Rating: 
Summary: Your Weird if you don¿t believe in the things that I do
Review: I was quite disappointed in Michael Shermer's book. I guess I had built it up after reading many of the good reviews it has received. I will not be overly verbose in my critique because if you go back and read some of the other reviews that had a dim outlook on this book you will find some well reasoned critiques. What does seems self-evident after reading this book is that Mr. Shermer is so philosophically attached to his constructs and his world-view, he believes that everything else is weird. His viewpoints are so ingrained that he is no longer a skeptic but he has become an obscurantist!There is a fairly good chapter in the book (that's why I gave it two stars), it is Chapter 3 "How Thinking Goes Wrong: Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things". While Mr. Shermer's outline in this chapter is fairly correct it is interesting to note that he then goes and breaks at least 6 of his 25 fallacies during arguments in his book. So if you believe that his 25 fallacies are correct you must find that some of his argumentation is in error. In that case Mr. Shermer makes fallacious statements in his book and therefore, his conclusions are false. Hmmm, the old two-edged sword strikes again. But let's get back to Chapter 3 and the 25 fallacies. Probably the most enlightening fallacy pointed out by our author (I believe that he thinks it is the most important also because he lists it first) is "Theory Influence Observations". Here is a quick quote from the book that delineates the authors understanding of this: "The theory in part CONSTRUCTS the reality. Reality exists independent of the observer, of course, but our perceptions of reality are influenced by the theories framing our examination of it." (Emphasis in original p46) This quote is quite correct for those who have an ideological agenda attached to their own theories. For example if a certain person thinks that belief in Chocolate is weird, that person would be able to find enough facts to support their own illogical construct. They then could write a book called "Why People Believe in the Weird Thing Known as Chocolate". I think you get my point. Some of the biggest errors in the book, probably at least 35% of the book, relate directly to the "Theory Influence Observation" error. For Michael Shermer tacitly admits to his belief in the philosophical constructs of Naturalism. He is therefore, bound by the constraints of naturalistic thought. For it is Mr. Shermer, who has painted himself into this philosophical box. The gigantic hurdle then becomes for people who read this book to see that it is in reality a tome of enlightenment to the deity of Naturalism. While the author derides anyone who disagrees with him as being unscientific and unenlightened, it is the sad fact that it is Mr. Shermer who has a set of ideological rules laid out that he must play by. For if in the quest of truth Mr. Shermer comes upon empirical facts and evidence in opposition to his belief system, he must, according to naturalistic presupposition disregard the truth in favor of the philosophy. It is absolutely amazing that these people who say they are open-minded skeptics are in reality bound by a set of rules so stringent that they cannot accept verifiable evidence to the contrary. I feel sorry for the ilk who are so easily swayed by this drivel. Moreover I have suggestion for more appropriate titles for this work would be: "Your Weird if you don't believe in the things that I do"
"Convert to my Belief Structure or you will be labeled a Weirdo"
"I'm Right and Your Wrong"
"You to can be a skeptic as long as you believe in the same things I do"
"Freethought Thinking 101: Just believe everything I tell you and your too can be a freethought prodigy"
"Naturalist We're right Naturally"
Rating: 
Summary: Could Someone Explain This?
Review: This, of course, is a book by a famous skeptic. Yet, in reading the reviews of this book, I see that it has been given four and sometimes even five stars by others who congratulate the author for championing the skeptical banner. If these readers are skeptics, however, 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." He would, in other words, have to show the reasons that back up his claim and, on this basis, say that his conclusion should be respected as proven. But this is exactly what the skeptic can't do. And so, what gives?
Rating: 
Summary: Thank you, Michael Shermer
Review: I found Shermer's book to be an excellent yet basic treatise about the nonsense that passes as truth in some circles . It's disturbing to find that there are people out there (even some who are otherwise well-educated) who believe that the Holocaust never happened or who toss aside science from 1850 forward in favor of creationism. And yet Shermer shows us that they not only exist but that they are trying to infect others with their "pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions." I think one reason some of them are actually successful is that there are not enough people like Michael Shermer out there explaining the difference between science and pseudoscience. Finally, I appreciate the fact that Shermer points out that not all skeptics and believers in real science are atheists as the fundamentalist Christian right would have the American public believe.
Rating: 
Summary: Skeptical Bounty!
Review: Well, Shermer's done it again! The arguements are not new, but as usual, Shermer's approach to them is fresh and exciting. Like his idol, Carl Sagan, Shermer has a knack for talking to his readers...not simply "writing at them". Reading a Shermer dissertation is like reading a personally addressed letter from him...he seems to hit all the high points of the issues without skimping but also without beating a point into the ground. What's more, he doesn't pander or "talk down" to his readers. He knows who his target audience is, and he recognizes their inherent intelligence and curiosity. It's a wonderful book for "the younger skeptic" as well, as it delves (at length) into the "evolution vs. creationism in school" issue...something with which any highschooler is at least passingly familiar.
All in all, Shermer has hit the nail right on the proverbial head with his latest handbook for freethinkers everywhere...and like all the best scientific thinkers of our time, he realizes that science doesn't have to be inherently "antireligious", but that religion is sometimes a little too inherently "antiscientific". Read it more than once...as soon as possible!
Rating:
Summary: Why do sceptics get such a bad rap
Review: Through out the ages man has used the human eye to explain things around him, more often incorrectly. Most of this misinformation has been spread through religious doctrine instead of scientific observation. We often see people turn to the absurd and often silly avenues of psychics, fortunetellers and other spooks to find out the answers to the most basic questions. Yet what makes these people turn to the silly and often absurd when it more often base don pure chance. Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer presents a number of topics that are very much the subject of intense debate including Creationism, Holocaust Denial, Cults, UFO Belief and many other hot topics. The book presents the arguments and Shermer produces the facts to help explain the reason why many fall for the traps of such silly and often destructive beliefs. Yet one must be careful as this book will offend many and make you the party pooper!
Rating:
Summary: Catalog of Weird Beliefs
Review: While it is possible to launch an analysis of pseudoscience in the abstract (See Humphrey's Leaps of Faith), the more common tactic is to take a particular irrational belief system and examine its absurdities and then to take another such belief and do the same. Shermer has done a credible job of this type in this book. Shermer examines a dizzying array of weird beliefs: Near death experiences, alien abductions, Ayn Rand, Edgar Cayce, witchcraft, holocaust deniers, etc. In fairness, all of the topics may not interest all readers. However, this does not take away from reading as Shermer takes apart some particularly irrational belief system. Fun and thought provoking, this is a book worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Hilarious, fascinating, & informative
Review: Nearly (but not quite) as good as HOW WE BELIEVE, Shermer's WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS is a delight to read. Though targeted primarily at the general public, it should appeal to scholars as well. A must read for any thinking person. ALSO RECOMMENDED: Shermer's HOW WE BELIEVE: THE SEARCH FOR GOD IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE.
Rating: 
Summary: Unfortunately, a bit of a disappointment
Review: I originally learned of this book from reading a review of it on the Excite home page by Penn Gillette of Penn and Teller, where the highest praises were heaped upon it. Although not a bad book, and despite containing several good articles, I was disappointed with the book as a whole. The reasons for this are various: occasional lapses in factual accuracy, a little too much self-promotion, poor writing, more intolerance of religion than I am comfortable with, and an overall distrust of the author. On the latter point, I do not mean to say that I never have confidence in the accuracy of what he asserts, but that there were a couple of instances in which he made assertions that undermined my complete faith in what he was saying. Where did Shermer lose my confidence? There were several instances, but I will mention two. My favorite book of 1997 was Keith Thomas's RELIGION AND THE DECLINE OF MAGIC. Shermer mentions this book in his article "Epidemics of Accusations: Medieval and Modern Witch Crazes." He writes: "In one of the best books on the period [i.e., the witch craze in England in the 16th and 17th centuries], Keith Thomas argues that the craze was caused by the decline of magic and the rise of large-scale, formalized religion" [103]. This is an utterly baffling statement. Thomas at no point makes any point even remotely resembling this. It is possible to deduce such a position if one looks merely at the title of the book, but not from the text of the book itself. Thomas claims that the witch craze and witch accusations were caused by the erosion of traditional systems of benevolence and the decline of traditional forms of religion in which benevolence was central. In most instances of witchcraft accusation, the accusers claimed the "witches" had practiced witchcraft on them after they [i.e., the accusers] had refused to respond to a request for help. For instance, an individual would come to them for help--perhaps asking for bread or a mug of beer [the main source of calories during the period]--and be refused. Later, those who had declined to help might suffer nightmares or find a farm animal afflicted, and deduce that this was a result of their refusal to help. As Thomas points out, a large number of witchcraft accusations resulted from what we in the 20th century would recognize as feelings of guilt. Nowhere does Thomas suggest that the witchcraft accusations resulted from the rise of large-scale, formalized religion. My conclusion when I read this in Shermer was that he perhaps