Rating: 
Summary: pretty good at points, with a puzzling bias
Review: The book at times does a pretty good job of listing people's weird beliefs and refuting them. The trouble is, his weak "refutation" of creation--the issue I know the most about--and the indication by people who know other subjects that he's done an equally poor job on their subject makes it hard to trust his credibility on any issue.This could have been a pretty good book except for a "weird" bias the author has: Those who believe God created the world and don't believe Darwin's theory of evolution have the same psychological profile as those who don't believe the Holocaust happened. This in spite of the fact that he cites a 1991 Gallup poll saying 47 percent of Americans believe God created man and an additional 40 percent believe God "guided" the process--hardly a weird, embarrassing, fringe belief, and one likely to be held by his readers themselves! The fact that there can, by the very nature of origins, be no ultimate "proof" of either creation or evolution doesn't bother the author in the least, because "99 percent of scientists" agree with him. (Of course they do--he has indicated that those who believe creation aren't scientists! He forgets that the people who invented science believed God created the world.) At least three times he lists the characteristics of those who believe creationism or disbelieve the historicity of the Holocaust and shows how similar the thinking of the two camps is in his mind--a parallel as logically problematic as anything he critiques in the book. He also takes seriously Kinsey's debunked sex research (which means he's not nearly enough of a "skeptic" when it suits his cause), and several times he suggests that morality and truth are both relative--which makes a book like this completely pointless. If the best he can do is prove other people wrong without really recognizing the possibility of knowing truth, he's not the most reliable source, because he seems to be saying truth doesn't really matter anyway. Since truth does matter, it's better to read honest authors and pass on this one.
Rating: 
Summary: Converted me
Review: I bought this book through a book club I was a member of and it was the start of a love affair with skeptical thinking. For those of you who might think of skeptics as old curmudgeons, unwavering in bitter doubt, you are really doing yourself a disservice. In fact, you might find a skeptic describes himself much you would describe yourself. He takes all the information he is given, tests it, asks others to test his results and chooses to believe only what stands up to reason. It is an ever changing opinion based on new facts. I've always had a passion for psychology and a desire to really understand the world around me. These are at the core of skepticism. This book is a great starting place for anyone who doesn't want to feel like a chump. If you wonder how people can claim there was no moon landing or say there was no holocaust, or if you wonder how someone might manipulate you into believe a hoax, this is the book for you.
Rating:
Summary: A well-balanced skeptical work, with just a few misses
Review: Shermer's encyclopedic knowledge and love of science show through. He's written an engaging tome that emphasized *methodology* on every page. Some of his stories are fascinationg (particularly the court battles on evolution vs. creationism), but they're secondary to Shermer's larger purpose: to inculcate critical thinking skills into his readers. What intrigued me the most was some of Shermer's astutue cross-discipline observations. He launches into his criticism of THE BELL CURVE by citing the sexological research of Kinsey (which demonstrated immense variation betwe, and delivers a well-written case for preferring continuums over pigeonholes. Shermer also shows himself to be tolerant and sympathetic; asked his opinion on life after death, he says his pat response is, "I'm all for it, of course." The need to believe is a multivariate impulse buried deep in the human psyche, one which Shermer seeks to study, not deny - in others or in himself. The whole book's not up to snuff, however. The section on ESP, while it mimics the anecdotal style throughout the book, is not fair to the science of parapsychology; the auto-ganzfeld experiments used today by parapsychologists are much more sophisticated. If you're going to refute something, look for the strongest representative sample, not the weakest.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting and educational
Review: This book doesn't really answer the question as to why people believe weird things. It puts forth a few ideas, but most of the book describes and points out the flaws in many unusual forms of thinking. Shermer addresses a number of claims made throughout society, such as alien abductions and near-death experiences. If you have wondered about these things read Shermer's interesting discussions. Much of the book is devoted to the topic of evolution. If you aren't knowledgable about evolution this is a good, interesting account, although I am sure there are many books out there that present arguments like Shermer's in more detail. Still, if you want to learn but don't want to read an entire book about evolution, this is a great book. It discusses the arguments made by creationists and refutes them. If you are a creationist you will not like this part of the book, although I doubt anything that Shermer says will influence your opinion. Lastly, Shermer discusses Holocaust denial. He provides an interesting account, but he goes further into Holocaust denial in Denying History, which was later published. This book truly is interesting and educational.
