scepticMay 12, 2007 Michael is so reasonable and diplomatic. This is a very good book to prepare wavering faith heads, and anyone previously misinformed but who is still a bit open minded, looking at scientific ways of ascetaining reality. I have given copies away to friends and use it for teaching scientific concepts in postgraduate studies in Medicine.
Not for TRUE BELIEVERS!May 2, 2007 9 out of 10 found this review helpful
Great book. Interesting, fast read with personal anecdotes. Funny in numerous places. Contains a good, simple yet workable definition of SCIENCE. Worthy to be read by honest, decent folk not held in the clutches of crazy religious, political, or creationist pap. Nonetheless, Shermer's simplistic denial of synchronicity was utterly disappointing. It would be great if scientists would simply state ... just once ... that some activities and some phenomena are simply beyond the realm of our current scientific understanding! Some things cannot be measured with today's scientific tools ... but someday they probably will be. Let's not become TRUE BELIEVERS ourselves.
Important TopicsApril 26, 2007 3 out of 3 found this review helpful
Dr Shermer's work is well worth reading, as it addresses the highly relevant subject of public credulity. Critical thinking is becoming ever more important in this age of mass media, who concentrate on tabloid stories so much more often that presenting real info on more pressing topics. Shermer's style of writing was a little difficult for me to follow at times, as it seemed to wander a bit in places. But his message is right on target: in this technological age, mankind must rely on rational decision-making rather than emotional appeals in order to continue to progress.
READ it!!April 23, 2007 8 out of 8 found this review helpful
Important BOOK! These topics are critical. I've been reading about some various cult groups and their methods of persuasion. In the process I came across this book.
Persuasion techniques are insideous and after some encounters with people that refered to these cult groups and used some "weird" conversational and manipulative techniques alot, I decided to research it to see what these groups were teaching so I could recognize it better and not be swayed by it. I also wanted to know how these huge organizations really came to be. It feels empowering to understand how the mind is lured into cults and beliefs that aren't healthy.
It seems some of the techniques can be used to positive and healthy results as well. This is why I like one of the reviewers below who tempers his praise Shermer's creation by mentioning the benefits of healthy foods, etc.
I am one who moves more broadly in the world than Shermer in terms of alignment with things seemingly beyond science. But I also wholely support critical thinking and the integrity scientific methods.
..:..
a logical farceMarch 6, 2007 12 out of 56 found this review helpful
This book was painful to read from a logical standpoint. For starters, in his list of logical fallacies, he lists reductio ad absurdem as something to watch out for. As a basic course in logic will show, RAA is a fundamental and necessary logical tool. In my logic course, it was wielded frequently in the analysis of various proofs. If a premise leads to a logically contradictory result, the premise is false. Here is an interesting example of his misuse of logic: there are many competing religious claims regarding morality => there is no truth to the matter, and the religious pursuit of morality is futile. later he claims, regarding a particular question of science: there are many competing claims regarding this question => the truth of the matter is becoming more clear, and the scientific pursuit of answers is stronger than it would be otherwise. This sort of inconsistency makes for a very frustrating read.
He also completely missed the boat in his evaluation of Creationism, setting up a straw man, coupling this tactic with ad hominem attacks. Creationists have nothing to fear from this sort of "reasoning". I did appreciate in his section "Science Defined," the number of times he cited various quotes (from a particular document) stating science's aims at providing strictly naturalistic explanations for phenomena, underscoring the claim that much of what passes for "science" today (evolution) is really philosophy (naturalism) in disguise. I like reading ideas that oppose my own, even vehemently, and I read this hoping that my beliefs would be challenged, that I would be forced to think critically, and that I would have some food for thought. This book made me laugh and cry (both at how poorly argued it was) but it didn't get me thinking. It was full of the "same old" tired cliches I've heard a million times before.
