Rating: 
Summary: The weird things people believe.
Review: My first impression upon finishing this book is that the title is wrong. Though Dr. Shermer addresses some issues about why people believe weird things, for the most part this book is more about the weird things people believe, and not so much about the reasons they believe them. For a better discussion about why people believe weird things, I suggest Thomas Gilovich's book "How we know what isn't so." Shermer devotes all of chapter one to expanding on the definition and characteristics of a skeptic, and all of chapter two to describing science. This lays the bedrock for his future discussions about pseudosciences such as creationism, and helps to make clear the reasons these pseudosciences and superstitions fail to meet the demanding requirements of science. He explains that a skeptic is not synonymous with a cynic. Instead, a skeptic is someone who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it. As such, skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method. Chapter 3 is a jewel. It describes 25 ways in which thinking goes wrong. Reading this chapter left me wondering if these rules for fallacious reasoning are not encoded somewhere as the rules for participation in some of the more notorious Internet newsgroups devoted to various mythologies. The second part of the book examines claims of the paranormal, near-death experiences, alien abductions, witch crazes, and cults. Although these stories make interesting reading, they are same examples of debunking we have seen for years. I, for one, would appreciate a fresher skeptical approach that is not so (apparently) reluctant to challenge the claims of institutionalized religions. Is transubstantiation any more credible than claims of the paranormal? Are alien abduction stories any less credible than the Book of Mormon's claims about a large, literate Hebrew society in America 2,000 years ago, that used horse-drawn chariots and steel swords? Are witch crazes any more significant than some Christians who let their children die rather than bringing them proper medical treatment? I think not, and I believe it is time for skeptics to broaden their portfolio beyond the usual array of paranormal activities and alien abductions. Shermer devotes chapters 9 through 11 to the conflict between creationism and evolution. This section of the book has a wonderful summary of the legal battles fought to keep the religion of creationism out of public schools. Chapter 10 has an excellent description of what is evolution, and a very brief summary of 25 arguments used by creationists against evolution, along with counter arguments used by scientists. Interestingly enough, Shermer offers very little in the way of direct evidence against creationism - of which there is a tremendous amount - and focuses mostly on how to defend evolution. Unfortunately, he has truncated his 25 arguments so much that they are of little practical use - especially against more polished debaters. Shermer admits this at the beginning of the chapter, and does offer an excellent bibliography of more detailed references for the reader. Shermer's defense of evolution bogs down when he encroaches on the idea that evolution is not a threat to religion. [This is how I interpreted Shermer, though he is not entirely clear about his personal feelings regarding this matter.] Science most certainly is a threat to some religions - creationism, for example (and Shermer argues throughout his book that creationism is a religion - which is why it should not be taught in public schools). It seems obvious to me that sometimes science does threaten religion (more some than others) - but that is religion's problem, not science'. Scientists should stop apologizing for that fact. In trying to sooth the potential conflict between science and religion, Shermer quotes Stephen J. Gould (one of my favorite authors). Interestingly, Gould (uncharacteristically) offers a spectacular example of some of the bogus reasoning Shermer discredits in chapter 3. Gould says (page 132): "Unless at least half my colleagues are dunces, there can be - on the most raw and empirical grounds - no conflict between science and religion." Here, Gould violates Shermer's rule 19 (overreliance on authorities - Gould's colleagues in this case). Then, Gould leaves us wondering if, instead, we are to consider the other half of Gould's colleagues (the half that apparently do not agree with him) as dunces. To his credit, Shermer provides a definition of religion on page 145 (though he offers no definition of God). I am not sure he makes the matter any clearer by doing so, however, since his definition of religion (as a method) places it as the antithesis of science (also defined as a method). Yet, I got the impression from his book that Shermer agrees (on a fundamental level) that there need not be any disagreement between science and religion. Part 4 discusses racism and pseudohistory in the case of holocaust deniers. This part seemed out of place in the book primarily because Shermer spends comparatively little time discussing the weirdness of the opposing camp, instead focusing mostly on his perceptions. Though I agree with him on most points, I could no shake the feeling the chapters belong in a different book with a different title. In the last section (section 5) Shermer gets back on track and finishes with an interesting view of the societal role science plays, and the roll it will play in the future. Shermer holds hope for the human race, in spite of its sometimes-overbearing tendency toward mysticism. He also gives a wonderful summary of why people believe weird things: because it feels good. Though I would like to know more about why it feels good, I cannot argue with his conclusion. Overall, this was an excellent book. Dr. Shermer is a clear thinker. His ability to focus on the central issues and facts makes this book refreshingly illuminating. His personal touch, brought through stories of actual life experiences, adds to the pleasure of reading his book. Duwayne Anderson
Rating: 
Summary: Gould's name is on it, that says it all...
