Rating: 
Summary: thumbs down
Review: Since this book seeks to explain, as its title says, "why people believe weird things", it should judged by how well it succeeds at this, not by how well it convinces us its examples truly are weird. It mostly chooses example beliefs that most literate, reasonable-minded people will agree are, roughly speaking, "weird", but which are not so obscure or outrageous that we will never encounter adherents. Since these example beliefs do have adherents, naturally we can expect to hear from them here, but their complaints are irrelevant to the matter at hand. In any case, I do not think this book succeeds very well at explaining "why people believe weird things".(By the way: A strawman is by definition non-existent. If such a person as "creationist Barnes" exists, and if he really is a creationist, then his appearance in an argument debunking creationism cannot possibly make such an argument a strawman argument. Calling such an argument a "strawman argument" is analogous to calling a debunking of tabloid journalism one because it cites "The National Enquirer" rather than "The Star".)
Rating:
Summary: A Fairly Entertaining Book- With a Creationist Strawman
Review: This book is decent, but I am really only concerned with one issue- that of Creationism. Shermer is unfortunately content to throw up a strawman or two and avoid critical questions in his attempt to show that Creationism is "weird". One thing I found quite amazing was that he actually critiqued the creationist view of the magnetic field which was first formulated by the creationist Barnes. Sorry to say, Shermer, Barnes' ideas were rejected more than 10 years ago in favor of a new and better Creationist model for the magnetic field. When reading his chapter on Creationism, I looked quickly to see if any of his "refutations" included the creationist argument about biological information. Whoops! Nowhere to be found. Yet again an evolutionist source ignores the most difficult Darwinian question. It may not be all Shermer's fault. He obviously cannot devote too much space to Creationism. However, his cocky and simplistic answers to cocky and simplistic (made up) Creationist arguments are of no threat to those who are "weird" enough to believe a silly thing like Creation. Perhaps Shermer's book would have been more useful if it had included a chapter about Darwinian evolution.
Rating: 
Summary: I beg to differ.
Review: "People seem to have expected either 1) an in depth scientific or sociological explication of 'why' people believe certain phenomenon; or 2) an academic paper, complete with lengthy citation, thesis statement, and that 'in-your-face' style that one can only find in a paper in the CV of a PhD. Ladies and Gentlemen, you cannot do either of the above in 300 pages." Really? A copy of my dissertation was deposited in a basement room of the university library. When I went to visit it there, I thumbed through a fair number of fellow inmates. I don't recall even one approaching, let alone exceeding, three hundred pages. (Mine had two hundred pages; some had as few as thirty.) Scholarly papers published in academic journals are of course, as a rule, much shorter than dissertations. In any case, some of us were hoping for something a bit less off-the-cuff, a bit less slaphappy, not necessarily "scholarly". That's all.
Rating:
Summary: Ah, it's okay.
Review: "How ironic that Gould, one of the most visible proponents of the pseudoscience of Darwinism, should be writing this book!" Actually Gould did NOT write this book. He only wrote the introduction. As a rule, it's a pretty good idea to READ a book before you review it. (If "Darwinism" is a pseudo-science then so is modern biology, which would be inconceivable without it. It happens, by the way, that there is a mountain of evidence in support of evolution. Evolution is as much an established fact as anything can be.) "Could Someone Explain This?....If these readers ["who congratulate the author for championing the skeptical banner"] are skeptics...how is it that they can make an assertion such as 'this book deserves 4 out of 5 stars' without contradicting themselves? To say that the book deserves any stars at all, the skeptic has to refute his claim that 'man has made mistakes in thinking before and therefore he can never be certain of his conclusions today.'" I'll try. First, I don't think you mean "skeptics"; I think you mean "relativists". Now let's assume for the sake of argument that "these readers" do purport to be relativists. If they are relativists, it follows that they are not absolutists, and will not generally go around proclaiming that such and such is absolutely true or absolutely false. Thus if they say something is true, you may reasonably assume them to mean they think it LIKELY true. It seems to me, however, that ANYONE, whether he purports to be a relativist or an absolutist, who says this or any book ABSOLUTELY deserves four stars (or however many) and ABSOLUTELY doesn't deserve three or five stars (or however many) is making himself ridiculous.
Rating:
Summary: Why ask why?
Review: Let's start with the title: Yes, it's glib and not quite accurate, but it's also very catchy. At least it caught MY attention. And I'm very sorry, but it seems to me that "Why People Have Contradictory Belief Systems" would be a much worse title for this--or any book. Not just because "Why People Have Contradictory Belief Systems" is ungainly and stodgy, but also because, for example, many delusions are perfectly self-consistent and still utterly false--and dangerous. What we are concerned with here, and rightly so, is not so much consistency but correspondence with reality. Both "creationism" and Ayn-Rand-ism, so to speak, have in common a refusal to consider empirical evidence. The scientific method, on the other hand, requires that suppositions be testable and be tested. I wouldn't pick on "creationism" were it content to consider itself a matter of religious doctrine (after all, much religious doctrine is supremely "weird"). It isn't. It demands that we take it for a contending scientific theory. I wouldn't pick on Ayn-Rand-ism were it content to consider itself a matter of philosophical speculation (after all, much philosophical speculation is supremely "weird"). It isn't. It conspires to take control of public policy, art, science, government, and pretty much anything and everything it can possibly get its paws on. But ad rem: I don't mind the glibness in this book's title, but I do mind the glibness in its content, and I don't find it especially well written, incisive, or insightful. Like others before me, I recommend you read instead Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark". But also read Carl Sagan's "The Dragons of Eden" to understand deluded self-consistent pattern-making, and Carl Sagan's essay on ancient Greek thought in "Cosmos" to understand the value of empirical evidence. One more recommendation: Richard Feynman us how to go about collecting empirical evidence in his essay "Cargo Cult Science", which appears in both "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" and "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman".
