What do you think?
Rate this book


384 pages, Hardcover
First published January 27, 2026
I had to "nudge" the Portsmouth (NH) Public Library (PPL) to get this book; fortunately, they are amazingly good at taking even my wackiest suggestions. (Although this one wasn't particularly wacky; they have a number of other books by the author, Michael Shermer, on the shelves.)
It's an interesting title, though. When I picked it up, I wisecracked to the PPL librarian at the desk: "Once I read this book, I won't need to read any of the others here," handwaving at the non-fiction stacks. She laughed. But maybe librarians are trained to laugh at customers' dumb attempts at wit.
Shermer has made a long career of "skeptically" examining factual claims, both orthodox and heterodox. (He's the Executive Director of the "Skeptic Society" and Editor-in-Chief of Skeptic magazine.) And he's written over a dozen books on various truth-related topics. My take on his 2022 book, Conspiracy, is here.
Back then, I wrote that Shermer's prose "seems to set my teeth on edge, and my brain to go into nit-picking mode." I'm happy to report that my teeth remained unedged for this one, and I have a lot fewer nits to pick.
As you might surmise from the title, this book is very wide ranging. The first few chapters engage the tools of the truth-seeker: humility, good faith, Bayesian reasoning, fallacy avoidance, and so on. He quotes liberally and admiringly from authors I admire too: Steven Pinker, Julia Galef, Richard Feynman, etc.
He then turns his skeptical eye to particular areas: religion/myth, holocaust denial, rational morality, aliens. His arguments are fairly made, and take some unexpected turns. (For example, he takes more than a few pages relating the stomach-turning behavior of Japan's invading troops in World War II (including the "Rape of Nanking"), and it's hard to deny that Japan successfully dodged the level of postwar condemnation aimed at Nazi Germany for its atrocities.
And then Shermer moves in to even more contestable territory (he admits he's dealing with "known unknowns"): consciousness, free will, the existence of God, and (yes) the thorny problems of "why is there something, rather than nothing" and "why does the universe seem to be fine-tuned to allow our very existence."
I was particularly interested in Shermer's take on free will. He summarizes (always fairly) the various camps: determinism, compatabilism, libertarianism, etc. He quotes the arguments of determinists Robert Sapolsky and Sam Harris extensively. (My own takes on Sapolsky's and Harris's anti-free will books were less sympathetic: here and here.)
But in one of those surprising turns, Shermer turns out to disagree strongly with Sapolsky/Harris determinism. Instead he advocates "self-determinism", pointing to our capacity to make decisions that can be fairly called ours. And he claims this capacity is a "self-organized emergent property": although the components of our free will (neurons, hormones, etc.) are themselves totally governed by laws of physics and biochemistry, the resulting complex interactions give rise to the ability to make rational, conscious choices for our actions.
Shermer winds up dismissing Harris and Sapolsky as having "physics envy." (Interestingly, Sapolsky provided an approving blurb on the book's back cover. Making me wonder if he read the free will stuff.)
I've blogged my "further thoughts" on the opening paragraphs of Shermer's free will chapter here: Free Will is More Than Button-Pushing.
Otherwise, I have only a few nits to pick. Shermer misuses (in the usual way) "begs the question" on page 301. On page 305, he claims "physicists Barrow and John Walsh … have demonstrated how the speed of light, gravitation, and the mass of the electron have in fact been inconstant over time"; I am pretty sure this has not been "demonstrated", and it's far from established fact.
At least in the edition PPL got, there's a weird typo on page 309: "… one part in 1010123 at least." (If you're reading this at Goodreads: Goodreads doesn't understand "sup" and "sub" HTML tags, sorry. It looks OK on my blog.)
And on page 317, he analogizes the progress of scientific knowledge to an expanding sphere: as the sphere grows in volume, the boundary layer between the "known" and the "unknown" grows too. Since the sphere's volume increases as the cube of the sphere's radius, its surface area only goes up as the square of the radius. And so "the volume of the known increases by a ratio of 3:2 over the surface area of the unknown.
As Wolfgang Pauli said (albeit in German): "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong!"
Still, a lot of good stuff here. Might be an especially good book to give to a bright high school or college kid. Although maybe not if you want to keep him or her a church-goer; Shermer's pretty hard on the God stuff.