Rating:
Summary: Missed the point
Review: The foreword by Stephen Jay Gould and the catchy title drew my attention to this book. It starts with a frightening confession from the publisher of the Skeptic magazine. The author, trying to improve his athletic performance used to try things like colonics, install a pyramid at his apartment, sleep with a electro-acuscope and megavitamin therapy. The Part 1 of the book, "Science and Skepticism" is interesting and the "Twenty five fallacies that lead us to believe weird things" are probably responsible for the stars I gave to the book. Parts 2, 3 and 4, about 70% of the book completely miss the point. Here the author starts a lengthy and rather boring analyses of a few chosen examples of credulism such as witchcraft; UFO abductions; creationism and Holocaust denial trying to prove how foolish is to believe those things and how to fight the ones who believe. The author tries to create a "us against them" situation elevating (or lowering) science to the level of just another religion. You should doubt because you are a skeptical just as others say you should believe because you are faithful is maybe with a little bit of exaggeration the tone of the book. The very last chapter, 6 pages long, finally gets back to the discussion "why people believe weird things". This book, as well as the Skeptic magazine aren't read by the people who believe weird things. There isn't a point in trying to prove that they are wrong. Scientific discussion only makes it harder to understand why, according to the book, "67% of americans believe they actually had a psychic experience, 52% believe in astrology and 46% believe in extrasensory perception. If you, just like me, were attracted to this book by Stephen Gould's foreword and the catchy title you might want to take a breath and instead check out Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark". Sagan's book not only answers the question why people believe weird stuff but also presents a cure. "It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness" Adage Leonardo Alves - January 2001
Rating:
Summary: A Call to Arms for Intellectuals
Review: After reading most of the reviews here, I came to wonder what people were expecting from this book. People seem 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. But fear not. Shermer does you all one better: he reasons, presents, charts out, explains, and does so *without* that condescending in-your-face style one can only find in the CV of a Professor of History In Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer takes us through a well reasoned, insightful analysis of many of the social phenomena -- superstition, UFOs, Cult, Holocaust Denial -- which perplex and at times plague contemporary western society. But he does so in a way that is neither blatant nor condescending. He does not argue that people who deny Evolution, see UFOS, or propagate pseudo-science are suffering from neuropathological condition (as some people seem to have expected Shermer to argue in this book). He also argues that "rationalist" philosophers are always subject to their own errors in reasoning (see the chapter on Ayn Rand and her "cult"). Hence, Shermer attributes such beliefs to problems in people's reasoning and way of seeing the world -- eg., their "baloney detection kits" -- which can be understood in lieu of various flawed assumptions, logical errors and methods of argumentation. (See Chapter 3's "25 Fallacies"). Shermer is thorough, but clear in his style and presentation, as seen in his illustration of Creationist arguments and their proper responses. And for those philosophers of science out there, Shermer even deals with some of the problems raised for the "culture" of science -- a la Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions -- in way that is satisfying to the scientist and casual critical thinker alike. In the end, this book will not pass as an academic polemic against pseudo-thought. But it is here where the book finds its proper place. "Why People Believe..." is a clear policy statement for critical thinkers and intellectuals: To cleave with Occham's Razor, but at the same time *understand* and not bewail as Baruch Spinoza did so long ago.
Rating:
Summary: hmm
Review: At a fundamental level I completely agree with Shermer's ideas, theories, and for the most part, conclusions. It is the methods he uses for reaching his conclusions that gave me pause. For a book that spends so much time criticizing people for not thinking things through or looking at the facts he sure does make a lot of assumptions. Often when a quote is used his source is a third party and the original writing is not mentioned. Before I grew bored with fact checking I found quotes either misinterpreted or used so poorly that the true meaning was lost. Descartes, Socrates, Chomsky, and even the Pope are all victims of this. What the books ideology calls for, explications de texte, we never get from its author. It is interesting to note that Mr. Shermer, at the beginning of the book, describes in great detail how foolish he has been in his own life. How quick he was to look before he leapt. At first glance I thought this book would be good fun read for adolescents just getting into critical thinking, and analysis. But upon completion of the book I realized that the writing was just as poor as a local newspapers and its substance about a flimsy.
