Rating: 
Summary: Missed Opportunity
Review: In a world where the flow of information that daily assails us has turned into a veritable tidal wave, the process of debunking myths, snake oil salesmen and the like not only makes fun reading, it also provides a valuable service - BUT ONLY when it is done well.In this case, the book unfortunately tells us little more than what groups/ideas have earned the author's vitriolic displeasure. What we DON'T find out is what has really shaped the contents of the book, and this despite the fact that there is solid evidence that in numerous instances the views and claims are based on indirectly obtained, and often wildly off beam, information rather than on solid investigation.
In short, we are offered prejudices posing as objectivity. Take the rejection of "the unconscious mind", for example.
The book provides a lengthy, even tedious, pseudo-scientific discussion of how "science" has failed to demonstrate the existence of the "unconscious" mind as described by Freud, Jung and Tart, and then leaps to the unsupported conclusion that therefore there is no such thing as the unconscious mind. In the first place this argument presupposes that nothing is "true" until it has been scientifically validated. Which is a bit like arguing that Australia dind't exist until the first white explorers discovered it.
Secondly, it studiously ignores the fact that "scientific" knowledge is itself a highly moveable feast - what seemed to be proven/disproven yesterday may well turn out to be disproven/proven tomorrow. (Yesterday "natural selection" was seen as THE controlling force behind evolution, today it is just one part of a much larger, more complex picture, tomorrow - who knows.) But then again, you really don't need to be a rocket scientist to recognise the validity of the notion of an "unconscious", or "out of conscious" mind. Fact: numerous experiments carried by Prof. Robert "Pygmalion in the Classroom" Rosenthal have shown that students can accurately predict a teacher's perceived effectiveness (as rated at the end of a complete semester) on the basis of just three 2 (TWO) second video clips. So what process do they use to make that evaluation?
How can they be so accurate?
What yardstick(s) are they using to make the evaluation?
We have no idea, because the processing takes place OUTSIDE of the conscious mind. So whether you call it "unconscious", "subconscious", "out of conscious", "non-conscious" or anything else, we clearly have a capacity for mental processing which is something rather more sophisticated than just "lost memory", as this author suggests. This is the sort of book that greatly appeals to dilitante cynics, offering broad grounds for scepticism regarding numerous topics by way of a host of half-baked "facts" which the reader isn't expected to check out for him/herself. One measure of a truly useful critique is that BOTH sides (or ALL sides) of the story are presented and compared so that the listener/reader can reach their own conclusions. But don't worry - you'll find nothing that open or constructive in this volume.
Rating: 
Summary: THINK FOR YOURSELF!
Review: In this world of enormous information, vast data-clusters, metadata and junk everywhere one needs an organised technology of how to separate fact from fiction. This is what this great book offers you. Having been a Scientologist for many years had fried my brain. When I was out this cult I wasn't able to think like a normal, reason-intended person anymore. All this bizarre psycho/spiritual counselling had fried the logical part of my brain. One good day I bumped into the Skeptic's Dictionary website.... I was illuminated like the horizon at sunset! Finally a digestable approach on how to really THINK FOR YOURSELF! The chapters on "Logic and Perception" I found the most valuable, the rest of the articles are applications of them directed toward various practices like Scientology. The review of Oct 28,2003 is clearly written by a Scientologist, all defense of Scientology with regards to critical thought is that one must study the works of L. Ron Hubbard for himself and then judge. But this is just a cheap way to capture you. If you still have a critical view they'll just say you didn't understand it and let you study even more UNTIL YOU ACCEPT. This is one of the mechanisms of deception wich is explained in the Skeptic's Dictionary. Safeguard yourself for various practices like Rorhsach tests, Scientology, Dianetics, Iridology, pschycic healing, telepathy and other junk and "BUY, READ AND APPLY" the Skeptic's Dictionary!
Rating:
Summary: Great book for those seeking facts.
Review: Incredible book that is well-written and a joy to read. Carroll looks at phenomena and ideas that pop-culture has promoted ad nauseum and gets to the scientific truth. He takes James Randi's work a step further by detailing his entries in a clear, concise manner, and creates a book that is amazingly readable. I couldn't put it down!
Rating: 
Summary: Cynic more than Skeptic
Review: It's always a treat to read a writer who engages in what he purports to refute. One other review on this site gave Carroll's book five stars for, in part, "not too much depth." No argument there. Depth seems a prerequisite to skepticism. So Carroll's credibility regarding such matters as Carl Jung's contributions to psychology is, as revealed by both his tone and his thin and selective support, reveal a writer in way over his head.
In all, the work (like the website), reads more like a set of fundamentalist sermons warning congregations against temptations of the flesh than a demonstration of intellectual rigor. Merely claiming to be skeptical doesn't make one so.
