Rating: 
Summary: Uneven Essays on the Philosophy & History of Science
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Valuable Perspectives on How and Why Theories Are Proven
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: Overreaches a Bit
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Overreaches a Bit
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Shermer Ruins the Book by Talking Too Much
Review: I expected more of Mr. Shermer in this outing, given his excellent work in Why People Believe Weird Things. But then, in that book, Shermer took on and successfully skewered the easy targets, such as UFO nuts, believers in astrology and other New Age fantasies, revisionist Holocaust deniers and whatnot. However, his latest effort basically amounts to little more than a barely intelligible rant than thoughtful scholarship. Shermer begins with a bold objective- trying to lay down demarcation lines between generally accepted science (as is generally accepted by scientists themselves), iffy propositions which he calls borderlands science, and a large group of topics that he labels non-science and pseudo science. I must say without hesitation that he fails miserably in his objective, partly due to his poor choice of content, but mostly because of his even poorer writing style. Although the book starts out well, the writing steadily devolves, and by the fifth chapter, the reader must set his or her shoulders and hunker down for some very painful reading. Like most PhD holders, Shermer has acquired an impressive amount of scholarly trivia over the course of his education, yet somehow did not the master the mechanics of good writing. This actually is not hard to believe, as too many people finishing PhD programs in engineering, science and to the dishonor of all liberal arts traditions, English and history programs can not string together a few decent words of prose. Honestly, many of these programs think that they can make up for a lack of erudite soul with an overdose of abstract quantitation and esoteric facts. And boy oh boy does this approach show in Mr. Shermer's stilted and constipated text. Moreover, as someone who regards himself as a champion of the hypothesis test and the scientific method, he really should know when to appropriately use such methods, and when not to use them. In reading his text, I got the feeling that in his graduate training he only attended the lectures in his Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences having to do with hypothesis testing, and studiously skipped all the other lectures, particularly those having to do with measurement, validity, operational definition and level of trust in results. I say this because in his chapter on Psuedoscience and Race, he utterly fails to lay down an operational definition, and merely assumes that everyone shares the same common definition of race and knows what he is referring to. He also fails to consider the history of race and the common knowledge that race is a social construct, not a biological phenomenon. Though he provides a context (U.S. race relations), he does not provide an operational definition. He also seems unaware of considerable population genetic and molecular genetic evidence which would make it impossible for most in America to claim, at least from a genetic standpoint, to be truly 'white' or truly 'black'. Thus, from this one would have to assume, especially when reading Mr. Shermer's screed, that he defines race based on physical appearance pretty much like everybody else. However, scientists would take a different point of view, much as many a bigotted proponent of eugenics have on many occasions. A second bone of contention that I have with Mr. Shermer's overly scientific and inappropriately quantitative approach to everything is his use in Part II Borderlands People, of quantitative methods to evaluate purely subjective things. Some variables we measure are concrete and have meaning that is fixed, such as weight, temperature and volume, athough we can use metric or English units to evaluate them. However, as I recall from one statistics text (the actual text is Richard M. Jaeger's Statistics A Spectator Sport), things like intelligence or neuroticism are totally subjective because their meaning and their measurement can change depending on who is evaluating and measuring them. For such things, there can be no common agreement as to definition or even measurement. Which I believe Shermer should have learned, thus invalidating the invocation of Sulloway's work in his exposition. A good educational regimen in statistics (which I believe should begin with Moore's Statistics: Concepts and Controversies) would emphasize the importance of looking behind the numbers, using the appropriate measurement methods, and taking into account information other than that in the test when drawing conclusions. None of this was done within this text. Still, I did learn a few things, being quite surprised to learn that there was actually a black champion cyclist, and Mr. Shermer did make a number of correct points. I also give him credit for (grudgingly) admitting, in his last chapter, that scientists are people too, and are motivated by the same concerns and issues like everyone else. Yet, this does not make up for the overall bad writing and worse scholarship. I expect, no, I insist on better from a self-respecting skeptic.