had read the title of Thomas's book, but nothing else. Or at best, that he had read it, but did not understand it. In either case, it caused me to wonder how well he had understood the hundreds of other books and individuals he discusses of whom I know less than Thomas. The second instance that caused me to lose some confidence in Shermer concerned a statement he makes about David Hume: "The work [A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE] still garnered no recognition, so in 1758 he brought out the final version, under the title AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, which today we regard as his greatest philosophical work" [45]. Who is "we"? It is certainly not Barry Stroud, J. L. Mackie, Pall S. Ardal, Annette Baier, or Norman Kemp Smith, who are the premiere Hume scholars of the past century. In fact, I know of only one writer who argues that the ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING is his most important work, and that is Antony Flew, and his view in widely recognized as a minority, somewhat aberrant, opinion. (In fact, Flew argues not that the one ENQUIRY is his most important work, but both the ENQUIRIES, both AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING and AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS. Shermer does not mention the existence of this latter work, which is the necessary complement of the other ENQUIRY. In other words, Shermer really just does not know what he is talking about here. None of this means that Shermer cannot be trusted in the majority of his writing, but it nonetheless undercut my trust in his judgment. Having said that, many of the individual articles were quite enjoyable, and many were quite informative. A more serious criticism is that the book's content does not reflect its title. Shermer does not explain why people believe weird things so much as he catalogs weird beliefs. Admittedly, many of these beliefs are exceedingly weird. Still and all, I cannot recommend this book as highly as I can those of fellow sceptic and debunker Martin Gardner (whom Shermer mentions with great respect) or James Randi, both of whom I find to be a much more balanced and better-informed writers.
Rating:
Summary: Could have been better
Review: As other reviewers have mentioned, the main flaw in this book is that Shermer doesn't really tackle the question posed in the title. He spends most of the book debunking nonscientific beliefs, but only one chapter is devoted to the actual question of why people believe "weird things" without proof. Besides that, he includes to many different areas of research, and thus doesn't have time to focus thoroughly one any of them. Why, then, do I give this book four stars? It is well written and very convincing, and could serve as a good introduction to skeptical thought. As the tide of pseudoscience rises and people attempt to dismiss rational and reasonable thought, we need good thinkers like Shermer to defend science as what it really is - the attempt by humans to understand the world around us. Finally, he connects with the audience by providing many humorous annecdotes about his own experience with pseudoscientific liars and examples of scientific thinking gone astray (very, very astray.) The final section of the book, and the best one, covers the phenomenon of Holocaust denial. This is the most interesting section because it does delve into the psychology of people who want to rewrite history, even though they know that the things they are saying aren't true. Shermer also points out the urgency of fighting this movement with solid historical fact. The middle section of the book covers the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. Unfortunately, it is too short to present this topic in great detail. Contrary to what the review below this one claims, Shermer doesn't insist that Evolution is true because Creationism is false. However, his purpose in this section is to show how and why Creationists intentionally misrepresent scientific fact, so that is the main focus of these chapters. The opening section is the least useful. It covers a variety of topics, including UFOs, near-death experiences, and Ayn Rand's cult. However, the chapters are quite short, so they can't provide in depth analysis of such phenomenon.
Rating:
Summary: Not What I Expected
Review: The first disappointment was that this book is not really very well written (there are many grammatical errors) and not organized very well either. For example; on pages 127-128 we are given a big build-up about Shermer's debate with Duane Gish on March, 10 1995, but then we don't get anything about what actually happened that night. We get a tearing down of a strawman of creationism. It is with creationism that Shermer saves his greatest vitriol, apparently having believed it himself previously, he feels betrayed by that belief and now has to save the rest of the world from his error. This is also evident in his treatment of Ayn Rand. As his passions become evident in the book, we have to question if his current beliefs are driven by passion or reason? If they are driven by passion, then that is contrary to the point he is trying to make. If evolution is correct only because creationism is false and must be fought passionately, that doesn't say much for the science behind evolution. By Shermer's lights, anyone who is critical of evolution, must be a creationist and incapable of scientific thought. Yet criticizing science is the job of science. Far too much of the book is dedicated to Holocaust Denial. As other reviewers have pointed out, the book does not live up to it's title as it doesn't really explain why people believe weird things. Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" is far superior to this book. Shermer seems to be quite a fan of Sagan as he quotes him at the front of the book. It's too bad he couldn't learn from Sagan's example in writing and organizing a book.
| 
