Your Garage Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Samsung S8 Launch Limited time offer Luxury Beauty Handmade Mother's Day Gifts hgg17 Shop Popular Services DrWho DrWho DrWho  Introducing Echo Look Starting at $49.99 Kindle Oasis Nintendo Switch National Bike Month on Amazon disgotg_gno_17
Customer Review

435 of 466 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The weird things people believe., March 5, 1999
This review is from: Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (Paperback)
My first impression upon finishing this book is that the title is wrong. Though Dr. Shermer addresses some issues about why people believe weird things, for the most part this book is more about the weird things people believe, and not so much about the reasons they believe them. For a better discussion about why people believe weird things, I suggest Thomas Gilovich's book "How we know what isn't so."
Shermer devotes all of chapter one to expanding on the definition and characteristics of a skeptic, and all of chapter two to describing science. This lays the bedrock for his future discussions about pseudosciences such as creationism, and helps to make clear the reasons these pseudosciences and superstitions fail to meet the demanding requirements of science. He explains that a skeptic is not synonymous with a cynic. Instead, a skeptic is someone who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it. As such, skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method.
Chapter 3 is a jewel. It describes 25 ways in which thinking goes wrong. Reading this chapter left me wondering if these rules for fallacious reasoning are not encoded somewhere as the rules for participation in some of the more notorious Internet newsgroups devoted to various mythologies.
The second part of the book examines claims of the paranormal, near-death experiences, alien abductions, witch crazes, and cults. Although these stories make interesting reading, they are same examples of debunking we have seen for years. I, for one, would appreciate a fresher skeptical approach that is not so (apparently) reluctant to challenge the claims of institutionalized religions. Is transubstantiation any more credible than claims of the paranormal? Are alien abduction stories any less credible than the Book of Mormon's claims about a large, literate Hebrew society in America 2,000 years ago, that used horse-drawn chariots and steel swords? Are witch crazes any more significant than some Christians who let their children die rather than bringing them proper medical treatment? I think not, and I believe it is time for skeptics to broaden their portfolio beyond the usual array of paranormal activities and alien abductions.
Shermer devotes chapters 9 through 11 to the conflict between creationism and evolution. This section of the book has a wonderful summary of the legal battles fought to keep the religion of creationism out of public schools. Chapter 10 has an excellent description of what is evolution, and a very brief summary of 25 arguments used by creationists against evolution, along with counter arguments used by scientists. Interestingly enough, Shermer offers very little in the way of direct evidence against creationism - of which there is a tremendous amount - and focuses mostly on how to defend evolution. Unfortunately, he has truncated his 25 arguments so much that they are of little practical use - especially against more polished debaters. Shermer admits this at the beginning of the chapter, and does offer an excellent bibliography of more detailed references for the reader.
Shermer's defense of evolution bogs down when he encroaches on the idea that evolution is not a threat to religion. [This is how I interpreted Shermer, though he is not entirely clear about his personal feelings regarding this matter.] Science most certainly is a threat to some religions - creationism, for example (and Shermer argues throughout his book that creationism is a religion - which is why it should not be taught in public schools). It seems obvious to me that sometimes science does threaten religion (more some than others) - but that is religion's problem, not science'. Scientists should stop apologizing for that fact.
In trying to sooth the potential conflict between science and religion, Shermer quotes Stephen J. Gould (one of my favorite authors). Interestingly, Gould (uncharacteristically) offers a spectacular example of some of the bogus reasoning Shermer discredits in chapter 3. Gould says (page 132):
"Unless at least half my colleagues are dunces, there can be - on the most raw and empirical grounds - no conflict between science and religion."
Here, Gould violates Shermer's rule 19 (overreliance on authorities - Gould's colleagues in this case). Then, Gould leaves us wondering if, instead, we are to consider the other half of Gould's colleagues (the half that apparently do not agree with him) as dunces.
To his credit, Shermer provides a definition of religion on page 145 (though he offers no definition of God). I am not sure he makes the matter any clearer by doing so, however, since his definition of religion (as a method) places it as the antithesis of science (also defined as a method). Yet, I got the impression from his book that Shermer agrees (on a fundamental level) that there need not be any disagreement between science and religion.
Part 4 discusses racism and pseudohistory in the case of holocaust deniers. This part seemed out of place in the book primarily because Shermer spends comparatively little time discussing the weirdness of the opposing camp, instead focusing mostly on his perceptions. Though I agree with him on most points, I could no shake the feeling the chapters belong in a different book with a different title.
In the last section (section 5) Shermer gets back on track and finishes with an interesting view of the societal role science plays, and the roll it will play in the future. Shermer holds hope for the human race, in spite of its sometimes-overbearing tendency toward mysticism. He also gives a wonderful summary of why people believe weird things: because it feels good. Though I would like to know more about why it feels good, I cannot argue with his conclusion.
Overall, this was an excellent book. Dr. Shermer is a clear thinker. His ability to focus on the central issues and facts makes this book refreshingly illuminating. His personal touch, brought through stories of actual life experiences, adds to the pleasure of reading his book.
Duwayne Anderson
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the guidelines and FAQs here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 10 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 12, 2007, 10:31:21 PM PDT
a pretty well-thought out review but it's just a bit long...

