Most Helpful Customer Reviews
41 of 47 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Sanity, December 21, 2000
What has always turned me off about debunkers and "professional skeptics" is the low, (very low), road they often take of ridicule, snobbery and an almost Evangelical Skepticism. Then there is this wonderful book by Nicholas Humphrey. Where other would-be Rationalists fail, Humphrey succeeds. He lays out for us elegantly, reasonably, sanely and with humour and compassion, the Materialist case; pointing out more succintly than anyone else I've read the flaws, not only in the logic of "Paranormalists", but many of the logical flaws "debunkers" fall into. The style of the book is relaxed and conversational, honest and straightforward and enjoyable. Sane medicine for the intellect. Highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
26 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Great Addition to Skeptical Literature, November 18, 2001
There are now, thankfully, a number of very good books debunking paranormal beliefs (Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, Sagan's Demon Haunted World, for example). Most provide a devasting critique of those beliefs and almost all approach belief in the paranormal in a similiar manner. Humphrey provides some new arguments and insights and hence, Leaps of Faith serves as both a great introduction to skeptical literature and as a source of new insight for people who have already sorted through most of the traditional arguments against the existence of supernatural forces in our daily life. Humphrey's 'Argument from Unwarranted Design' turns out to be an incredible analytical tool and he uses it compellingly in a number of contexts. While most author's content themselves with trotting out the litany of scientific disproofs of the supernatural, Humphrey raises logical objections to alleged paranormal phenomena. Why should strange little phenonoma such as spoon bending bother to exist at all? How and why would they have been created in contravention to the rules of science and the dictates of normally parsimonious design? In short, Humphrey makes a strong case that the supernatural is both empirically AND logically unlikely. One more thing, Humphrey has a very readable style. If the concepts sound complicated and off-putting, they become vivid and immediate as Humphrey gives simple examples and compelling illustrations. Wonderful to read! Buy the book!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
54 of 66 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Why you shouldn't believe everything people say, December 10, 1997
This review is from: Leaps of Faith: Science, Miracles, and the Search for Supernatural Consolation (Hardcover)
Humphrey's book has two major virtues that every book should have: it is very entertaining (in an intelligent way), and it actually manages to make a couple of novel points, which is more than can be said for a lot of contemporary publishing... The topic of "Leaps of faith" is what seems to be the eternal (but is in fact only about a couple of centuries old) battle between science and myth. Where "myth" includes the paranormal and in general, explanations of the world around us that are non-naturalistic, or transcendental. Telepathy, psychokinesis, ghosts, and the power of prayer are all under fire in this fascinating compendium of skepticism and logic. But, Humphrey criticizes the usual ways in which scientists have defended their skeptical position, such as directly challenging people like Uri Geller (the infamous "spoon-and-fork-bender"). The author explains that some courageous approaches to the rebuttal of the paranormal may be dangerous and ineffective. For example, the notorious magician James Randi has for years challenged people to bring forth claims of paranormal phenomena. Randi offers a prize if he cannot repeat by perfectly normal means the supposedly supernatural feat. However, Humphrey points out that there are two flaws in this strategy. First, just because James Randi (or whomever) can imitate a phenomenon by normal means, that does not automatically prove that the phenomenon itself is not genuinely paranormal. Second, what if some day the good Randi is actually unable to duplicate a supposedly paranormal phenomenon? Does para-Randi imply para-normal? Of course not, but since it is possible - indeed likely - that Randi's abilities are limited, his strategy might dramatically and embarassingly backfire one of these days... What's the alternative? What the author refers to as the "argument from unwarranted design". It works quite simply and convincingly. Humphrey asks what are the circumstances surrounding the manifestation of paranormal phenomena, regardless of what specific phenomenon (telepathy, psychokinesis, miracles, or what have you) has allegedly occurred. There is no a priori reason why these circumstances should not be as varied as the human beings, times, and countries in which they purportedly happen. But upon even a superficial scrutiny, we do not find anything like a random background. Somehow, paranormal phenomena always manage to occur under circumstances that can be quite reasonably defined as "suspicious". Either there is only one witness, or they can never be repeated in front of an investigator, or their physical evidence somehow disappears without leaving a trace. Indeed, even parapsycologists recognize this, and have elevated it to a "principle", which states that for whatever reason, the presence of an investigator, or of circumstances leading to repeatability (the cornerstone of scientific investigation), somehow "depress" the likelihood of the paranormal phenomenon actually happening. Now, would you by a car if the salesman insists that the car will start only when he is present? But Humphrey goes even beyond the unwarranted design argument, twisting around an old favorite of mystic-oriented people. The usual tenet of many religious people and believers in the paranormal is that "the world wouldn't make sense without it" (where "it" is some sort of supernatural or transcendental power). Actually, the author of "Leaps of faith" argues, it is quite the opposite. If indeed the soul existed, if there really were a way to maintain your personal self forever, if you could bypass the laws of physics and read people minds or move objects without touching them, the whole fabric of the universe would simply be torn apart! Why live a meaningful life on Earth, if you know that it is only an irrelevant and astonishingly brief moment in your "true" existence? Could you really stand the idea that every single thought you think, no matter how remote in your subconscious, can be public knowledge by a simple act of will on someone else's part? And what would be the meaning of the laws regulating the universe, if they could be broken at any given occasion? Would you really like to take the chance every time you walk out of the front door that the law of gravity might have been temporarily suspended ? Meditate, people, meditate...
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