Rating: 
Summary: For Right Thinking Pseudointellects Only . . .
Review: . . . not for real, thoughtful people. The first disturbing aspect about this book is nothing less than the title: Why People Believe WEIRD Things. Notice, it's not Why People Have Contradictory Belief Systems. It's Why People Believe WEIRD Things. weird: curious in nature or unusual: odd, uncanny. Thus, it is apparent that "weird" does not refer to something internal to a belief system at all, rather it refers to a state of mind that accompanies the person encountering that belief system. At this point, there is no reason at all to discard a given belief system simply because it produces a certain state of mind: "weird". So, UP FRONT the author has all but admitted that the book is nothing more than name calling; therefore, meaningless. Like virtually every single other so-called rationalist skeptic, the author has done nothing more than dogmatically asserted his world view as superior to everyone else's then proceeded to mock and jeer at all those "inferior ones" who don't share in his world system. The author is certainly not skeptical of his own assumptions about the world. He's not really a skeptic at all in fact. Rather, he is skeptical of some things and not skeptical of others. This would be fine, except that he should have enough respect to recognize that other views may have some legitimacy. But the worst part about this is that the author has no imagination. Rather, than spending time trying to advance a certain theory or explain a certain phenomenon, the author has chosen merely to argue against straw man versions of various theories he disapproves of. Science progresses through the former, and achieves nothing but dogmatic staleness through the latter. Unfortunately, this book is one of hundreds and part of a disturbing trend.
Rating:
Summary: How ironic ...
Review: ... that Gould, one of the most visible proponents of the pseudoscience of Darwinism, should be writing this book! (See ARN org site or Trueorigins site.) Ironically as well, both of them are well-known pseudo-skeptics - those who enjoy calling themselves skeptics, but are actually committed to a very narrow world view of naturalistic materialism. "Rationality tied to moral decency is the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known." Unfortunately the reviewer fails to mention that this instrument is a fiction - that pure rationality has never generated a workable moral framework. CSICOP as well should be ridden out of town on a pole, complete with tar and feathers, for failing to debunk astrology. Yes, it's true! "One controversy, the Mars Effect debate, was perhaps especially instrumental in consolidating CSICOP's approach to the paranormal and the abandonment of its own scientific research. During the early days of the Committee, Kurtz and several others were engaged in a scientific study of astrology.10 Dennis Rawlins, an astronomer and member of the Executive Council of CSICOP, conducted the detailed calculations and data analysis for the project. He began noticing severe problems: The results were supporting the case for an astrological influence of Mars on sports ability, much to the consternation of the investigators. Rawlins tried to bring this to the attention of other Committee members. This lead to a bitter dispute, with Rawlins charging that serious mistakes had been made and that Kurtz had undertaken a Watergate-style cover-up. Rawlins (1981) was forced out of CSICOP, and he published an expose in Fate. There was no real answer to the charge of a cover-up, and much was published about it in Zetetic Scholar. The upshot was that several of the more moderate people resigned from the Committee. Rawlins's article appeared in the October 1981 issue of Fate, and that same month CSICOP instituted a policy of not conducting research itself ("Policy on Sponsoring," 1982).
After the moderate members left, little dissent or criticism of the Committee has been seen in the pages of SI. The magazine nearly always presents only one side of a controversy in its articles. Although SI sometimes publishes letters of complaint, full papers from CSICOP's critics almost never appear. This is in remarkable contrast to refereed parapsychology journals and even some of the pro-paranormal magazines." Skeptics, my fanny.
Rating: 
Summary: not what I had expected?
Review: This book is not what I had expected? I'm amused. Were many people actually hoping to indulge themselves in a tome of unequivocal answers? I would find that most sectarian, religious nuts offended by this book. Then again, I find most religious nuts offensive to my intelligence anyway. "Let's see...how do we 'explain' the Flood?" Shermer is awesome. This was, to say the least, a very entertaining book. So much so, I've subscribed to the Skeptics magazine. His book is bulging with solecisms? Yeah...right! I don't believe that this book was written with the mentally challenged in mind.
Rating:
Summary: Good start but disappointing finish
Review: Shermer's book began well, but he devoted far too much (almost half) of the book debunking Holocaust deniers and Creationists. It read more like a personal vendetta against groups and even individuals he didn't like rather than a scienific or psychological explaination as to what motivates people to unconventional beliefs. Shermer seems to have a major problem with God and people who believe in God, which obscures the points he tries to make. It was well-written and a good read on a trip, but didn't really answer the question posed by the title. Overall somewhat unsatisfying.
Rating:
Summary: To the armchair relativists of reality
Review: It's hilarious that skeptics write books -- and REVIEW books. What, did you guys suddenly sprout absolute standards of evaluating things in reality absolutely? I certainly hope the author has continued this new rational craze by including in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" at least a chapter or two on that funky little thing called skepticism. What's next? Will you guys start believing in cause and effect? Tell me it's so! I suggest a Pepto Bismol, two aspirin, a sturdy night's sleep and a good dose of Ayn Rand the following morning. That'll cure what ails the skeptical couch potato -- if he's got a modicum of remaining honesty. Happy trails!
|