Ironically, this is a good book for learning how to be a skeptic in the same way that a book by Rush Limbaugh is a good way to learn how to be a leftist.
The two stars are for: 1) Some laughs; 2) An engaging list of topics; 3) Occasional lucidity.
Rating: 
Summary: Refreshing and Up-to-Date
Review: Let's get the quibble out of the way first. I don't like the
words "skeptic" and "dictionary" in the title (the "the" is
ok!). The tone is not skeptical, it is simply fact-oriented.
And the book is in encylopedia format, not dictionary format. Now as to content. The author is a professor of philosophy, and
he tends to discuss the various topics from the standpoint
of logical and factual consistency, rather than from a scientific
standpoint. Since the topics under discussion generally have
no scientific aspects whatsoever, despite their pretenses, this
is hardly a defect. Entries tend to be a bit brief and terse,
as might be expected since most of the material appeared first
on the author's very useful website. I teach a course in
pseudoscience, and it covers a very, very wide range of topics
in this nearly bottomless field. I found accurate entries
on almost every one of those topics here, with very few
exceptions. Discussion of medical quackery is always problematical in a book
of this kind, because of the tendency of quacks to sue authors,
not on the issue of false claims about the quack, but rather
on the narrow legal issue of "restraint of trade"--- in other
words, factual discussion of quacks and alternative healers
makes it harder for those quacks and alternative healers to find
paying suckers, or so their lawyers claim. But the author has
managed to discuss many common forms of quackery, and a number
of prominent quacks, nonetheless. More power to him and to
his publisher. I don't know of another book exactly like this, with the same
broad sweep of content. I recommend it highly to anyone who is
interested in the facts, if any, behind some of the most
familiar myths of our time.
Rating:
Summary: Indespensible Toward Keeping the Candle Lit.
Review: Readers of this book, may not be aware that this is a compilation of entries from Carroll's excellent website www.skepdic.com. First off, it must be remembered that this is a work in PROGRESS. Entries you may expect to find, may not be there. Rest assured, this is not the final edition you will see of this book - and you can continually recieve updates from his website if you choose. As it is, this book is a must have in the never ending battle to combat bunk, pseudo science and the dumbing down of society. You may find beliefs you hold dear challanged, it may make you uncomfortable and it may make you angry. However, if you let it, this book will make you think - and hopefully, you will continue to question, to seek out the truth and as Carl Sagan put it - not let the candle go out. Excellent, excellent book!
Rating:
Summary: Informed, measured, and warranted skepticism
Review: Robert Carroll has compiled an impressive collection of short articles defining and explaining ideas that warrant careful critical examination; that is, ideas deserving a thorough going over by a thoroughgoing skeptic. Carroll pulls no punches in his criticism of whacky cultish ideas, yet he does not brazenly skewer all sacred cows. Rather, he sets out to expose a wide range of ideas to the light of healthy skepticism, exposing blatant charades for what they are, explicating ideas that are often misconstrued or irrationally rejected, and casting doubt where doubt is due. I believe he largely succeeds in these endeavors. The book is organized like a dictionary with an alphabetical listing of various words that Carroll sets out to explore in depth. I think the book is better described as an encyclopedia, however, because of the length and style of the articles, which are not terse definitions, but mini-essays. Here is a sampling of the "A" words to give you an idea of the range of topics that Carroll addresses: acupuncture, agnosticism, alien abductions, ancient astronauts, angel therapy, anthroposophy, argument from design, argument to ignorance, aromatherapy, astral projection, astrology, atheism, automatic writing, and avatar. (This is roughly one third of the entries under "A"). Even within this short list there are some whacky ideas (angel therapy and alien abductions), some borderline ideas (acupuncture and anthroposophy), and some words that are simply in want of a careful definition (agnosticism, atheism, and avatar). Carroll deals with them all rather even-handedly, at least from the perspective of a naturalistic worldview. Other topics covered in the book include Bible codes, Bigfoot, chiropractic, confirmation bias, crystal power, ESP, holistic medicine, karma, levitation, magnet therapy, miracles, Noah's Ark, etc. I think Carroll did a rather good job in selecting his topics as they cover such a panoply of beliefs; he is just as likely to find fault with one cult as any other. With respect to Carroll's intentions, as he states in the introduction, "this book is a Davidian counterbalance to the Goliath of occult literature. I hope that an occasional missile hits its mark." Thus, Carroll apparently intends to instill a bit of healthy skepticism into those minds willing to accept it. And who might that be? Carroll identifies his intended audience as those uncommitted to occult claims (open-minded seekers), those who believe in them but have doubts (believing doubters), those who are more prone toward doubt than belief (soft-skeptics), and those who strongly disbelieve in occult ideas (hardened-skeptics). But, "The one group this book is