Posted on Jun 25, 2007, 5:01:11 PM PDT
Thank you for this review, it neatly cuts off any need for me to post a review of my own. You already said it all!

Posted on Mar 22, 2009, 12:01:53 AM PDT
After reading your comment, I guess I wonder why you gave it 5 stars. Half of it is criticism for being unclear, etc.

If he did say that there need not be a contradiction between science and religion, I agree. Like you said, there are some obvious contradictions, like creationism or people who believe there were steel-sword-wielding Hebrews 2000 yrs ago in present-day America (I had not heard of that lol). I am a Christian who does not see the Bible as a science book. The methodological study of the natural world (i.e. science) has no conversation with what is discussed in the Bible, unless you interpret Genesis literally. The rest of the Bible is filled with literary language; Genesis is not any different.

Sorry for the rant. Interesting range of comments, even among people who agree with him!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2009, 10:24:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 27, 2009, 10:24:48 AM PDT
H. Tuchman says:
Well said Louis, I was just going to comment how I don't understand how the reviewer (although thorough) gave this book 5 stars.

Posted on Apr 19, 2010, 3:04:14 PM PDT
Good, thorough review--although I would argue with Shermer that creationism isn't a religion. Rather, it is a teaching of some religions (particularly fundamentalist Christianity). I would agree that it shouldn't be taught in schools, but Shermer's categorization of it as a religion unto itself is clearly wrong.

Posted on Aug 18, 2010, 7:33:41 AM PDT
SAINT DARWIN says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 24, 2011, 2:21:24 PM PDT
T.Velasquez says:
"Part 4 discusses racism and pseudohistory in the case of holocaust deniers. This part seemed out of place in the book primarily because Shermer spends comparatively little time discussing the weirdness of the opposing camp, instead focusing mostly on his perceptions. Though I agree with him on most points, I could no shake the feeling the chapters belong in a different book with a different title."

For yourself or anyone who feels this way and wants to know more, read "Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity" by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. He goes into depth into all the white nationalist and neo-nazi movements to incredible detail and extent. The depths of weirdness and alternate history that these people believe really explains the totally insane and genocidal beliefs they have. And explains why its no good arguing with them when their religiously held beliefs are based on quasi-mystical histories of the world that are really "out there" and beyond rational thought.

Posted on Jul 12, 2011, 7:31:53 PM PDT
Gaius says:
Very thorough review, man. I wanted to read this book but I didn't know if it would really be about <i>why</i> people believe weird things. Even if I'm not getting exactly that, I think I'd still enjoy the book. Very helpful review.

Posted on May 14, 2014, 1:56:24 PM PDT
bukhtan says:
Thanks for your review. I also was a big fan of SJ Gould, back in the day. I remember reading the passage you quote, and thinking at the time that it was awkward, at best. Gould be a combative person, to say the least, but there were certain areas he seemed to shy away from, religion being one of those areas. I suppose it's possible that half his colleagues *were* dunces, though. At least in certain areas.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2016, 6:19:49 AM PST
ElizabethSC says:
Completely irrelevant to the discussion.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›