Rating:
Summary: Shermer Ruins the Book by Talking Too Much
Review: I expected more of Mr. Shermer in this outing, given his excellent work in Why People Believe Weird Things. But then, in that book, Shermer took on and successfully skewered the easy targets, such as UFO nuts, believers in astrology and other New Age fantasies, revisionist Holocaust deniers and whatnot. However, his latest effort basically amounts to little more than a barely intelligible rant than thoughtful scholarship. Shermer begins with a bold objective- trying to lay down demarcation lines between generally accepted science (as is generally accepted by scientists themselves), iffy propositions which he calls borderlands science, and a large group of topics that he labels non-science and pseudo science. I must say without hesitation that he fails miserably in his objective, partly due to his poor choice of content, but mostly because of his even poorer writing style. Although the book starts out well, the writing steadily devolves, and by the fifth chapter, the reader must set his or her shoulders and hunker down for some very painful reading. Like most PhD holders, Shermer has acquired an impressive amount of scholarly trivia over the course of his education, yet somehow did not the master the mechanics of good writing. This actually is not hard to believe, as too many people finishing PhD programs in engineering, science and to the dishonor of all liberal arts traditions, English and history programs can not string together a few decent words of prose. Honestly, many of these programs think that they can make up for a lack of erudite soul with an overdose of abstract quantitation and esoteric facts. And boy oh boy does this approach show in Mr. Shermer's stilted and constipated text. Moreover, as someone who regards himself as a champion of the hypothesis test and the scientific method, he really should know when to appropriately use such methods, and when not to use them. In reading his text, I got the feeling that in his graduate training he only attended the lectures in his Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences having to do with hypothesis testing, and studiously skipped all the other lectures, particularly those having to do with measurement, validity, operational definition and level of trust in results. I say this because in his chapter on Psuedoscience and Race, he utterly fails to lay down an operational definition, and merely assumes that everyone shares the same common definition of race and knows what he is referring to. He also fails to consider the history of race and the common knowledge that race is a social construct, not a biological phenomenon. Though he provides a context (U.S. race relations), he does not provide an operational definition. He also seems unaware of considerable population genetic and molecular genetic evidence which would make it impossible for most in America to claim, at least from a genetic standpoint, to be truly 'white' or truly 'black'. Thus, from this one would have to assume, especially when reading Mr. Shermer's screed, that he defines race based on physical appearance pretty much like everybody else. However, scientists would take a different point of view, much as many a bigotted proponent of eugenics have on many occasions. A second bone of contention that I have with Mr. Shermer's overly scientific and inappropriately quantitative approach to everything is his use in Part II Borderlands People, of quantitative methods to evaluate purely subjective things. Some variables we measure are concrete and have meaning that is fixed, such as weight, temperature and volume, athough we can use metric or English units to evaluate them. However, as I recall from one statistics text (the actual text is Richard M. Jaeger's Statistics A Spectator Sport), things like intelligence or neuroticism are totally subjective because their meaning and their measurement can change depending on who is evaluating and measuring them. For such things, there can be no common agreement as to definition or even measurement. Which I believe Shermer should have learned, thus invalidating the invocation of Sulloway's work in his exposition. A good educational regimen in statistics (which I believe should begin with Moore's Statistics: Concepts and Controversies) would emphasize the importance of looking behind the numbers, using the appropriate measurement methods, and taking into account information other than that in the test when drawing conclusions. None of this was done within this text. Still, I did learn a few things, being quite surprised to learn that there was actually a black champion cyclist, and Mr. Shermer did make a number of correct points. I also give him credit for (grudgingly) admitting, in his last chapter, that scientists are people too, and are motivated by the same concerns and issues like everyone else. Yet, this does not make up for the overall bad writing and worse scholarship. I expect, no, I insist on better from a self-respecting skeptic.
Rating: 
Summary: A World of Glasshouses
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A World of Glasshouses
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Natural Progression
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Great Musings on Science & Pseudo-science
Review: It's a alittle hard to describe this book, since it includes a wonderful variety of different essays on science, pseudo-science, scientists and the enterprise of science itself. The book is not a typical "debunker" treatise, it's more philosophy of science. I wasn't always sure where Shermer was headed next, but whether he is wading into the life of Alfred Lord Wallace or considering the effect of birth order in adoption of novel scientific theory, his discussion is absolutely compelling. I would start into a chapter absolutely sure I wasn't interested, only to find myself unable to stop reading until the chapter was over. In fairness, the book is disjointed in that it turns to a variety of loosely related topics with little or no transistion. Still, Shermer makes each topic interesting and, taken as a whole, the book makes a compelling case for the power of science as a tool for interpreting our world. The discussion of Alfred Lord Wallace is marvellous, and includes insights I have read nowhere else.
|
