because he was a popularizer of science rather than a pioneer or creator in the field. Shermer points out that it's not necessarily one vs. the other, i.e., maybe he could be both and good at both. But Sagan's political idiosyncrasies are inconsequential to me. So, Shermer concludes that, while Sagan may have been a little of a hypocrite, he was a great man. Well, so.

Then Shermer got into a subject that's dear to me, what he called the "BPM" or "beautiful people myth." Much of contemporary legend, from the "fashionable nonsense" of too many post-modernist academics to some of the more radical feminists, reminisce a period before us white, European males (or DWEMs, the "d" indicating "dead) showed up. You see, we set up a patriarchal, warlike, competitive world since, and that's a disaster. Well, Shermer's research indicates that there never was this Eden, despite religious traditions that refer to it. Indeed, throughout "prehistory," many a species fell prey to people "of color." The evidence is overwhelming, and quite interesting! There are areas all over the globe where the influence on non-white, non-European, but certainly just as dead persons committed "ecocide" usually a consequence of overpopulation. Then fortunately Shermer suggests that we could be on that same course now and, unlike those of earlier times, we can do something about it--and need to!

He then returned to Darwin, and a debate as to whether Darwin or Wallace was more responsible for the origin of species. That part got dry, and I again wondered Shermer's point. Then, while contemplating it, I realized that his point is: how science works. There ARE biases; there ARE human elements to it too. And, of course, there are conspiracy theorists, those, for example, who felt that Darwin had ripped of Wallace's theory. Shermer does a commendable job of demonstrating that Wallace and Darwin were actually allies, that there needn't be a "zero sum" in which one won and the other lost, but, rather, there was a "plus sum" in which both-and history and science-ALL benefited from the discoveries!

The final chapter on Piltdown would have made an amusing essay in itself. I always mix up Piltdown man, the hoax perpetrated by someone that lasted for 40 years, with the scheme devised by P.T. Barnum. This chapter clarified for me that it was a dramatically different subject, though no less a hoax. And, again, it was a sign of how science works; there WERE cultural biases that played a part in people's acceptance of the hoax for so long. (Shermer wisely covers who may have been responsible for it, and concludes that a court would convict no one. But Tielhard de Chardin may have been responsible!) No, scientists are not immune from all-too-human influences!

Frankly, I'll read this book again before long. It was good, and I think a valuable contribution to my library. But next time maybe I'll concentrate more. I'll then have the arguments I need to refute those who argue that science is just one among many equally viable means to reach a conclusion.

Michael Shermer is currently my favorite skeptic. He always ends up making me think, whether I agree with him or not. The Borderlands Of Science is not Shermer's best book. It lacks the consistency of Why People Believe Weird Things and How We Believe (both of which I think are 5 star books). Borderlands reads like a collection of essays (which I think it is - my back issues of Skeptic are either buried or at school, so I can't compare the essays in the magazine to the chapters in the book). This isn't a bad thing, since the chapters make for good reading and thinking, but I think readers would be happier if they knew that at least some of the chapters where modified from earlier essays (I've searched the book for mention of the pedigree of the material, but I can't find any). That aside, I think that Borderlands has enough meat on its bones for even the most skeptical reader. The highlights for me were the chapters on Alfred Russel Wallace (Shermer has researched Wallace extensively and needs to do a full-length book on him) and the Myth chapters in the last third of the book (the Beautiful People Myth and the Amadeus Myth). I think current subscribers to Skeptic Magazine may find Borderlands a bit of a review, but if you're not familiar with that magazine or with Michael Shermer's writings, The Borderlands Of Science should be a good introduction to both.

To satisfy the title -- that is, to define borderlands science and give the reader the tools to recognize science, borderlands science, and non-science -- I think this book could have been significantly shorter. In fact, I think the first 30 or so pages do just that, and admirably too. In those pages, he even has a couple good examples to illustrate his ideas. He shows how silly "remote viewing" is after he's given it fair shake. Also in those pages was a fascinating discussion of hypnosis and the idea of a "hidden observer." The book was worth its purchase price for those first 30 pages alone. But I'm very happy the author didn't stop there. It did seem to me that the book didn't really flow that well or to have a well-defined purpose, but I really didn't mind, because I found most of it very interesting. He's definitely earned my respect as a fair minded and very sharp historian, although I may have learned more than I wanted to know about Alfred R. Wallace (you know, the co-discoverer of evolution). Throughout, the author seems very interested in what makes people do what they do and he spends some time investigating this (well worthwhile). On to a few of those gems I mentioned, besides "remote viewing" and hypnosis. Want to know why alternative medicine is so popular? And just a bit of data that shows that at least some of it doesn't work? There is a great quote from physicist Richard Feynman: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." (He was investing the Challenger accident and trying to convince NASA that politics should be secondary to reality.) A few other gems were his discussions on: race and its relation to abilities (ex: black basketball players); cloning; codes hidden in the Bible; the state of belief before the Earth moved (sun-centered solar system); more openness = less religiosity; getting a handle on what "genius" means (along with brief but very nice discussions on Einstein, Newton, and other geniuses); and the "beautiful people myth" (that there was once a time and place when people lived in harmony with the planet and their neighbors). In summary, I definitely found this book worth reading and highly recommend it. I look forward to checking out his other books, and to checking out at least one episode of his TV show ("Exploring the Unknown" on Fox Family).