Rating: 
Summary: Shermer has interesting tales to tell
Review: I first read this book about two years ago and thought the world of it. Well, I recently re-read it and my opinion has changed a bit. When you are a youth that cant stand religion, homeopathy or Deepak Chopra, a book like this is great. Through personal tales, Shermer explains not why people belive wierd things, but why he believed wierd things and how he overcame it. His past was full of new-age curealls, Objectivism and other silly cultish stuff and Shermer is quick, not only to point out why we get trapped into fuzzy thinking, but express sympathy with those who currently do. If this makes the book sound condescending, that's because it is. This is why I changed my opinion about the book. What I originally read as a calm, objective book now seems a bit polemic and, honestly, that's the way most people will read it. Of course, there are other books along the lines of this one but they all seem to miss one crucial thing. Instead of explaining that new-age, Deepak and homeopathy are pseudosciences, the books never explain what is flawed about them (besides the fact that they're so silly!) and how we, the readers, can spot the flawed arguments for ourselves. This book, to conclude, is chock-full of anecdotes and jabs but, getting caught up in the fun of it, never answers the title question.
Rating: 
Summary: The ambiguity of skepticism
Review: Looking at the confusions of the New Age movement, in a long list of occult and superstitious confusions, the perspective of the skeptic as presented by Shermer would seem a fundamental discipline of thought--and yet... The problem is that the stance of positivistic scientism, armed with an incomplete theory of evolution, has gone into reverse and produced a view of man that is unrealistic, and not concordant with a greater tradition of human self-enquiry, however vexed that might be at its fringes and in its degenerations. It is always the same double whammy that Kant points to at the beginning of his great Critique, the double bind of the metaphysical and the narrow empiricist. The influence of Darwinism has been especially confusing here in underwhelming at the crucial point and producing an account of man that is reduced to something history contradicts. It is a point Wallace sensed, and as Arthur Koestler reviews that in his Janus man has an 'evolutionary' potential that he is almost spastically incapable of understanding, but which seems to have emerged early in his evolution, and certainly not as adaptation.
Modern Darwinism has thrown the skeptic off course here. What is the point of categorical rejection of telepathy? Everyone senses it, but noone can ever get it straight. It is a subject about which one is condemned to know nothing, and yet whose denial is likely to prove false. The great Indian sutras suggest the right approach, more practical, without the baggage of reductionist metaphysics. Target the essential, awareness and its development. Then, if the zone of occult noise arises, note it and pass on, without getting caught in these demented sideshows of the magical madmen.
All this said, the track record of this Shermer-style skepticism, however problematic, is actually quite good in practice. Conmen are rife here. The endless exploitations of human suggestibility have produced a wretchedly confused generation of New Age groupies, and the ambulance service of the "Skeptics" is an important approach. The problem is that people believe weird things because they are distorted versions of rather less than weird intimations of man's enigmatic nature. One might do better with a razzle-dazzle approach combining the spiritual discipline of a genuine and rigorous yogic psychology, a Kantian style metaphysical reserve, next to the all-important, but flawed, methodology of the developing sciences. But it is important to realize that Darwin will play you false here. Darwin just won't do it on the real 'evolutionary psychology' of man.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining and Practical, but Not Deep
Review: Fledgling and veteran skeptics alike are familiar with the major authors of the field, among them: Carl Sagan, Martin Gardner, and Michael Shermer. Shermer, the publisher of the quarterly magazine Skeptic, possesses a breezy, affable writing style well suited to presenting skepticism to the public. Most chapters of "Why People Believe Weird Things" contain entertaining anectdotes and observations, accomodating readers without insulting their intelligence. However, those looking for deeper insights into human psychology or skeptical tenets will not find them here. That alone would not be a major fault in this book, but the fact that some passages attempt to construct models of human behavior err on the side of presumption. (One example in particular concerns the cyclical nature of human history: his model is neatly and well-thought out, but sheds little light on its subject). Nevertheless, Shermer's passion for skepticism shows throughout, and the book remains a great read for those interested in the field.
