- Buy this product and stream 90 days of Amazon Music Unlimited for free. E-mail after purchase. Conditions apply. Learn more
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition and Other Confusions of Our Time Paperback – 10 Sep 2007
|New from||Used from|
- Choose from over 13,000 locations across the UK
- Prime members get unlimited deliveries at no additional cost
- Find your preferred location and add it to your address book
- Dispatch to this address when you check out
Special offers and product promotions
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Splendid. (Vanity Fair Vanity Fair)
This sparkling book romps over the range of science and anti-science (Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel Jared Diamond)
With this no-holds-barred assault on popular myths and prejudices, a science historian debunks psychobabble and extraordinary, nonsensical claims. 25 illustrations.
Customers who bought this item also bought
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The strongest part of this book is the overview of the different flaws in human reasoning.
One remark: I missed a section on what assumptions people make, and the number of assumptions people make.
You always have to assume a number of things in explaining the world around you.
By making enough assumptions you can prove everything.
The difference between science and pseudo science is also the number of assumptions.
Science is most likely what required the smallest number of assumptions.
Pseudo science is what requires more assumptions.
This is in line with the Ockham's razor, as well as the theory of Lichtenberg.
A reference to this principle would have improved the completeness and quality of this book.
The United States epitomises these three cultures: it publishes the largest number of cited scientific papers on the planet, its liberal arts colleges are world-class but vast numbers of Americans still believe in creationism, as many as 40 per cent according to one Gallup poll in December 2010.
Michael Shermer, a well-known American sceptic, has his work cut out for him. He surveys a range of bizarre beliefs, such as alien abductions and near-death experiences, to creationism and Holocaust denial.
In dealing with accounts of the fantastic and paranormal, Shermer holds David Hume's foolproof maxim foremost in mind:
`[N]o testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish ... `
Thus you cannot disprove a claim such as a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago or that aliens have abducted millions of Americans. But given what we know about the world - i.e. that when a man dies, he stays dead, and that faster-than-light space travel is ruled out by the laws of physics - it would be unwise to accept either belief. Therefore it's reasonable to surmise that the person making such a claim seeks to deceive, or has been deceived.
The demand to disprove an extraordinary claim is an example of an ad ignorantium fallacy, i.e. if you cannot disprove a claim then it must be true. This is one fallacy among 25 others that Shermer describes that underpin belief in weird things. There are others: the fallacy that the minority view must necessarily be the right one, the fallacy that a coincidence proves a cause, and such like that underpin those who accept weird beliefs.
Shermer's tone is informed by Spinoza's admonishment, not to ridicule but to understand why people hold strange beliefs. He gives his subjects their due, setting out the arguments of creationists and Holocaust deniers before turning to refute them. His style is a lot less showy than Hitchens or Dawkins but loses nothing on account of that.
I found Shermer's chapters on pseudoscience (i.e. creationism) and pseudohistory (Holocaust denial) especially penetrating critiques of both movements. But what is the difference between pseudoscience and real science? Science is dedicated to formulating hypotheses that can be tested against data. Even the most robust theory is tentative. It could be invalidated by fresh data. Compare that with creationism, which anchors its authority in the inerrancy of scripture. Its foundational premise is therefore beyond argument or dispute.
Science looks for naturalistic explanations behind phenomena but by definition supernatural explanations, posited from outside nature, cannot be assessed, tested or measured. So for instance it is averred that the `irreducible complexity' of the eye can only be `explained' by positing the existence of a supernatural designer. Not only can this not be demonstrated (it relies ultimately on the ad ignorantium fallacy as its foundation) but science can demonstrate, with real world examples, the evolution of the eye, in part by the existence of a plethora of eyes at various stages of developments among various species.
Shermer is right to bracket Holocaust denial with creationist science. Just as evolution is proved by the convergence of evidence from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology and other scientific disciplines, the fact of the Holocaust is proved by the convergence of various strands of evidence. Deniers tend to concentrate on weaknesses in their opponents' explanations, seize on disagreements among scholars and quote these out of context, focussing on what we do not know rather than what we do. Falsifying one detail (such as soap being made out of human fat) is held to falsify all other details. But the fact of the Holocaust does not rely on the veracity of a single claim - it relies on over a dozen strands of evidence converging on one conclusion: it happened.