Rating:
Summary: Mistitled and Shallow
Review: I bought the book because I was very interested in knowing why people believe "wierd" things. I am well informed of many strange beliefs and how to counter them, so I was not interested in buying yet another debunking book. Unfortunately, that is all I got, and not a particularly good one. There is little insight in this book. While the author goes into great detail on how fallacies can be used as techniques for propagating strange beliefs, the author appears quite willing to employ them as well. Consider the following passage from his book (p. 204): "We focus on the Jews because just about everyone else is afraid to. Part of the reason we exist, and part of the pleasure is to be able to deal witha subject that others are not dealing with in a way that we feel helps provide information on what is relevant... At the Simon Wiesenthal so-called Museum of Tolerance there are constant references to what THE Germans did to the Jews in the Second World War. We permit and encourage in our society what would be considered vicious stereotypes if applied to toher groups, when they are applied to the Germans or the Hungarians. This is a double standard, of which the Holocaust campaign is the most spectacular manifestation..." After reading the above passage, I figured the author would examine the motivations for such beliefs. Here it appears that the deniers are stating that part of their mission is based on what they consider to be a favoritism towards Jews by American society. This is an interesting revelation about their attitudes and motivations for denying the Holocaust, but all we get from Shermer is the sarastic comment "Sensitiviy about Jews and the Holocaust 'campaign' is 'perverse,' and taking them on provides 'pleasure' and 'liberation.' Germans, however, are the victims who must be treated better." I paid good money for this?! Shermer's own attitudes towards truth and justice are revealed in the passage about Elizabeth Loftus' decision not to testify in behalf of John Demjanjek, who was being tried in Israel for war crimes he may or may not have committed. Loftus, a psychology professor, had studied memory recovery and had evidence that could have freed Demjanjek. Her reason for not testifying: She's Jewish. Loftus went on to explain that testifying would have meant turning her back on her religion (which is simply not the case) and that her culture would not understand. Never mind that an innocent man could have been hanged! (He was acquitted, despite Loftus' cowardice.) Shermer states in the book that he has "great respect for Loftus and her work, and considerable regard for the courage it took to make such an honest and soul-searching confession." Loftus' behavior in this incident is outrageous! She let an innocent man (at least, that is what the Israeli ruled) twist in the wind because she didn't want to stick her neck out and utter an unpopular opinion. Is this not the type of behavior that Holocaust deniers frequently cite as evidence of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy? Another disturbing entry in the book was the cartoon on p. 155 showing a Creationist as the missing link. (The caption reads "Putting the creationist in his place.") Such blatant insults have no business in a book purporting to be a fair, logical analysis of beliefs, especially since the author earlier discussed the ad hominem fallacy in great detail. The only worthwhile chapter discusses the witch hunts and how positive feedback loops can generate a hunting frenzy. This is the only chapter in the book that offered any real insight.
Rating: 
Summary: Elementary yet original
Review: Shermer's primer on skepticism has little to teach someone who's subscribed to the Skeptical Inquirer for more than a few months, but for beginners it would likely be an engaging and nonthreatening read. Even for dyed-in-the-wool cynics, Shermer's choice of examples for types of mental fallacy make the book worth reading. His real life experiences with health faddism are amusingly retold and give him credibility, while his controversial selection of Objectivism as an example of a cult is both original and an additional proof of his own (so to speak) objectivity. Many skeptics have attempted the definitive popularization of their philosophy -- so far, of those I've seen, Shermer has come closest to creating it.
Rating:
Summary: merely a catalogue of fringe beliefs in America
Review: Despite the trouble Shermer takes to show how thinking can go wrong [emotive words, the ad hominem attack, etc.], and to berate hypocrites and people with faith in science, he seems completely unaware of these same traits in himself. What's particularly telling is that he mentions several times that he had previously been a "sucker" for numerous pseudoscientific claims, new age nonsense, and the like. He describes his change to skepticism as occuring suddenly, on a single day in 1983. Whether or not this is "artistic license", I couldn't say, but it certainly didn't encourage me to think highly of his capacity for logical thinking. It seems to me that he has simply exchanged other faiths for a new one: Science [as much as he protests that science isn't a subject but a method; it certainly should be only a method, but is unfortunately deified by many -- apparently Shemer included]. The book should more appropriately be titled "Weird Things People Believe", since there is very little information about the psychological, historical, sociological and socio-economic factors that cause or facilitate the belief or need for religion, myth/fairy tale, urban legend, etc. In fact, he seems more to gloat over his imagined intellectually superior position than to offer any useful information -- and in the case of Holocaust deniers, any actual evidence. He produces no references [though he does include a bibliography], and leans heavily on emotive words and a congratulatory "aren't you so smart not to believe this bunk?" attitude. I did enjoy several anecdotal passages, and the explanation of ESP and the law of averages was very educational. His "I Was Abducted By Aliens" anecdote in particular is quite funny and certainly worth a read. I find myself quite skeptical of many things, and having an interest in sociology I was hoping for something a little more scholarly and thought-out. "Why People Believe.." just didn't deliver. I quit reading about 2/3 the way through, after I decided the frustration I was experiencing and the lack of any real substance didn't warrant completion of the book.
| 