Rating:
Summary: A Strong Resource for Skeptic Arguements
Review: I have followed Michael Shermer's magazine "Skeptical Inquirer" for several years and I've always appreciated his (and other's) devout scientific approach to common beliefs to expose misconceptions. With this book, he collects some of today's most infamous "fact vs. fiction" debates, all of which he has somehow been involved with; namely psychics, creation science, holocaust denial, and alien abductions (and several others as well). His skeptical approach to psychics (and the corruption behind their "power") is particularly interesting and offers some new insight to a continuously controversial practice. He participates in psychic readings and exposes the weaknesses. In his section on evolution vs. creation, he presents strong counter-arguements to the 25 most common creationist views. This is a particularly valuable portion of the text (for evolutionists and creationists alike), for it quite simply demonstrates the many flaws of creation science and can aid both sides in building stronger debates. I have deducted a star because following the evolution vs. creation chapter, Shermer takes a very cheap shot at creationists by grouping them with holocaust deniers. While his point is clear--both groups have a tendency to ignore or reject the cross-evidence presented to them--it's obvious that he is attempting to associate creationists with a group almost entirely composed of bigots, racists, and conspirators; which, needless to say, is far from the truth. Traditionally, the so-called creation scientists have attempted to back their claims with science (albeit often bogus) and will be quick to engage in an educated, scientific arguement. Holocaust deniers, on the otherhand, sling blatant racism and fraud in propaganda. While I may disagree with creationists about the origin of life, I don't think our arguements are as extreme as whether or not the most horrific event in recent history actually occurred, nor would I disrespect them by thinking them bad or immoral. That said, this book is highly informative and will provide skeptics with valuable ammunition against unsubstantiated claims.
Rating:
Summary: Worth a look
Review: That's three and a half stars. Much of what's in here has been done before, and done better, by people like Martin Gardner and Carl Sagan. The specific debunkings can't go into much detail, because Shermer covers so much territory. For example, Pennock's "Tower of Babel" provides a far deeper understanding of the makeup and motivations of the Creationist movement. But there's enough that's fresh to make it a worthwhile read: material on the Ayn Rand cult (and why it qualifies objectively as a cult), personal war stories about what it's like to battle the weirdmongers on weird-friendly media turf, and things psychologists have learned about traits that correlate with paranormal beliefs. And as the founder and editor of Skeptic magazine, the author knows his territory. Shermer draws useful parallels between creation science and Holocaust denial. I hadn't noticed the tactic both share, which is a generally useful one for anybody who wants a protective seal against reality: the creationists demand "just one fossil" which is incontrovertibly transitional, and the revisionists demand "just one document" which incontrovertibly spells out the plan for Hitler's Final Solution. This "one knockdown argument or nothing" strategy permits them to cultivate tunnel vision, and to ignore the *accumulated* weight of evidence, which is how truth is ordinarily determined in truly rational history, truly rational science, and for that matter in common sense. You wouldn't expect that Shermer could come up with a definitive answer for the title's question, and he doesn't. But he does make a serious attempt, and shows as much interest in understanding the true believers as he shows in exploding their beliefs. He's fighting the good skeptical fight, fighting it without compromise, but doing it with more gentleness and respect toward his opponents than one usually finds in this genre of literature. (Though I was surprised at how hard he came down on Frank Tipler. Tipler's "Physics of Immortality" incorporates a powerful element of wishful thinking, but it's not in conflict with science, much less in full fugue from reality like the rest of Shermer's subjects.) If you've already read Gardner and Sagan, and want more good debunking entertainment in the same line; or if you'd enjoy meditating on why people do believe weird things, but aren't expecting a final answer; or if you do engage in skirmishes with true believers yourself often enough to be collecting a short shelf of useful references, you'll find Shermer a genial companion, and this book (and its extensive bibliography) well worth your time. If your interest is more casual, you may feel otherwise.
