Product Description

Why do smart people believe weird things? Why do so many people believe in mind reading, past-life regression therapy, extra-terrestrial abduction and ghosts? What is behind the rise of 'scientific creationism' and Holocaust denial? In an age of supposed scientific enlightenment why do we appear more impressionable than ever? Scientific historian, and director of the Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer debunks these extraordinary claims in a no-holds-barred assault on the popular superstitions and confused prejudices of our time. Exploring the very human reasons behind otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories and cults Shermer explains why are they are so appealing to so many. Shermer reveals the darker side of wishful thinking, through the recovered memory movement, satanic rituals and other modern witch hunts, and ideologies of racial superiority. Confronting those who take advantage of the gullibility of other people to advance their own, self-serving agendas. Why People Believe Weird Things is compelling and often disturbing. It is a perceptive portrait of the human capacity for self-delusion and a celebration of the scientific spirit.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #11282 in Books
• Published on: 2007-09-14
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 384 pages

Jared Diamond
"This sparkling book romps over the range of science and anti-science."

Stephen Jay Gould
"Skepticism is the agent of reason against organised irrationalism... one of the keys to human social and civic decency."

Anjana Ajuha, 'The Times'
"Shermer probes, with compassionate curiosity, the more interesting question of why smart people cling to bizarre beliefs."

Customer Reviews

The weird things people believe.
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

Not so much 'Why' as 'How can we tell?'
This is an essential and fairminded book which vigourously argues the principles of scepticism and scientific method as a strategy for defending rationality against claims of the paranormal, psuedo-science and - unusually - psuedo-history. He does not flinch from criticising the use of irrational arguments as a debating tool against irrational arguments, pointing out that this is often counter-productive as well as a betrayal of the principles of scepticism. The book contains two long sections dealing specifically with the spurious claims of creationism to be considered a science, and with the Holocaust denial. I found these particularly interesting as neither controversy has been aired much in Britain. The list of twenty-five false arguments of creationists, exposing the logical errors underlying their claims, is very useful both in itself and as a more general illustration of the type of errors one encounters on a daily basis in the media and elsewhere. It astonishes me that anyone should feel it necessary to include a chapter on 'How we Know the Holocaust Happened'. The fact that Shermer does include this chapter is, I suppose, in itself an illustration of the dangers of psuedo-history and other forms of sloppy thinking. In summary, this book is not so much about why people believe wierd things - although he does go into that too - as how to know that the things they believe are wierd.

A good read on a wet afternoon
An interesting read from a punchy controversialist. There seem to be some very odd reviews of this book on Amazon, but there's an obvious reason, in the targets Shermer takes on. First, this book is an enjoyable and very easy read, and I finished it in an afternoon.
The book sets out to question some of the odd urban legends and moral panics of our time. Shermer tackles New Age "medicine", creationism as a pseudo-science, witch crazes and mass delusions, holocaust denial as pseudo history and a number of other controversial topics by applying Humean scepticism albeit in a chatty, and very American style.
At this point I was going to point out Hume's role in awakening Kant from his dogmatic slumbers, and what scepticism has done for the developnment of Protestant theological thinking and philosophy in general, but then, I'm not sure what use that would be to you as a potential purchaser. Either you already know this, or don't care, or just enjoy dogmatic slumbers. Nevertheless the point of Hume, and of this book is to challenge the way in which we take things for granted, what we can actually know and how we can evaluate evidence in a reasonable way.
From a Critical Thinking point of view, Shermer does let himself down at times, principally by engaging in "guilt by association", tracing links between different people and groups of dubiuos merit in a way that could be seen to teeter on ad hominem attacks, but, to his credit, he is generally very clear when he is doing so.
This would be a useful book for Critical Thinking courses although mainly as a supplementary read - that's always assuming we're not talking about within a creationist educational establishment (where no doubt they'll be glueing the pages together as in one of the anecdotes in the book - there's lots more of this with chapter and verse).