Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

( 61 )

Overview

Revised and Expanded Edition.

In this age of supposed scientific enlightenment, many people still believe in mind reading, past-life regression theory, New Age hokum, and alien abduction. A no-holds-barred assault on popular superstitions and prejudices, with more than 80,000 copies in print, Why People Believe Weird Things debunks these nonsensical claims and explores the very human reasons people find otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories, and cults so appealing. In an ...

See more details below
Paperback (Revised and Expanded)
$15.77
BN.com price
(Save 16%)$18.99 List Price

Pick Up In Store

Reserve and pick up in 60 minutes at your local store

Other sellers (Paperback)
  • All (28) from $7.41   
  • New (15) from $9.72   
  • Used (13) from $7.41   
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • NOOK HD/HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK Study
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook - Revised and Expanded)
$9.99
BN.com price

Overview

Revised and Expanded Edition.

In this age of supposed scientific enlightenment, many people still believe in mind reading, past-life regression theory, New Age hokum, and alien abduction. A no-holds-barred assault on popular superstitions and prejudices, with more than 80,000 copies in print, Why People Believe Weird Things debunks these nonsensical claims and explores the very human reasons people find otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories, and cults so appealing. In an entirely new chapter, "Why Smart People Believe in Weird Things," Michael Shermer takes on science luminaries like physicist Frank Tippler and others, who hide their spiritual beliefs behind the trappings of science.

Shermer, science historian and true crusader, also reveals the more dangerous side of such illogical thinking, including Holocaust denial, the recovered-memory movement, the satanic ritual abuse scare, and other modern crazes. Why People Believe Strange Things is an eye-opening resource for the most gullible among us and those who want to protect them.

For the past five years, Skeptic magazine has been at the forefront of debunking beliefs that, at least according to its publisher, Michael Shermer, can't stand up to scientific inquiry. In Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, & Other Confusions of Our Time, Shermer collects pieces, some reworked for this provocative volume, from Skeptic. They cover the expected-UFO abductions, psychics-but also the less predictable, including the "unlikeliest cult" of Ayn Rand and the phenomenon of Holocaust-denial. Illustrations.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

From the Publisher
"This sparkling book romps over the range of science and anti-science."

—Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel

"Splendid."

Vanity Fair

School Library Journal
Dedicated to Carl Sagan, with a foreword by Stephen Jay Gould, this book by the publisher of Skeptic magazine and the Director of the Skeptics Lecture Series at California Institute of Technology, has the pedigree to be accepted as a work of scholarly value. Fortunately, it is also readable, interesting, and well indexed and provides an extensive bibliography. The author discusses such topics of current interest as alien abduction, near-death experiences, psychics, recovered memories, and denial of the Holocaust. Never patronizing to his opponents, Shermer explains why people may truly believe that they were held by aliens he had a similar experience himself or have recovered a memory of childhood satanic-ritual abuse. He clearly explains, often with pictures, tables, or graphs, the fallacy of such beliefs in terms of scientific reasoning. While teens may find the first section of the book about "Science and Skepticism" a bit too philosophical and ponderous, the rest of it will surely captivate them. -- Carol DeAngelo, Garcia Consulting Inc., EPA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Richard Bernstein
A useful antidote to the nonsense that surrounds us.-- The New York Times
Todd Gitlin
A valuable primer debunking many of the crackpot obsessions of our time -- alien abductions, creationist science, Holocause refutal, the bell curve and psuedoscientific theology among them. From close observation, he shows a pattern in the formulas with which misunderstanders explain away inconvenient facts. -- Los Angeles Times Book Review
Paul Insel, Ph.D.
...[E]xplores the very human reasons why we find otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories, and cults so appealing....Although it is often a disturbing portrait of our immense capacity for self-delusion, Why People Believe Weird Things is ultimately a celebration of the scientific spirit — and the joy to be found in exploring the world's greatest mysteries, even if many questions remain unanswered.
Healthline Magazine
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780805070897
  • Publisher: Holt, Henry & Company, Inc.
  • Publication date: 9/1/2002
  • Edition description: Revised and Expanded
  • Edition number: 2
  • Pages: 384
  • Sales rank: 203,459
  • Product dimensions: 5.41 (w) x 7.99 (h) x 1.04 (d)

Meet the Author

Michael Shermer is the author of The Believing Brain, Why People Believe Weird Things, The Science of Good and Evil, The Mind Of The Market, Why Darwin Matters, Science Friction, How We Believe and other books on the evolution of human beliefs and behavior. He is the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, the editor of Skeptic.com, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and an adjunct professor at Claremont Graduate University. He lives in Southern California.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

PART 1

SCIENCE AND SKEPTICISM

Science is founded on the conviction that experience, effort, and reason are valid; magic on the belief that hope cannot fail nor desire deceive.

—Branislaw Malinowski, Magic, Science, and Religion, 1948

1

I Am Therefore I Think

A Skeptic’s Manifesto

On the opening page of his splendid little book To Know a Fly, biologist Vincent Dethier makes this humorous observation about how children grow up to be scientists: “Although small children have taboos against stepping on ants because such actions are said to bring on rain, there has never seemed to be a taboo against pulling off the legs or wings of flies. Most children eventually outgrow this behavior. Those who do not either come to a bad end or become biologists” (1962, p. 2). In their early years, children are knowledge junkies, questioning everything in their purview, though exhibiting little skepticism. Most never learn to distinguish between skepticism and credulity. It took me a long time.

In 1979, unable to land a full-time teaching job, I found work as a writer for a cycling magazine. The first day on the job, I was sent to a press conference held in honor of a man named John Marino who had just ridden his bicycle across America in a record 13 days, 1 hour, 20 minutes. When I asked him how he did it, John told me about special vegetarian diets, megavitamin therapy, fasting, colonies, mud baths, iridology, cytotoxic blood testing, Rolfing, acupressure and acupuncture, chiropractic and massage therapy, negative ions, pyramid power, and a host of weird things with which I was unfamiliar. Being a fairly inquisitive fellow, when I took up cycling as a serious sport I thought I would try these things to see for myself whether they worked. I once fasted for a week on nothing but a strange mixture of water, cayenne pepper, garlic, and lemon. At the end of the week, John and I rode from Irvine to Big Bear Lake and back, some seventy miles each way. About halfway up the mountain I collapsed, violently ill from the concoction. John and I once rode out to a health spa near Lake Elsinore for a mud bath that was supposed to suck the toxins out of my body. My skin was dyed red for a week. I set up a negative ion generator in my bedroom to charge the air to give me more energy. It turned the walls black with dust. I got my iris read by an iridologist, who told me that the little green flecks in my eyes meant something was wrong with my kidneys. To this day my kidneys are functioning fine.

I really got into cycling. I bought a racing bike the day after I met John and entered my first race that weekend. I did my first century ride (100 miles) a month later, and my first double century later that year. I kept trying weird things because I figured I had nothing to lose and, who knows, maybe they would increase performance. I tried colonics because supposedly bad things clog the plumbing and thus decrease digestive efficiency, but all I got was an hour with a hose in a very uncomfortable place. I installed a pyramid in my apartment because it was supposed to focus energy. All I got were strange looks from guests. I starting getting massages, which were thoroughly enjoyable and quite relaxing. Then my massage therapist decided that “deep tissue” massage was best to get lactic acid out of the muscles. That wasn’t so relaxing. One guy massaged me with his feet. That was even less relaxing. I tried Rolfing, which is really deep tissue massage. That was so painful that I never went back.