The laws of science do not rule out a claim that the Holocaust never happened. But the evidence as it stands supports the claim and makes it a strongly credible one, stronger than the claims of those who seek to deny it. The question is not whether you can disprove or prove beyond all reasonable doubt, but whether the quality of evidence adduced stacks up for or against a claim. History cannot be described as a hard science per se but it involves formulating hypotheses that are then tested against the data.
Where perhaps the book is weaker is the modest attention given to answering the question why people believe weird things. It's more than a `how' than a `why' people at arrive at bizarre beliefs. For Shermer it's a combination of confirmation bias (the tendency of human beings to look for evidence to confirm a view they have already accepted independently of any evidence to support it) and attribution bias (the tendency to attribute the basis of your beliefs to reason, and hence rational, but the beliefs of others to emotion, hence irrational). But can't this be said of all beliefs? Certainly not in the case of science or history properly practised, whereby the process of peer review minimises bias even if it cannot eliminate it altogether.
Scepticism is not nihilism. It is about assessing the degree to which claims can be supported by evidence. It is a positive exercise in helping us make well-founded statements of truth about the world in which we live. I thoroughly commend this book to anyone who takes this exercise seriously.
If ever he brings out a second edition of this book it would be helpful if Michael Shermer could let us know what is behind his own weird belief that Charles Darwin originated the theory of macroevolution by natural slection and his weird belief that his own reasoning on the topic is right. Because on reading one of his other books: 'In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace' Shermer proves that he believes in weird things. To explain: I cannot help but wonder what on Earth the founder of the Skeptics Society is up to in deploying utter flim-flam to dispose of the problem of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior discovery of 'the natural process of selection'. Because, in this book, Michael Shermer presents a bogus argument against long-standing accusations that Darwin (in 1858 and 1859) plagiarized Patrick Matthew's (1831) unique and prior publication of the discovery of 'the natural process of selection'. To defend Darwin, Shermer relies upon the well known fact that in all fields of discovery a breakthrough is seldom a zero-sum game, because discoverers usually build upon the earlier work of their precursors. But this is complete flim-flam reasoning in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace, simply because both Darwin and Wallace DID claim ZERO prior knowledge of Matthew's prior published discovery. In other words THEY claimed it was a zero sum game! Moreover, both Darwin and Wallace fallaciously created the self-serving myth that Matthew's ideas had been ignored until Matthew brought then to Darwin's attention in 1860.
Hi-tech research methods have newly detected the fact that seven naturalists (among many other writers) actually cited Matthew's (1831) book in the published literature. Moreover, three of those naturalists were associates of Darwin. Worse still, one of the three (Selby) actually edited and published Wallace's Sarawak paper in 1855, which famously laid his initial claim to the concept of Natural Selection. Another (Loudon) edited and published Blyth's most influential papers on organic evolution and a third (Chambers) wrote the highly influential Vestiges of Creation. Knowledge contamination is proven. Darwin and Wallace are proven not to have "independently discovered" natural selection. Contrary to what all the "Darwin industry" textbooks say, Patrick Matthew is the only independent discoverer of his own prior-discovery!
Moreover, a wealth of new evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that both Darwin and Wallace committed the World's greatest science fraud.
Despite Shermer's desperate Darwinian attempts to bury Matthew in obscurity, the ghost of Matthew just bit him in the very backside out of which he wrote the flim-flam portions in this book! With no malice, I sincerely hope the wound will turn Shermer genuinely skeptic. If so, as a promoter of Skepticism I think he needs to address a most telling question - perhaps in a second edition. Namely: Can a Darwinist skeptically judge the claim to scientific priority for the discovery of natural selection by anyone not named Darwin? Surely the conflict of interest is too great? What else would explain the desperate flim flam in this book?
Rational skepticism - the art and science of not believing in anything - is a way of scientific thinking, not a camouflage club for credulous deification of others by people who are able to blink away the independently verifiable disconfirming facts for their beliefs by simply believing in weird things.
Dr Mike Sutton is author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret