Rating: 
Summary: A book about Philosophy not Science
Review: Michael Shermer does a thinly veiled attempt at persuading his target audience that his philosophical belief system is the only belief system worth having. He does this by renaming naturalism as a guiding force for all scientists. Don't believe me than simply read his book on page 98 he defines science as:"Science is a specific way of thinking and acting common to most members of a scientific group, as a tool to understand information about the past or present." Compare that definition to this one "A particular system of principles for the conduct of life common to members of the same belief system. This system is used to process information and form opinions within that belief system." The above definition is Webster's definition of philosophy and now compare that to Webster's definition of Science "Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied." It should be crystal clear that Michael Shermer while pretending to speak about science does not; he instead is speaking about philosophy. It is also clear that Mr. Shermer wants desperately to put down anything that does not fall into his philosophical worldview as bad science he is only showing his supreme ignorance of what science is and is not. This book as I stated above is not about science or pseudo science it is simply a book about one man's philosophy being the driving force behind his very existence. While this, by itself is not bad, it is the insistence that this philosophy is not a philosophy at all but really true science. This must exposed for what it is. In reality I feel sorry for Mr. Shermer and scientist who are bound by the presuppositions of naturalism. Because the sad part of naturalistic belief system is that it precludes the scientist from using all of the available empirical and verifiable data as his or her disposal. It insists that they sit in a box and are only allowed to view the items in their naturalistic box. Anything that falls outside the box, even if they know it is true and has been proven to be true has to be at best ignored or at worst falsified into a non-eventuality. The bottom line is that the naturalistic scientist cannot use all the evidence at his disposal so his theories or constructs are at best weak due to the inability to view the panoply of events around him. The most curious item about naturalistic scientist is their insistence that their philosophical presuppositions make them unbiased. When in reality they are being controlled by materialistic ideals and not allowed to venture out of there box. I am not trying to dissuade anyone from reading this book, I just thought a little clarity should be brought to the table.
Rating: 
Summary: An Excellent Primer on Critical Thinking
Review: Michael Shermer gives an open and honest account about the inner workings of scientific thought as well as exposing ideas that-even today-many take as fact. The above reviews criticize Shermer for presenting science as philosophy, but there is no question that science is a belief system-it is influenced by culture and opinion. It does not exist as some purely isolated set of truths, partitioned from reality. This is Shermer's point about many scientific ideas throughout the book, not a blunder or misstep. Yes, science uses a particular method to understand the world. But Shermer points out that there are culturally driven forces behind the things we chose to study. Anyone versed in scientific method understands this. Throughout the book, Shermer stresses the criteria for labeling something "science".
Using a textbook definition of science will get you nowhere if your intent is to understand how science truly works. If you want to find the true meaning of life, for instance, rarely would you use Webster's to find it.
This is a great book for anyone truly interested in science and scientific thought. Shermer uses interesting stories, facts and ideas to relay his message that science may not always be as cut and dry as we may think, but its the best method we have of interpreting the world around us.
Rating: 
Summary: A so-so attempt at drawing the lines
Review: Michael Shermer is a one-man dynamo of what might be called the Radical Skepticism movement. He has a talk show, an organization, a magazine and writes books, all dedicated to separating the wheat from the chaff in human belief. Or so he claims. This book, like his magazine and his show, shows Shermer at his best (witty, reasonably well read and clever) and at his worst (narrow minded, inflexible and ignorant of philosophical stances beyond his own). Like the Positivists of the early part of the last century, Shermer believes he has an infallible metric that enables him to distinguish meaning from meninglessness, and he applies it ruthlessly. He's at his best when picking the easy targets, like research into ESP, remote viewing and so forth. But he uses these examples as a springboard to justify more questionable criticisms of areas like SETI, which, while still very much in the speculative column, aren't by any reasonable researcher's definition bad science. Unfortunately Shermer is unwilling or unable to admit there are vast gaps in his knowledge and that not all truths are easily sorted into one bin or another. He seems unable to understand that sicentific truth is a product of the paradigm of a time. Thus (for example) he rejects Freud completely, without understanding how Freud's theories were a product of his era, or how they helped change the way in which we talk about the mind. (After all, we know now that Newton's laws are only simplified approximations of the actual processes, but we don't decry him as [untruthful]!) Shermer lumps together the purely fantastic with the merely questionable or speculative; all things either pass Shermer's standard or they don't, period. Skepticism is an important trait of the good researcher, but for Shermer it's a religion in itself, perhaps because his ego is so tied up in what he sees and the absolute truth of his assertions. As a result, what begins as an interesting review of well-known [untruths] and delusions ends up being merely a demonstration of the limits of Shermer's knowledge.
Rating:
Summary: A Random Walk Through The Borderlands Of Science
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: a dose of reality
Review: the borderlands of science is a must-read for the easily influenced in today's overhyped society. shermer, in a closely reasoned, conversational style, deconstructs many of the prevailing myths that too often go unchallenged. i need to have copies of this book with me to pass along whenever i encounter (all too often) some of the ridiculous beliefs that pass for rational thought.
Rating:
Summary: Very well arranged
Review: The Borderlands of Science, like all good science books includes philosophy. When you are writing about the importance and big picture of science, writing about philosophy is inevitable and very much necessary to show the meaning. Because Shermer has so much experience in cricism it is only right that he debunk nonsciences such as remote viewing. I will be anxious for new literature.
Rating:
Summary: Very well arranged
Review: The Borderlands of Science, like all good science books includes philosophy. When you are writing about the importance and big picture of science, writing about philosophy is inevitable and very much necessary to show the meaning. Because Shermer has so much experience in cricism it is only right that he debunk nonsciences such as remote viewing. I will be anxious for new literature.
Rating: 
Summary: Fuzzy Regions of Science
Review: This book shows that science is much more than a collection of facts that point to a simple answer. The author uses a diversity of subject matter to illustrate that the quest for scientific knowledge can be hindered by cultural, political, and personal ideals, but that the self-correcting mechanism of science will eventually prevail. From the formulation of Darwin's ideas to the controversial claim that race plays a factor in athletic ability, the author shows how scientific ideas are constructed and either built upon or rejected. The information contained in this book makes for a very interesting read, but used as the tool it was written to be, it can show rational thinkers how to be more aware of their own biases that may cloud their thinking.
Rating:
Summary: Subtle and relevant! Science defined at last.
Review: This book will reveal details that most other books don't dare get into... bravo!! The content is well written and precise. We finally know what's real science, and what isn't. From there, and for those who want a truly scientific approach to the history of chronology, I would aoso strongly recommend reading "History: Fiction or Science" by Anatoly Fomenko, who follows in the steps of Sir Isaac Newton, and fearlessly tackles the falsification of antiquity with astronomy and mathematics.
Rating:
Summary: There are some real gems in this book
Review: 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).
| 