In 1982 John and I and two other men competed in the first Race Across America, the 3,000-mile, nonstop, transcontinental bike race from Los Angeles to New York. In preparation, we went for cytotoxic blood testing because it was supposed to detect food allergies that cause blood platelets to clump together and block capillaries, thus decreasing blood flow. By now we were a little skeptical of the truth of these various claims, so we sent in one man’s blood under several names. Each sample came back with different food allergies, which told us that there was a problem with their testing, not with our blood. During the race, I slept with an “Electro-Acuscope,” which was to measure my brain waves and put me into an alpha state for better sleeping. It was also supposed to rejuvenate my muscles and heal any injuries. The company swore that it helped Joe Montana win the Super Bowl. Near as I can figure, it was totally ineffective.

The Electro-Acuscope was the idea of my chiropractor. I began visiting a chiropractor not because I needed one but because I had read that energy flows through the spinal cord and can get blocked at various places. I discovered that the more I got adjusted, the more I needed to get adjusted because my neck and back kept going “out.” This went on for a couple of years until I finally quit going altogether, and I’ve never needed a chiropractor since.

All told, I raced as a professional ultra-marathon cyclist for ten years, all the while trying anything and everything (except drugs and steroids) that might improve my performance. As the Race Across America got bigger—it was featured for many years on ABC’s Wide World of Sports—I had many offers to try all sorts of things, which I usually did. From this ten-year experiment with a subject pool of one, I drew two conclusions: nothing increased performance, alleviated pain, or enhanced well-being other than long hours in the saddle, dedication to a consistent training schedule, and a balanced diet; and it pays to be skeptical. But what does it mean to be skeptical?

What Is a Skeptic?

I became a skeptic on Saturday, August 6, 1983, on the long, climbing road to Loveland Pass, Colorado. It was Day 3 of the second Race Across America, and the nutritionist on my support crew believed that if I followed his megavitamin therapy program, I would win the race. He was in a Ph.D. program and was trained as a nutritionist, so I figured he knew what he was doing. Every six hours I would force down a huge handful of assorted vitamins and minerals. Their taste and smell nearly made me sick, and they went right through me, producing what I thought had to be the most expensive and colorful urine in America. After three days of this, I decided that megavitamin therapy, along with colonics, iridology, Rolfing, and all these other alternative, New Age therapies were a bunch of hooey. On that climb up Loveland Pass, I dutifully put the vitamins in my mouth and then spit them out up the road when my nutritionist wasn’t looking. Being skeptical seemed a lot safer than being credulous.

After the race I discovered that the nutritionist’s Ph.D. was to be awarded by a nonaccredited nutrition school and, worse, I was the subject of his doctoral dissertation! Since that time I have noticed about extraordinary claims and New Age beliefs that they tend to attract people on the fringes of academia—people without formal scientific training, credentialed (if at all) by nonaccredited schools, lacking research data to support their claims, and excessively boastful about what their particular elixir can accomplish. This does not automatically disprove all claims made by individuals exhibiting these characteristics, but it would be wise to be especially skeptical when encountering them.

Being skeptical is nothing new, of course. Skepticism dates back 2,500 years to ancient Greece and Plato’s Academy. But Socrates’ quip that “All I know is that I know nothing” doesn’t get us far. Modern skepticism has developed into a science-based movement, beginning with Martin Gardner’s 1952 classic, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Gardner’s numerous essays and books over the next four decades, such as Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus (1981), The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher (1991a), and On the Wild Side (1992), established a pattern of incredulity about a wide variety of bizarre beliefs. Skepticism joined pop culture through magician James “the Amazing” Randi’s countless psychic challenges and media appearances in the 1970s and 1980s (including thirty-six appearances on the Tonight Show). Philosopher Paul Kurtz helped create dozens of skeptics groups throughout the United States and abroad, and publications such as Skeptic magazine have national and international circulation. Today, a burgeoning group of people calling themselves skeptics—scientists, engineers, physicians, lawyers, professors, teachers, and the intellectually curious from all walks of life—conduct investigations, hold monthly meetings and annual conferences, and provide the media and the general public with natural explanations for apparently supernatural phenomena.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some things, such as water dowsing, extrasensory perception, and creationism, have been tested and have failed the tests often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other things, such as hypnosis, lie detectors, and vitamin C, have been tested but the results are inconclusive, so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity by continuously and vigorously applying the methods of science.

The flaw in pure skepticism is that when taken to an extreme, the position itself cannot stand. If you are skeptical about everything, you must be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.

There is also a popular notion that skeptics are closed-minded. Some even call us cynics. In principle, skeptics are not closed-minded or cynical. What I mean by a skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it. In other words, skeptics are from Missouri—the “show me” state. When we hear a fantastic claim, we say, “That’s nice, prove it.”

Here is an example. For many years I had heard stories about the “Hundredth Monkey phenomenon” and was fascinated with the possibility that there might be some sort of collective consciousness that we could tap into to decrease crime, eliminate wars, and generally unite as a single species. In the 1992 presidential election, in fact, one candidate—Dr. John Hagelin from the Natural Law Party—claimed that if elected he would implement a plan that would solve the problems of our inner cities: meditation. Hagelin and others (especially proponents of Transcendental Meditation, or TM) believe that thought can somehow be transferred between people, especially people in a meditative state; if enough people meditate at the same time, some sort of critical mass will be reached, thereby inducing significant planetary change. The Hundredth Monkey phenomenon is commonly cited as empirical proof of this astonishing theory. In the 1950s, so the story goes, Japanese scientists gave monkeys on Koshima Island potatoes. One day one of the monkeys learned to wash the potatoes and then taught the skill to others. When about one hundred monkeys had learned the skill—the so-called critical mass—suddenly all the monkeys knew it, even those on other islands hundreds of miles away. Books about the phenomenon have spread this theory widely in New Age circles. Lyall Watson’s Lifetide (1979) and Ken Keyes’s The Hundredth Monkey (1982), for example, have been through multiple printings and sold millions of copies; Elda Hartley even made a film called The Hundredth Monkey.

As an exercise in skepticism, start by asking whether events really happened as reported. They did not. In 1952, primatologists began providing Japanese macaques with sweet potatoes to keep the monkeys from raiding local farms. One monkey did learn to wash dirt off the sweet potatoes in a stream or the ocean, and other monkeys did learn to imitate the behavior. Now let’s examine Watson’s book more carefully. He admits that “one has to gather the rest of the story from personal anecdotes and bits of folklore among primate researchers, because most of them are still not quite sure what happened. So I am forced to improvise the details.” Watson then speculates that “an unspecified number of monkeys on Koshima were washing sweet potatoes in the sea”—hardly the level of precision one expects. He then makes this statement: “Let us say, for argument’s sake, that the number was ninety-nine and that at 11:00 A.M. on a Tuesday, one further convert was added to the fold in the usual way. But the addition of the hundredth monkey apparently carried the number across some sort of threshold, pushing it through a kind of critical mass.” At this point, says Watson, the habit “seems to have jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously on other islands” (1979, pp. 2—8).