Review: Gould kids himself, he violates critical thinking in all his books. No wonder he supported this book.
Rating: 
Summary: You Can Trust Someone--Weird Things Explained
Review: If you believe the truth is out there, you need to look no further than Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. A champion of science and history, Shermer debunks otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories, and cults as yet another example of our eternal search for spiritual fulfillment. Everything from UFOs to Holocaust denial is covered in this engaging exploration of the human psyche, which is read by Shermer himself.
Rating: 
Summary: Highly recommended
Review: Highly recommended for its logical, scholarly and well-grounded analysis of the human psyche's predilection for belief over rational thought. Shermer's explanation of the purpose of science, and what it is that scientists do, should be required reading for everyone. Purchasers of the 1997 paperback reprint of this book should be aware that there is some text missing at the bottom of pages 218 and 222, which makes Shermer's discussion there difficult to follow. Hopefully this will be corrected in a later edition.
Rating: 
Summary: Probably not worth your time or money.
Review: This isn't a delve into _why_ people believe weird things. Nor does is present a case against believing these weird things. The only thing it does seems to say is, "I believe this, so you should too." At one point, I was tempted to believe in Creationism simply because if the case against it is _this weak_, then there really isn't any case against it. I doubt you'll be convinced of anything by this, but it does present some interesting possibilities about how people fake things. Unfortunately, in the time it takes this book to arrive, there will probably be a TV special on that says the same things.
Rating:
Summary: A book that exposes the human use of emmotions versus logic
Review: Michael Shermer concisely presents the case where a few facts combined with human need to have patterns results in emmotional interpretations of facts. The role of the sceptic is to use logic, which is basis for science, emmotion and belief is not a good explanation for the facts. Shermer also very effectively uses several illustrations of how people can use only certain parts of all the facts available and draw incorrect conclusions. This book should be read by everyone who wants to have a better understanding of events. He also shows that to be sceptical is very different from being cynical.
Rating:
Summary: hmmm.
Review: Shermer's book is very interesting, and well worth reading. If it does nothing else it makes you think -Do you agree with Mr. Shermer or not? He explains the mind of the skeptic very well (or at least what a skeptic should be ideally), but occasionally fails to live up to his own standards of scientific impartiality. He's very quick to dismiss other peoples beliefs as untrue. However, you can learn a lot from what Mr. Shermer aspires to be: a scientific thinker. his section on the on the fallacies of logic is an excellent thing to keep in mind when reading any work (including Mr. Shermer's). enjoy
Rating:
Summary: Worthwhile, but it doesn't go into enough detail
Review: This book is useful and interesting as a series of brief studies of "weird" claims. Unfortunately, it doesn't go into any particular topic in sufficient detail to be truly satisfying. Also, I fully agree with the comment of Vincent O'Sullivan--Despite the title, the book does not do a good job of analyzing WHY people believe weird things. I'd give it 3 and 1/2 stars instead of four, if I could. It's still worth reading if an overview of fringe beliefs with critical commentary is interesting to you.
Rating:
Summary: Good book. His emphasis on subject matter was questionable.
Review: The book was well written and easy to read. There were a few leaps of logic which can probably be explained by editorial discretion, that is, in order to keep the book to a preconceived length, some sections were a little short. the book spent an inordinate amount of time on debunking the holocaust deniers while other interesting sections WAY too short. For example, the chapter on Frank Tippler's 'the Physics of Immortality' could have been expounded on. It almost seemed as if Shermer likes Tipplers theory. He could have spent more space asking the question, "is it sound physics, or just physics that sounds good?" All told though, Why People Believe Weird Things is worth the time to read.
Rating: 
Summary: Overall, worth the time to read
Review: Mr. Shermer does an above-average job of debunking many outlandish beliefs. However, he does make several mistakes in his chapter dealing with creationism. Firstly, macroevolution is NOT a proven fact. Secondly, having 5% of an eye (to use his example) does NOT guarantee 5% sight. Thirdly, Mr. Shermer, in answering a collegue who believes that life on Earth couldn't have arisen by chance, used a lottery analogy to prove that high odds events do happen. This overlooks the fact that in Mr. Shermer's universe life is NOT guaranteed to arise unlike the winner of a lottery. Another distressing point about the book is its anti-religious bias. Mr. Shermer goes out of his way to believe the most bizarre "scientific" theories (bubble universes) yet will all but call anyone who believes in a supreme creator a kook. Mr. Shermer and his ilk would do well to read any book by Charles Fort, a man who delighted in tweaking the scientific communtity by digging up strange events that science couldn't explain.
| 