not aimed at is the 'true believer' in the occult. If you have no skepticism in you, this book is not for you." I suspect that Carroll is quite right in his assessment; if you are an ardent believer in any of the cultish ideas that Carroll debunks, then you are unlikely to find his arguments compelling; The reason for that, of course, remains open to debate. Here are a few short snippets from Carroll's entries. Under "acupuncture," Carroll first describes the history of the technique, its variants, and the types of claims made for it. His brief analysis suggests that there is little reason to believe that the anecdotal successes of the technique amount to anything more than regression toward the mean. In Carroll's words, "An alternative treatment such as acupuncture is sought only when the pain is near its most severe level. Natural regression will lead to the pain becoming less once it has reached its maximum level of severity." Under "agnostic," Carroll carefully defines the often-misunderstood word, explaining that "The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural. Understood this way, an agnostic could be either a theist or an atheist." Under "numerology," Carroll explores the idea of ascertaining a person's characteristics from numerical data based on name and birth date, and exposes it as a total sham. He links the perceived success of numerology to the "Forer effect", which he defines in another entry as "The tendency to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to oneself without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone." This is a fun book to read, both because of its wide range of topics, and because of Carroll's no-nonsense pragmatic approach. I hope that the book will cajole at least a small minority of readers into critically examining some of the outlandish beliefs that surround us, and to wisely insist on something more than anecdotal evidence, wishful thinking, or arguments from ignorance before accepting them.
Rating:
Summary: Get Weston's "A Rulebook..." instead and think for yourself
Review: The book is intended to be a critical examination of "strange beliefs, amusing deceptions & dangerous delusions." Thus it is awful that the book is full of factual errors. In addition, it examines many topics superficially and criticize them mechanically. Regarding Rolfing, for example, the author tells us on pages 340-341 that "Dr. Rolf claimed she found a correlation between muscular tension and pent-up emotions." and "Has this claim of the muscular/emotional connection been demonstrated by any controlled studies? No, but there are many anecdotes and testimonials verifying Rolfing." This is in fact wrong, and it took me less than two minutes of search in research databases to find several controlled studies in which the benefits of Rolfing have been scientifically confirmed. See for example: Physical Therapy 1988 Sep; 68(9):1364-70. "Shifts in pelvic inclination angle and parasympathetic tone produced by Rolfing soft tissue manipulation." by Cottingham JT, Porges SW & Richmond K.
Rating:
Summary: Study Weston's "A Rulebook for Arguments" instead.
Review: The book is intended to be a critical examination of "strange beliefs, amusing deceptions & dangerous delusions." Thus it is bad that the book contains several factual errors. In addition, the author examines many topics superficially and criticizes them mechanically. Regarding Rolfing, for example, the author tells us on pages 340-341 that "Dr. Rolf claimed she found a correlation between muscular tension and pent-up emotions." and "Has this claim of the muscular/emotional connection been demonstrated by any controlled studies? No, but there are many anecdotes and testimonials verifying Rolfing." But this is not correct. It took me less than two minutes of search in research databases to find a controlled study that confirmed the benefits of Rolfing and the correlation between muscular tension and blocked emotions. See: Physical Therapy 1988 Sep; 68(9):1364-70. "Shifts in pelvic inclination angle and parasympathetic tone produced by Rolfing soft tissue manipulation." by Cottingham JT, Porges SW & Richmond K. Further, the book should have had a more detailed table of contents, the topics should have been structured under different themes, and some of the topics should not have been included in the book since they have scientific support, such as Rolfing. I suggest you study Anthony Weston's "A Rulebook for Arguments" instead of this book and learn how to think critically for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Get Weston's "A Rulebook..." instead and think for yourself
Review: The book is intended to be a critical examination of "strange beliefs, amusing deceptions & dangerous delusions." Thus it is awful that the book is full of factual errors. In addition, it examines many topics superficially and criticize them mechanically. Regarding Rolfing, for example, the author tells us on pages 340-341 that "Dr. Rolf claimed she found a correlation between muscular tension and pent-up emotions." and "Has this claim of the muscular/emotional connection been demonstrated by any controlled studies? No, but there are many anecdotes and testimonials verifying Rolfing." This is in fact wrong, and it took me less than two minutes of search in research databases to find several controlled studies in which the benefits of Rolfing have been scientifically confirmed. See for example: Physical Therapy 1988 Sep; 68(9):1364-70. "Shifts in pelvic inclination angle and parasympathetic tone produced by Rolfing soft tissue manipulation." by Cottingham JT, Porges SW & Richmond K.
|