Let’s stop right there. Scientists do not “improvise” details or make wild guesses from “anecdotes” and “bits of folklore.” In fact, some scientists did record exactly what happened (for example, Baldwin et al. 1980; Imanishi 1983; Kawai 1962). The research began with a troop of twenty monkeys in 1952, and every monkey on the island was carefully observed. By 1962, the troop had increased to fifty-nine monkeys and exactly thirty-six of the fifty-nine monkeys were washing their sweet potatoes. The “sudden” acquisition of the behavior actually took ten years, and the “hundred monkeys” were actually only thirty-six in 1962. Furthermore, we can speculate endlessly about what the monkeys knew, but the fact remains that not all of the monkeys in the troop were exhibiting the washing behavior. The thirty-six monkeys were not a critical mass even at home. And while there are some reports of similar behavior on other islands, the observations were made between 1953 and 1967. It was not sudden, nor was it necessarily connected to Koshima. The monkeys on other islands could have discovered this simple skill themselves, for example, or inhabitants on other islands might have taught them. In any case, not only is there no evidence to support this extraordinary claim, there is not even a real phenomenon to explain.

Science and Skepticism

Skepticism is a vital part of science, which I define as a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation. In other words, science is a specific way of analyzing information with the goal of testing claims. Defining the scientific method is not so simple, as philosopher of science and Nobel laureate Sir Peter Medawar observed: “Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he will adopt an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed, because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare” (1969, p. 11).

A sizable literature exists on the scientific method, but there is little consensus among authors. This does not mean that scientists do not know what they are doing. Doing and explaining may be two different things. However, scientists agree that the following elements are involved in thinking scientifically:

Induction: Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.

Deduction: Making specific predictions based on the hypotheses.

Observation: Gathering data, driven by hypotheses that tell us what to look for in nature.

Verification: Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypotheses.

Science, of course, is not this rigid; and no scientist consciously goes through “steps.” The process is a constant interaction of making observations, drawing conclusions, making predictions, and checking them against evidence. And data-gathering observations are not made in a vacuum. The hypotheses shape what sorts of observations you will make of nature, and these hypotheses are themselves shaped by your education, culture, and particular biases as an observer.

This process constitutes the core of what philosophers of science call the hypothetico-deductive method, which, according to the Dictionary of the History of Science, involves “(a) putting forward a hypothesis, (b) conjoining it with a statement of ‘initial conditions,’ (c) deducing from the two a prediction, and (d) finding whether or not the prediction is fulfilled” (Bynum, Browne, and Porter 1981, p. 196). It is not possible to say which came first, the observation or the hypothesis, since the two are inseparably interactive. But additional observations are what flesh out the hypothetico-deductive process, and they serve as the final arbiter on the validity of predictions. As Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington noted, “For the truth of the conclusions of science, observation is the supreme court of appeal” (1958, p. 9). Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:

Hypothesis: A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.

Theory: A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses.

Fact: A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

A theory may be contrasted with a construct: a nontestable statement to account for a set of observations. The living organisms on Earth may be accounted for by the statement “God made them” or the statement “They evolved.” The first statement is a construct, the second a theory. Most biologists would even call evolution a fact.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.

There is nothing wrong with personal insight as a starting point. Many great scientists have attributed their important ideas to insight, intuition, and other mental leaps hard to pin down. Alfred Russel Wallace said that the idea of natural selection “suddenly flashed upon” him during an attack of malaria. But intuitive ideas and mystical insights do not become objective until they are externally validated. As psychologist Richard Hardison explained,

Mystical “truths,” by their nature, must be solely personal, and they can have no possible external validation. Each has equal claim to truth. Tealeaf reading and astrology and Buddhism; each is equally sound or unsound if we judge by the absence of related evidence. This is not intended to disparage any one of the faiths; merely to note the impossibility of verifying their correctness. The mystic is in a paradoxical position. When he seeks external support for his views he must turn to external arguments, and he denies mysticism in the process. External validation is, by definition, impossible for the mystic. (1988, pp. 259—260)

Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. For example, how do we know the Earth is round? It is a logical conclusion drawn from observations such as

• The shadow of the Earth on the moon is round.

• The mast of a ship is the last thing seen as it sails into the distance.

• The horizon is curved.

• Photographs from space.

And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence. For example, how do we know the Earth is round?

• Our parents told us.

• Our teachers told us.

• Our minister told us.

• Our textbook told us.

Dogmatic conclusions are not necessarily invalid, but they do beg other questions: How did the authorities come by their conclusions? Were they guided by science or some other means?

The Essential Tension Between Skepticism and Credulity

It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction. Whether a mistake is made honestly or dishonestly, whether a fraud is unknowingly or knowingly perpetrated, in time it will be flushed out of the system by lack of external verification. The cold fusion fiasco is a classic example of the system’s swift exposure of error.

Because of the importance of this self-correcting feature, among scientists there is at best what Caltech physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman called “a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards.” Said Feynman, “If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results” (1988, p. 247).

Despite these built-in mechanisms, science remains subject to problems and fallacies ranging from inadequate mathematical notation to wishful thinking. But, as philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn (1977) noted, the “essential tension” in science is between total commitment to the status quo and blind pursuit of new ideas. The paradigm shifts and revolutions in science depend upon proper balancing of these opposing impulses. When enough of the scientific community (particularly those in positions of power) are willing to abandon orthodoxy in favor of the (formerly) radical new theory, then and only then can a paradigm shift occur (see chapter 2).

Charles Darwin is a good example of a scientist who negotiated the essential tension between skepticism and credulity. Historian of science Frank Sulloway identifies three characteristics in Darwin’s thinking that helped Darwin find his balance: (1) he respected others’ opinions but was willing to challenge authorities (he intimately understood the theory of special creation, yet he overturned it with his own theory of natural selection); (2) he paid close attention to negative evidence (Darwin included a chapter called “Difficulties on Theory” in the Origin of Species—as a result his opponents could rarely present him with a challenge that he had not already addressed); (3) he generously used the work of others (Darwin’s collected correspondence numbers over 14,000 letters, most of which include lengthy discussions and question-and-answer sequences about scientific problems). Darwin was constantly questioning, always learning, confident enough to formulate original ideas yet modest enough to recognize his own fallibility. “Usually, it is the scientific community as a whole that displays this essential tension between tradition and change,” Sulloway observed, “since most people have a preference for one or the other way of thinking. What is relatively rare in the history of science is to find these contradictory qualities combined in such a successful manner in one individual” (1991, p. 32).

The essential tension in dealing with “weird things” is between being so skeptical that revolutionary ideas pass you by and being so open-minded that flimflam artists take you in. Balance can be found by answering a few basic questions: What is the quality of the evidence for the claim? What are the background and credentials of the person making the claim? Does the thing work as claimed? As I discovered during my personal odyssey in the world of alternative health and fitness therapies and gadgets, often the evidence is weak, the background and credentials of the claimants are questionable, and the therapy or gadget almost never does what it is supposed to.

This last point may well be the crucial one. I regularly receive calls about astrology. Callers usually want to know about the theory behind astrology. They are wondering whether the alignment of planetary bodies can significantly influence human destiny. The answer is no, but the more important point is that one need not understand gravity and the laws governing the motion of the planets to evaluate astrology. All one needs to do is ask, Does it work? That is, do astrologers accurately and specifically predict human destiny from the alignment of the planets? No, they do not. Not one astrologer predicted the crash of TWA flight #800; not one astrologer predicted the Northridge earthquake. Thus, the theory behind astrology is irrelevant, because astrology simply does not do what astrologers claim it can do. It vanishes hand-in-hand with the hundredth monkey.