Rating: 
Summary: A great place to start in learning to think critically
Review: This book is the one that launched my passion for critical thinking. It's a great way to understand how easily and innocently we can be mislead into believing things that defy logic.
I recommend this book to anyone who hates to be taken by cons, myths and ledgends.
It's both informative and funny.
Rating:
Summary: A GOOD READ BUT NOT THE BEST OF ITS GENRE
Review: A Good Book aith a lot of interesting details on creationists, cult and UFO believers and generally anyone that never learned how to think critically. There is in my opinion some interesting tidbits that you normally do not run into in this kind of book --- the section on the disease of holocaust denial and Ayn Rand believers (certainly not a disease, but a little disturbing nonetheless) are of particular note. Shermer concentrates on the fallacies and crooked thinking inherent in the things that do not make the simple test of being empirical or subject to change given new data (the most basic requirements for any logical and scientific view of the world). Richard Dawkins does a far better job of debunking creationism. Sagan, the man who predicated his whole life on the study of the possibility of extraterrestial life, does a better job in disclaiming any assummed probability that we have any shred of evidence through the ages for any rational belief in UFOs of massive world conspiracy theories. The organisation of the book is also a little haphazard. In that sense it can still be highly entertaining by reading a chapter at a time and then returning to it from time to time. All in all a very good effort and one that should be lauded when everywhere the forces of irrationalism and intolerance are on the rise.
Rating:
Summary: Among wierdoes ans sceptics
Review: In the early days of humanity mythology gave people the sense of meaning and direction that science does today in modern society, or rather that science is assumed to give. Shermer gives a tour de force of a world where the proclaimed 'death of god' by Nietzsche has produced a void being populated by people who cannot face a meaningless world and who doesn't have the stomach for the slow and arduous journey to knowledge represented by science. The question is 'So what?'. Can't these people be allowed to have some quirks of the mind if they feel good about it? Doesn't everybody have some peculiarity of some sorts? Be as it may, the point is that these beliefs aren't so innocent when connected to agendas with goals interfering with individual freedom or monetary gain. These issues are exemplified in the book by the movements such as 'Creationist Science' and Holocaust denial. As Shermer succinctly demonstrates, what begins as a (sceptical..?) idea on the fringes of society can, if not checked by sceptical curiosity, grow into big business and/or instruments of oppression. This sad development being visible amongst other in the story of Ayn Rand and the movement of 'Philosophical Objectivism'. I agree with Shermer in his ambition to understand rather than to cast ridicule on people with weird beliefs. This is important also to be able to understand phenomena such as religious fundamentalism. The overall message is that one cannot replace the need for meaning in human life with scientific inquiry alone, but at the same time one must be on the vigil for the motives of the people claming attention for their weird beliefs. The book is a very good introduction to the field of sceptical inquiry for anyone that has ever wondered about these people popping up now and then on TV and the like. I'll deduct one star from a top score though because of the rather weak connection between the 'Why' in the title and the text as such which is more of an exposé of the field. Recommended is also "The Battle for God" by Karen Armstrong on the history of religious fundamentalism and "The Undergrowth of Science" by Walter Gratzer for an in-depth look at weirdness within science as such.
Rating:
Summary: A good, but not complete introduction
Review: I would have preferred that Shermer spend less time on evolution and Holocaust denial and more on newer fads like feng shui. Resistance to evolution is a special case, being mostly religiously-based and as far as Holocaust denial goes, we know what sort of people deny the Holocaust. The book is more readable than Shick's similarly-titled "How To Think About Weird Things" but not as well-organized.
Rating:
Summary: Great topic - lacks depth
Review: Shermer is the master skeptic. He is consistent, logical and a talented writer. He is also considerate of those who hold to different beliefs than he does. In this book he deals with 25 errors of thinking that people make when they fall into weird beliefs. Unfortunatly he does not develop this enough in the book, and while interesting, the book feels like it only scratches the surface. Shermer can do better and his newer book, Why We Believe is a significant improvement upon this work. Still, If you are interested in Why People Believe Weird Things? than this book is an excellent introduction.
| 