The Tool of the Mind

Vincent Dethier, in his discussion of the rewards of science, runs through a pantheon of the obvious ones—money, security, honor—as well as the transcendent: “a passport to the world, a feeling of belonging to one race, a feeling that transcends political boundaries and ideologies, religions, and languages.” But he brushes all these aside for one “more lofty and more subtle”—the natural curiosity of humans:

One of the characteristics that sets man apart from all the other animals (and animal he indubitably is) is a need for knowledge for its own sake. Many animals are curious, but in them curiosity is a facet of adaptation. Man has a hunger to know. And to many a man, being endowed with the capacity to know, he has a duty to know. All knowledge, however small, however irrelevant to progress and well-being, is a part of the whole. It is of this the scientist partakes. To know the fly is to share a bit in the sublimity of Knowledge. That is the challenge and the joy of science. (1962, pp. 118-119)

At its most basic level, curiosity about how things work is what science is all about. As Feynman observed, “I’ve been caught, so to speak—like someone who was given something wonderful when he was a child, and he’s always looking for it again. I’m always looking, like a child, for the wonders I know I’m going to find—maybe not every time, but every once in a while” (1988, p. 16). The most important question in education, then, is this: What tools are children given to help them explore, enjoy, and understand the world? Of the various tools taught in school, science and thinking skeptically about all claims should be near the top.

Children are born with the ability to perceive cause-effect relations. Our brains are natural machines for piecing together events that may be related and for solving problems that require our attention. We can envision an ancient hominid from Africa chipping and grinding and shaping a rock into a sharp tool for carving up a large mammalian carcass. Or perhaps we can imagine the first individual who discovered that knocking flint would create a spark that would light a fire. The wheel, the lever, the bow and arrow, the plow—inventions intended to allow us to shape our environment rather than be shaped by it—started us down a path that led to our modern scientific and technological world.

On the most basic level, we must think to remain alive. To think is the most essential human characteristic. Over three centuries ago, the French mathematician and philosopher René Descartes, after one of the most thorough and skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: “Cogito ergo sum—I think therefore I am.” But to be human is to think. To reverse Descartes, “Sum ergo cogito—I am therefore I think.”

Copyright © 1997, 2002 by Michael Shermer

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Foreword: The Positive Power of Skepticism
Introduction to the Paperback Edition
Prologue: Next on Oprah 1
Pt. 1 Science and Skepticism 11
1 I Am Therefore I Think: A Skeptic's Manifesto 13
2 The Most Precious Thing We Have: The Difference Between Science and Pseudoscience 24
3 How Thinking Goes Wrong: Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things 44
Pt. 2 Pseudoscience and Superstition 63
4 Deviations: The Normal, the Paranormal, and Edgar Cayce 65
5 Through the Invisible: Near-Death Experiences and the Quest for Immortality 73
6 Abducted!: Encounters with Aliens 88
7 Epidemics of Accusations: Medieval and Modern Witch Crazes 99
8 The Unlikeliest Cult: Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and the Cult of Personality 114
Pt. 2 Evolution and Creationism 125
9 In the Beginning: An Evening with Duane T. Gish 127
10 Confronting Creationists: Twenty-five Creationist Arguments, Twenty-five Evolutionist Answers 137
11 Science Defended, Science Defined: Evolution and Creationism at the Supreme Court 154
Pt. 4 History and Pseudohistory 173
12 Doing Donahue: History, Censorship, and Free Speech 175
13 Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened, and Why Do They Say It?: An Overview of a Movement 188
14 How We Know the Holocaust Happened: Debunking the Deniers 211
15 Pigeonholes and Continuums: An African-Greek-German-American Looks at Race 242
Pt. 5 Hope Springs Eternal 253
16 Dr. Tipler Meets Dr. Pangloss: Can Science Find the Best of All Possible Worlds? 255
17 Why Do People Believe Weird Things? 273
18 Why Smart People Believe Weird Things 279
Bibliography 315
Index 333
Read More Show Less

First Chapter

Why People Believe Weird Things

Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
By Michael Shermer

Holt Paperbacks

Copyright © 2002 Michael Shermer
All right reserved.

ISBN: 9780805070897

PART 1SCIENCE AND SKEPTICISMScience is founded on the conviction that experience, effort, and reason are valid; magic on the belief that hope cannot fail nor desire deceive.—Branislaw Malinowski, Magic, Science, and Religion, 19481I Am Therefore I ThinkA Skeptic’s Manifesto



On the opening page of his splendid little book To Know a Fly, biologist Vincent Dethier makes this humorous observation about how children grow up to be scientists: “Although small children have taboos against stepping on ants because such actions are said to bring on rain, there has never seemed to be a taboo against pulling off the legs or wings of flies. Most children eventually outgrow this behavior. Those who do not either come to a bad end or become biologists” (1962, p. 2). In their early years, children are knowledge junkies, questioning everything in their purview, though exhibiting little skepticism. Most never learn to distinguish between skepticism and credulity. It took me a long time.In 1979, unable to land a full-time teaching job, I found work as a writer for a cycling magazine. The first day on the job, I was sent to a press conference held in honor of a man named John Marino who had just ridden his bicycle across America in a record 13 days, 1 hour, 20 minutes. When I asked him how he did it, John told me about special vegetarian diets, megavitamin therapy, fasting, colonies, mud baths, iridology, cytotoxic blood testing, Rolfing, acupressure and acupuncture, chiropractic and massage therapy, negative ions, pyramid power, and a host of weird things with which I was unfamiliar. Being a fairly inquisitive fellow, when I took up cycling as a serious sport I thought I would try these things to see for myself whether they worked. I once fasted for a week on nothing but a strange mixture of water, cayenne pepper, garlic, and lemon. At the end of the week, John and I rode from Irvine to Big Bear Lake and back, some seventy miles each way. About halfway up the mountain I collapsed, violently ill from the concoction. John and I once rode out to a health spa near Lake Elsinore for a mud bath that was supposed to suck the toxins out of my body. My skin was dyed red for a week. I set up a negative ion generator in my bedroom to charge the air to give me more energy. It turned the walls black with dust. I got my iris read by an iridologist, who told me that the little green flecks in my eyes meant something was wrong with my kidneys. To this day my kidneys are functioning fine.I really got into cycling. I bought a racing bike the day after I met John and entered my first race that weekend. I did my first century ride (100 miles) a month later, and my first double century later that year. I kept trying weird things because I figured I had nothing to lose and, who knows, maybe they would increase performance. I tried colonics because supposedly bad things clog the plumbing and thus decrease digestive efficiency, but all I got was an hour with a hose in a very uncomfortable place. I installed a pyramid in my apartment because it was supposed to focus energy. All I got were strange looks from guests. I starting getting massages, which were thoroughly enjoyable and quite relaxing. Then my massage therapist decided that “deep tissue” massage was best to get lactic acid out of the muscles. That wasn’t so relaxing. One guy massaged me with his feet. That was even less relaxing. I tried Rolfing, which is really deep tissue massage. That was so painful that I never went back.In 1982 John and I and two other men competed in the first Race Across America, the 3,000-mile, nonstop, transcontinental bike race from Los Angeles to New York. In preparation, we went for cytotoxic blood testing because it was supposed to detect food allergies that cause blood platelets to clump together and block capillaries, thus decreasing blood flow. By now we were a little skeptical of the truth of these various claims, so we sent in one man’s blood under several names. Each sample came back with different food allergies, which told us that there was a problem with their testing, not with our blood. During the race, I slept with an “Electro-Acuscope,” which was to measure my brain waves and put me into an alpha state for better sleeping. It was also supposed to rejuvenate my muscles and heal any injuries. The company swore that it helped Joe Montana win the Super Bowl. Near as I can figure, it was totally ineffective.The Electro-Acuscope was the idea of my chiropractor. I began visiting a chiropractor not because I needed one but because I had read that energy flows through the spinal cord and can get blocked at various places. I discovered that the more I got adjusted, the more I needed to get adjusted because my neck and back kept going “out.” This went on for a couple of years until I finally quit going altogether, and I’ve never needed a chiropractor since.All told, I raced as a professional ultra-marathon cyclist for ten years, all the while trying anything and everything (except drugs and steroids) that might improve my performance. As the Race Across America got bigger—it was featured for many years on ABC’s Wide World of Sports—I had many offers to try all sorts of things, which I usually did. From this ten-year experiment with a subject pool of one, I drew two conclusions: nothing increased performance, alleviated pain, or enhanced well-being other than long hours in the saddle, dedication to a consistent training schedule, and a balanced diet; and it pays to be skeptical. But what does it mean to be skeptical?What Is a Skeptic?I became a skeptic on Saturday, August 6, 1983, on the long, climbing road to Loveland Pass, Colorado. It was Day 3 of the second Race Across America, and the nutritionist on my support crew believed that if I followed his megavitamin therapy program, I would win the race. He was in a Ph.D. program and was trained as a nutritionist, so I figured he knew what he was doing. Every six hours I would force down a huge handful of assorted vitamins and minerals. Their taste and smell nearly made me sick, and they went right through me, producing what I thought had to be the most expensive and colorful urine in America. After three days of this, I decided that megavitamin therapy, along with colonics, iridology, Rolfing, and all these other alternative, New Age therapies were a bunch of hooey. On that climb up Loveland Pass, I dutifully put the vitamins in my mouth and then spit them out up the road when my nutritionist wasn’t looking. Being skeptical seemed a lot safer than being credulous.After the race I discovered that the nutritionist’s Ph.D. was to be awarded by a nonaccredited nutrition school and, worse, I was the subject of his doctoral dissertation! Since that time I have noticed about extraordinary claims and New Age beliefs that they tend to attract people on the fringes of academia—people without formal scientific training, credentialed (if at all) by nonaccredited schools, lacking research data to support their claims, and excessively boastful about what their particular elixir can accomplish. This does not automatically disprove all claims made by individuals exhibiting these characteristics, but it would be wise to be especially skeptical when encountering them.Being skeptical is nothing new, of course. Skepticism dates back 2,500 years to ancient Greece and Plato’s Academy. But Socrates’ quip that “All I know is that I know nothing” doesn’t get us far. Modern skepticism has developed into a science-based movement, beginning with Martin Gardner’s 1952 classic, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Gardner’s numerous essays and books over the next four decades, such as Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus (1981), The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher (1991a), and On the Wild Side (1992), established a pattern of incredulity about a wide variety of bizarre beliefs. Skepticism joined pop culture through magician James “the Amazing” Randi’s countless psychic challenges and media appearances in the 1970s and 1980s (including thirty-six appearances on the Tonight Show). Philosopher Paul Kurtz helped create dozens of skeptics groups throughout the United States and abroad, and publications such as Skeptic magazine have national and international circulation. Today, a burgeoning group of people calling themselves skeptics—scientists, engineers, physicians, lawyers, professors, teachers, and the intellectually curious from all walks of life—conduct investigations, hold monthly meetings and annual conferences, and provide the media and the general public with natural explanations for apparently supernatural phenomena.Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some things, such as water dowsing, extrasensory perception, and creationism, have been tested and have failed the tests often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other things, such as hypnosis, lie detectors, and vitamin C, have been tested but the results are inconclusive, so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity by continuously and vigorously applying the methods of science.The flaw in pure skepticism is that when taken to an extreme, the position itself cannot stand. If you are skeptical about everything, you must be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.There is also a popular notion that skeptics are closed-minded. Some even call us cynics. In principle, skeptics are not closed-minded or cynical. What I mean by a skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it. In other words, skeptics are from Missouri—the “show me” state. When we hear a fantastic claim, we say, “That’s nice, prove it.”Here is an example. For many years I had heard stories about the “Hundredth Monkey phenomenon” and was fascinated with the possibility that there might be some sort of collective consciousness that we could tap into to decrease crime, eliminate wars, and generally unite as a single species. In the 1992 presidential election, in fact, one candidate—Dr. John Hagelin from the Natural Law Party—claimed that if elected he would implement a plan that would solve the problems of our inner cities: meditation. Hagelin and others (especially proponents of Transcendental Meditation, or TM) believe that thought can somehow be transferred between people, especially people in a meditative state; if enough people meditate at the same time, some sort of critical mass will be reached, thereby inducing significant planetary change. The Hundredth Monkey phenomenon is commonly cited as empirical proof of this astonishing theory. In the 1950s, so the story goes, Japanese scientists gave monkeys on Koshima Island potatoes. One day one of the monkeys learned to wash the potatoes and then taught the skill to others. When about one hundred monkeys had learned the skill—the so-called critical mass—suddenly all the monkeys knew it, even those on other islands hundreds of miles away. Books about the phenomenon have spread this theory widely in New Age circles. Lyall Watson’s Lifetide (1979) and Ken Keyes’s The Hundredth Monkey (1982), for example, have been through multiple printings and sold millions of copies; Elda Hartley even made a film called The Hundredth Monkey.As an exercise in skepticism, start by asking whether events really happened as reported. They did not. In 1952, primatologists began providing Japanese macaques with sweet potatoes to keep the monkeys from raiding local farms. One monkey did learn to wash dirt off the sweet potatoes in a stream or the ocean, and other monkeys did learn to imitate the behavior. Now let’s examine Watson’s book more carefully. He admits that “one has to gather the rest of the story from personal anecdotes and bits of folklore among primate researchers, because most of them are still not quite sure what happened. So I am forced to improvise the details.” Watson then speculates that “an unspecified number of monkeys on Koshima were washing sweet potatoes in the sea”—hardly the level of precision one expects. He then makes this statement: “Let us say, for argument’s sake, that the number was ninety-nine and that at 11:00 A.M. on a Tuesday, one further convert was added to the fold in the usual way. But the addition of the hundredth monkey apparently carried the number across some sort of threshold, pushing it through a kind of critical mass.” At this point, says Watson, the habit “seems to have jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously on other islands” (1979, pp. 2—8).Let’s stop right there. Scientists do not “improvise” details or make wild guesses from “anecdotes” and “bits of folklore.” In fact, some scientists did record exactly what happened (for example, Baldwin et al. 1980; Imanishi 1983; Kawai 1962). The research began with a troop of twenty monkeys in 1952, and every monkey on the island was carefully observed. By 1962, the troop had increased to fifty-nine monkeys and exactly thirty-six of the fifty-nine monkeys were washing their sweet potatoes. The “sudden” acquisition of the behavior actually took ten years, and the “hundred monkeys” were actually only thirty-six in 1962. Furthermore, we can speculate endlessly about what the monkeys knew, but the fact remains that not all of the monkeys in the troop were exhibiting the washing behavior. The thirty-six monkeys were not a critical mass even at home. And while there are some reports of similar behavior on other islands, the observations were made between 1953 and 1967. It was not sudden, nor was it necessarily connected to Koshima. The monkeys on other islands could have discovered this simple skill themselves, for example, or inhabitants on other islands might have taught them. In any case, not only is there no evidence to support this extraordinary claim, there is not even a real phenomenon to explain.Science and SkepticismSkepticism is a vital part of science, which I define as a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation. In other words, science is a specific way of analyzing information with the goal of testing claims. Defining the scientific method is not so simple, as philosopher of science and Nobel laureate Sir Peter Medawar observed: “Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he will adopt an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed, because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare” (1969, p. 11).A sizable literature exists on the scientific method, but there is little consensus among authors. This does not mean that scientists do not know what they are doing. Doing and explaining may be two different things. However, scientists agree that the following elements are involved in thinking scientifically:
Induction: Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.Deduction: Making specific predictions based on the hypotheses.Observation: Gathering data, driven by hypotheses that tell us what to look for in nature.Verification: Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypotheses.
Science, of course, is not this rigid; and no scientist consciously goes through “steps.” The process is a constant interaction of making observations, drawing conclusions, making predictions, and checking them against evidence. And data-gathering observations are not made in a vacuum. The hypotheses shape what sorts of observations you will make of nature, and these hypotheses are themselves shaped by your education, culture, and particular biases as an observer.This process constitutes the core of what philosophers of science call the hypothetico-deductive method, which, according to the Dictionary of the History of Science, involves “(a) putting forward a hypothesis, (b) conjoining it with a statement of ‘initial conditions,’ (c) deducing from the two a prediction, and (d) finding whether or not the prediction is fulfilled” (Bynum, Browne, and Porter 1981, p. 196). It is not possible to say which came first, the observation or the hypothesis, since the two are inseparably interactive. But additional observations are what flesh out the hypothetico-deductive process, and they serve as the final arbiter on the validity of predictions. As Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington noted, “For the truth of the conclusions of science, observation is the supreme court of appeal” (1958, p. 9). Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:
Hypothesis: A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.Theory: A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses.Fact: A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.
A theory may be contrasted with a construct: a nontestable statement to account for a set of observations. The living organisms on Earth may be accounted for by the statement “God made them” or the statement “They evolved.” The first statement is a construct, the second a theory. Most biologists would even call evolution a fact.Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.There is nothing wrong with personal insight as a starting point. Many great scientists have attributed their important ideas to insight, intuition, and other mental leaps hard to pin down. Alfred Russel Wallace said that the idea of natural selection “suddenly flashed upon” him during an attack of malaria. But intuitive ideas and mystical insights do not become objective until they are externally validated. As psychologist Richard Hardison explained,
Mystical “truths,” by their nature, must be solely personal, and they can have no possible external validation. Each has equal claim to truth. Tealeaf reading and astrology and Buddhism; each is equally sound or unsound if we judge by the absence of related evidence. This is not intended to disparage any one of the faiths; merely to note the impossibility of verifying their correctness. The mystic is in a paradoxical position. When he seeks external support for his views he must turn to external arguments, and he denies mysticism in the process. External validation is, by definition, impossible for the mystic. (1988, pp. 259—260)
Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. For example, how do we know the Earth is round? It is a logical conclusion drawn from observations such as • The shadow of the Earth on the moon is round.• The mast of a ship is the last thing seen as it sails into the distance.• The horizon is curved.• Photographs from space.And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence. For example, how do we know the Earth is round? • Our parents told us.• Our teachers told us.• Our minister told us.• Our textbook told us.Dogmatic conclusions are not necessarily invalid, but they do beg other questions: How did the authorities come by their conclusions? Were they guided by science or some other means?The Essential Tension Between Skepticism and CredulityIt is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction. Whether a mistake is made honestly or dishonestly, whether a fraud is unknowingly or knowingly perpetrated, in time it will be flushed out of the system by lack of external verification. The cold fusion fiasco is a classic example of the system’s swift exposure of error.Because of the importance of this self-correcting feature, among scientists there is at best what Caltech physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman called “a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards.” Said Feynman, “If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results” (1988, p. 247).Despite these built-in mechanisms, science remains subject to problems and fallacies ranging from inadequate mathematical notation to wishful thinking. But, as philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn (1977) noted, the “essential tension” in science is between total commitment to the status quo and blind pursuit of new ideas. The paradigm shifts and revolutions in science depend upon proper balancing of these opposing impulses. When enough of the scientific community (particularly those in positions of power) are willing to abandon orthodoxy in favor of the (formerly) radical new theory, then and only then can a paradigm shift occur (see chapter 2).Charles Darwin is a good example of a scientist who negotiated the essential tension between skepticism and credulity. Historian of science Frank Sulloway identifies three characteristics in Darwin’s thinking that helped Darwin find his balance: (1) he respected others’ opinions but was willing to challenge authorities (he intimately understood the theory of special creation, yet he overturned it with his own theory of natural selection); (2) he paid close attention to negative evidence (Darwin included a chapter called “Difficulties on Theory” in the Origin of Species—as a result his opponents could rarely present him with a challenge that he had not already addressed); (3) he generously used the work of others (Darwin’s collected correspondence numbers over 14,000 letters, most of which include lengthy discussions and question-and-answer sequences about scientific problems). Darwin was constantly questioning, always learning, confident enough to formulate original ideas yet modest enough to recognize his own fallibility. “Usually, it is the scientific community as a whole that displays this essential tension between tradition and change,” Sulloway observed, “since most people have a preference for one or the other way of thinking. What is relatively rare in the history of science is to find these contradictory qualities combined in such a successful manner in one individual” (1991, p. 32).The essential tension in dealing with “weird things” is between being so skeptical that revolutionary ideas pass you by and being so open-minded that flimflam artists take you in. Balance can be found by answering a few basic questions: What is the quality of the evidence for the claim? What are the background and credentials of the person making the claim? Does the thing work as claimed? As I discovered during my personal odyssey in the world of alternative health and fitness therapies and gadgets, often the evidence is weak, the background and credentials of the claimants are questionable, and the therapy or gadget almost never does what it is supposed to.This last point may well be the crucial one. I regularly receive calls about astrology. Callers usually want to know about the theory behind astrology. They are wondering whether the alignment of planetary bodies can significantly influence human destiny. The answer is no, but the more important point is that one need not understand gravity and the laws governing the motion of the planets to evaluate astrology. All one needs to do is ask, Does it work? That is, do astrologers accurately and specifically predict human destiny from the alignment of the planets? No, they do not. Not one astrologer predicted the crash of TWA flight #800; not one astrologer predicted the Northridge earthquake. Thus, the theory behind astrology is irrelevant, because astrology simply does not do what astrologers claim it can do. It vanishes hand-in-hand with the hundredth monkey.The Tool of the MindVincent Dethier, in his discussion of the rewards of science, runs through a pantheon of the obvious ones—money, security, honor—as well as the transcendent: “a passport to the world, a feeling of belonging to one race, a feeling that transcends political boundaries and ideologies, religions, and languages.” But he brushes all these aside for one “more lofty and more subtle”—the natural curiosity of humans:
One of the characteristics that sets man apart from all the other animals (and animal he indubitably is) is a need for knowledge for its own sake. Many animals are curious, but in them curiosity is a facet of adaptation. Man has a hunger to know. And to many a man, being endowed with the capacity to know, he has a duty to know. All knowledge, however small, however irrelevant to progress and well-being, is a part of the whole. It is of this the scientist partakes. To know the fly is to share a bit in the sublimity of Knowledge. That is the challenge and the joy of science. (1962, pp. 118-119)
At its most basic level, curiosity about how things work is what science is all about. As Feynman observed, “I’ve been caught, so to speak—like someone who was given something wonderful when he was a child, and he’s always looking for it again. I’m always looking, like a child, for the wonders I know I’m going to find—maybe not every time, but every once in a while” (1988, p. 16). The most important question in education, then, is this: What tools are children given to help them explore, enjoy, and understand the world? Of the various tools taught in school, science and thinking skeptically about all claims should be near the top.Children are born with the ability to perceive cause-effect relations. Our brains are natural machines for piecing together events that may be related and for solving problems that require our attention. We can envision an ancient hominid from Africa chipping and grinding and shaping a rock into a sharp tool for carving up a large mammalian carcass. Or perhaps we can imagine the first individual who discovered that knocking flint would create a spark that would light a fire. The wheel, the lever, the bow and arrow, the plow—inventions intended to allow us to shape our environment rather than be shaped by it—started us down a path that led to our modern scientific and technological world.On the most basic level, we must think to remain alive. To think is the most essential human characteristic. Over three centuries ago, the French mathematician and philosopher René Descartes, after one of the most thorough and skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: “Cogito ergo sum—I think therefore I am.” But to be human is to think. To reverse Descartes, “Sum ergo cogito—I am therefore I think.”Copyright © 1997, 2002 by Michael Shermer

Continues...

Excerpted from Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer Copyright © 2002 by Michael Shermer. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 4
( 61 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(20)

4 Star

(25)

3 Star

(12)

2 Star

(3)

1 Star

(1)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 61 Customer Reviews
  • Posted May 4, 2010

    Handle With Some Caution...

    ... like an aggressive but delicious hot dog, this book takes some muscling around to subdue and digest in its entirety. It is a great find for scholarly readers looking for fistfuls of deep material (and size 10 font) per page! Shermer has definitely done his homework here; there are plenty of citations to good sources for his work, and he has the personal experience of a rennaissance man. He is not afraid to admit that he has dabbled in a belief of "weird things" himself before becoming a skeptic.
    One caution I would render is that it is not a casual or light read. And even if you are interested in the material, it is so dense that reading goes slowly. It is a good book to read in as much as it is a good area of science and human nature to be acquainted with and knowledgeable about. It does a great job analyzing rhetorical argument strategies and fallacies. However, it could be made easier for a high school senior (like me) to absorb by rewriting it with coherent, flowing chapters and a theme. It sounds like it should be a collection of schloarly theses or essays. Of course, like Freakonomics, it IS non-fiction and the topic is not exactly captivating, so all Mr. Shermer can really be blamed for is his somewhat dry narrative voice.
    A good challenge and a good read, all in all!

    5 out of 5 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 2, 2010

    An interesting read

    I would recommend Why People believe weird things.It is an interesting read that touches on many points. I like how the authors take ordinary circumstances and relate it in the text. The book is educational and logical and this is why it is interesting.
    The most interesting points were the internalist and externalist views and the twenty-five fallacies that make people believe wierd things. I like how the authors were able to thoroughly explain these topics. One of the twenty-five fallacies was the use of ad ignorantiam. The two sides of the arguement were peculiar yet true. The logic behing the internal and external views were also interesting. One relates to theories while the other relates to history.
    This is an interesting text and I would recommend this book to everyone.

    3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 5, 2009

    To Believe or Not to Believe

    Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" is a provocative and compelling text that forces us to examine our imperfections by exposing how simplistic and juvenile our beliefs may be even at a mature age. Shermer explores the many different reasons a person may have a particular propensity to believe in superstitions or the like from hidden anxieties and childish habits never lost to misleading and false affirmations. Throughout this book Shermer often refers to the skeptic, emphasizing the importance of logic and rationality when considering the many things in this world for which the human race has provided explanations, but which may not be scientifically sound. Not only does this book strive to disprove and denounce the various superstitions and illogical beliefs of our world, it may unintentionally create a sense of skepticism in the reader in regards to believing what has been written in this very book. After reading about how important it is to be skeptical, do we believe Shermer? In the end, who is to say what to believe? And when someone does claim to know what is true and scientifically sound, how do we know if to believe them or not? Above all, this is a wonderfully philosophical book that either confuses the daylights out of you, further solidifies your beliefs or completely destroys all faith in the immaterial and unknown. It is all up to you and your personal proclivity to change your way of thinking.

    3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 4, 2009

    Why People Believe Weird Things

    It is quite difficult to completely debunk a whole bunch of theories and phenomenona, but Shermer did a compelling job of providing his insights. This book is particularly interesting because Shermer writes from experience as he once was a true believer, but is now a hard-core skeptic that tries to let nothing get past him without questioning. He also critiques issues or claims that he only partially believes in, and this certainly is a brave step for such a book as this.

    Shermer also addresses the harm that has been or can be caused by a lack of skepticism. Think about people who deny that the Holocaust ever happened. Think about repressed memory therapy that can implant false memories of alien abductions or sexual abuse. These are dangerous when not approached skeptically.

    I definitely learned a lot from this book and it does a good job of spreading awareness of what's going on in this world, exactly. It is apparent that Shermer is not a mean-spirited person, but one that really cares about sharing his views and perhaps answering questions about weird and crazy superstitions that millions of people in the world share. You'll be surprised about a lot of the things you'll read in this book, but in a good way.

    3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 4, 2009

    Interesting

    I have never been interested in science but this book has opened by eyes to wierd things. Shermer has a whole chapter on Skepticism. This book has made me think about what I hear and what I do with it. Often times statistics are thrown at you and people believe them so easily. This book has made me realize that everything people tell you isn't true, numbers may sound true but they aren't always. Another reason why people may believe in wierd things. Coming from a students point of view. I definately recommend this book. It makes you think from all different points of view.

    3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 5, 2009

    more from this reviewer

    Why People Believe Weird Things

    Michael Shermer's book, Why People Believe Weird Things, delves into an interesting topic, which debunks skeptics, and leaves you wondering who or what to believe. Shermer takes examples from his life and pop culture ranging from everything from ghosts and skeptics to the holocaust. I found the topic interesting, but at times it seemed like Shermer was just filling space when talking about the scientific method. The book got good when Shermer began proving all the myths wrong, but overall it didn't seem to have enough of a cohesive thread. I had high expectations and unfortunately they weren't completely fulfilled. I expected something interesting and controversial, which this book was at times, but there was too much on what constitutes a skeptic and unnecessary information that was erroneous. In fact I would not recommend anyone to read this book unless they are interested in skepticism AND the scientific method. Someone needed to go through the book and cut out the fat so we could get to the good stuff. I think about this book like I think about a nice prime rib. A lot of times there's fat on the meat and the outside is too well cooked. I have to cut away a lot of stuff that no one wants in order to get to the good juicy center. In this books case it's about 100 pages of boring nothing. Plus how can you read an entire book which disproves myths and not think that the book itself could be wrong.

    2 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 4, 2009

    What Do You Believe In?

    Michael Shermer wrote a must read for all generations. He shows readers the truth about why people believe weird things. When people deny facts and insist opinions are true there becomes conflict in what is right and wrong. He doesn't push certain beliefs on his readers. He uses science and common sense to provide factual information as to why the "weird thing" people believe in is real or not. Shermer discusses very realistic reasoning as to why people believe in what they do. Such as when someone believes they have been abducted by aliens, he uses science to explain why they believe in what they do. He explains by using sleep apnea and a vivid imagination as a possible explanation. As for unraveling if the holocaust had or had not happened he explained many people choose not to believe in such a thing because they just don't want to come to terms that such an event has actually happened. He doesn't give readers elaborate stories on weird beliefs such as ghost stories or alien encounters, but uses theories to explain them. By using facts and a scientific outlook he doesn't tell readers what to believe he presents them with factual information. They can either take it or leave it. I do not recommend Why People Believe in Weird Things to strong believers in any debatable "weird thing". Such as people who strongly believe in creationism, ghosts or aliens. If you are not sure if you believe in weird things, this book is a must read because it opens your eyes to much reasoning. The things you learn while reading this book can be used to assess many situations and gives you an advantage on friendly debates based on the weird things people believe.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 4, 2009

    Debunking Beliefs

    Michael Shermer explains so many controversies and goes in as a believer and then challenges it. Reading this book I have figured out that people have their own opinions on things, like believing the Holocaust but these are opinions not facts. He tries to explain the difference of science and pseudoscience. After reading this book I had a better understanding as to what is a factual statement and what is my own opinion. When believing something you most likely think it is true, but if you want it to be true doesn't necessarily make it true. Shermer debunks many things people think are true. He talks about the Holocaust and why people do not believe it happened (because they want to and it gives them immediate gratification) and the belief of creationism. Are there really alien abductions or is it just your imagination? Each chapter is a new belief that Shermer explains is wrong or exaggerated.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 26, 2006

    Shermer a great science author.

    Michael Shermer belongs in the ranks of great science authors. He explains why so many people lack critical thinking skills and fail to question their beliefs.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 7, 2013

    Derp

    DERPITY DERP DERP MOMANA DERP BONANA MAN!
    Post derpy things on derpy books!
    Mr.Derp

    1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted March 19, 2010

    I Also Recommend:

    An Introduction to Pseudoscience

    Historian of science and editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine Michael Shermer published this book in 1997, after which it went on to become something of a classic on the subject of skepticism and pseudoscience. The book was expanded and revised in 2002, and it's still a highly entertaining and thought-provoking book. Containing a good introduction to critical thinking and a rundown of common logical fallacies, the book is a great place to start for readers new to skepticism or the scientific method. Even if that was all the book contained, it would still be worth a read, but there are also fun, hilarious chapters debunking everything from creationism to alien abductions to spirit mediums to witch panics. There is also a very useful chapter containing quick arguments against the 25 most common creationist canards. Shermer is an engaging writer, and uses examples from his own life to illustrate various points in a humorous way. He gets serious when he needs to - as in the two chapters discussing Holocaust deniers - but overall this is a fast, satisfying read that will make you laugh and make you think, and whet your appetite for more books in a similar vein.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 5, 2009

    Why People Believe Weird Things

    Michael Shermer's 'Why People Believe Weird Things' is an alright book in the sense that the theories that were presented had good reason behind it but at the same time to me was a stretch. For example, in part two he examines the ideas of Science versus Pseudoscience and discusses the quest for immortality. But even though some of the things are a stretch i feel that this book was the best out of the other books that were offered up to read.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 4, 2009

    Why People Believe Weird Things

    This book opens the eyes of gullible readers and explores the mysteries of scientific phenomenons. Out of all the choices my teacher gave me for our assignment, I have to say this was the best possible one. Although I did have trouble with some of the tables and graphs that were added. It answers several questions about unanswered myths or skeptical procedures. The most interesting section I think would have to be his exploration of immortality. Part Two, Pseudoscience and Superstition discusses the quest for immortality and how people search for a way to live forever and the obstacle that stands in their way: death. With three major causes, trauma, disease, and entropy (letting nature take its course, aging). It's amazing how people today still want to live forever while fighting the different ways to die. The scientific justification provides readers, no matter the intelligence level, with some sort of explanation.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 4, 2009

    A Worthy Skimmer

    Michael Shermer's chosen topic for "Why People Believe Weird Things" is undeniably interesting. Shermer lays out both the most subversive and commonplace quirks of society from groups such as creationalists to holocaust deniers and explains their beliefs with these explainations 1) sheer ignorance 2) faith provides an easy answer to unanswered questions 3) believe provides hope and solace. Shermer's writing is typically matter of fact and usually easy to follow. He does write towards an audience with a certain understanding of science and familiarity with todays culture.

    At times Shermer's explanations for people's beliefs are less than satisfactory. He quickly debunked theories of witch hunts by rather simple methods which may leave the reader with a few more questions. Yet this stays within the books spirit of constant questioning. Although Shermer's writing is often wrought with an air of haughtiness he makes sure to remind his readers that he enjoys the scientific process of discovering the truth rather than destroying people's faith. His book is a celebration of science and playfully encourages its readers to think and to learn before subscribing themselves to one belief.

    Why People Believe Weird Things is at times dry and repetitive but overall provides excellent insight into the mysteries the public would otherwise be unable to explain. It ignites curiousity and often has a touch of humor in its pages. Sure to intrigue, Weird Things is worth having around the house for rainy days.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 3, 2009

    An Interesting Read

    I thought that Michael Shermer did a great job debunking the many weird things that people believe. His methods are respectable since he sometimes puts himself through situations to try to understand the conditions that lead people to believe such things. He recounted a time when he was abducted by aliens only to explain later that he was extremely sleep deprived during a bike marathon and started hallucinating. To prepare for the bike marathon itself he explained that he tried many things such as deep tissue massages and a special diet only to find that they didn't improve his overall performance. I've seen a number of Michael Shermer's specials on YouTube and found it remarkable how he was able to debunk things like remote viewing and spoon bending through simple experiments. Overall I enjoyed Shermer's book despite a few slow spots where he goes in depth into some research and explanations.definitely something to pick up if you're interested in learning scientific explanations to some of the unexplained phenomena of our time.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 12, 2008

    Great book

    Micheal Shermer is the voice of reason amongst the Sea of confusion. I have seen him do alot of debunking and once again he is at his best in explaining why people believe weird things. I defineatly recommend this book for anyone who wants to use solid reasoning

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 5, 2001

    What being open minded is really about

    If you want to better understand how science and critical thinking work this book is an excellent starting point. Also if you want a better understanding of how cults, witch hunts, psuedo-science(such as creation science) find there way into the minds of otherwise rational people.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 5, 2014

    Molly to Lunas

    Hi Lunas

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 23, 2013

    Boring

    Try actually reading it the next time it's "re-edited", spell check cannot replace grammar

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 17, 2013

    nook study????

    why cant I or why didnt I recive this in my Nook study! i can on view this book online and not through my desktop?

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 61 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)