怀疑论者：理性看世界

by Michael Shermer, 迈克尔·舍默, 汪镔怡 (Translator)

《科学美国人》是美国重要的科普杂志，主要为大众读者介绍科学理论与科学新发现。本书是畅销书作者迈克尔·舍默在《科学美国人》专栏中的作品选集。

因深厚广博的科学素养与幽默有趣的写作风格，迈克尔收获了一大票忠实读者与 YouTube 观众。为满足读者要求，出版社将其中七十五篇专栏文章集结成册。

书中内容丰富，从普适的科学原理，伪科学与江湖骗术到边缘科学，替代医学，进化论等，探讨了许多颇有价值的热点话题。

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Psychology, Skepticism, Essays, Religion

280 pages, Paperback

First published January 12, 2016

About the author

Michael Brant Shermer (born September 8, 1954 in Glendale, California) is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating and debunking pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. The Skeptics Society currently has over 55,000 members.

Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family television series Exploring the Unknown. Since April 2004, he has been a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine with his Skeptic column. Once a fundamentalist Christian, Shermer now describes himself as an agnostic nontheist and an advocate for humanist philosophy.


more info:
http://us.macmillan.com/author/michae...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_...

Reviews

[Meghan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well, now I feel squishkly.

There's a lot I can get behind in the skeptics movement; I'm a (former) scientist so of course I love science. I think more needs to be done to educate non-scientists about how science works. I think homeopathy works as well as drinking a glass of water (because that's all you're getting with homeopathy) and I'm a pretty big booster of vaccinations (unless, for documented, scientific, medical reasons, such as a suppressed immune system, one cannot safely be vaccinated). But I don't think being an arrogant dickhead about being a skeptic, as Shermer comes off in these seventy short essays, is a way to go about convincing anyone of anything. Plus the squishkliness.

Skeptics aren't big on faith. That's fine. You don't have to believe what you don't believe in. But I really don't see the harm if someone also accepts, say, evolution, and believes in God, as long as they recognize that the scientific method isn't applicable to a belief in God. But I can't see Shermer being fine with that. I can see Shermer, if the tone in this book is anything like how he is in person, berating someone for believing in God, even if that person's belief has no impact on their acceptance of science. Shermer is like Christopher Hitchens or any of them: not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them. Is the goal of the skeptic movement to illuminate the non-scientific about science, or is it to be a pretentious ass about being "smarter" than those with religious or magical or pseudo-scientific convictions? My money is on the second.

Plus, the essays here aren't even that convincing. They can't be. They are all short, seven hundred to one thousand word tidbits, which is not enough space to expound on much of anything. I don't really see the point of putting them together in a book since all-in-all, the flippancy of their length make the whole book almost pointless. Scientists will already know this stuff. Anti-scientists are unlikely to keep reading after Shermer essentially calls them morons. So who's the audience? Skeptical sycophants? I thought sycophants were exactly what skeptics want to avoid.

And I'm going to go back to the squishklyness. I recognize my squishkliness is unfair. The book should be judged on its own merits, which, in my opinion, is a bunch of slight, antagonistic essays that will be lauded by people who already agree with everything Shermer stands for, in a scientific sense. Even I agree with his science stuff. I just don't agree with his tone, style, and alleged behaviour. Or his dismissal of the Humanities' concern about science being a white, male, cabal (especially since the majority of scientists he mentions in his essays are white and male).

I got very little out of this experience.

Skeptic by Michael Shermer went on sale January 12, 2016.

I received a copy free from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.

[Miri Gifford · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three and a half stars. An excellent collection of essays from Shermer's Scientific American column. I especially liked Turn Me On, Dead Man, which I think is just a really good summary of why skepticism is necessary.

What we have here is a signal/noise problem. Humans evolved brains that are pattern-recognition machines, designed to detect signals that enhance or threaten survival amid a very noisy world. Also known as association learning (associating A and B as causally connected), we are very good at it, or at least good enough to have survived and passed on the genes for the capacity of association learning. Unfortunately, the system has flaws. Superstitions are false associations—A appears to be connected to B, but it is not (the baseball player who doesn't shave and hits a home run). Las Vegas was built on false association learning . . .

Anecdotes fuel pattern-seeking thought. Aunt Mildred's cancer went into remission after she imbibed extract of seaweed—maybe it works. But there is only one surefire method of proper pattern-recognition, and that is science. Only when a group of cancer patients taking seaweed extract is compared to a control group can we draw a valid conclusion . . .

The problem is that although true pattern-recognition helps us survive, false pattern-recognition does not necessarily get us killed, and so the overall phenomenon endured the winnowing process of natural selection. The Darwin Awards (honoring those who remove themselves from the gene pool "in really stupid ways"), like this essay, will never want for examples. Anecdotal thinking comes naturally; science requires training.

[Jim Razinha · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've had a bit of life intrude on my reading (and, well, ... life) with a house sale and a move, but I finally carved out time on an unplanned extra wait at the airport and a two hour flight gave me an isolated window. I've had this on my Shermer shelf for a while. I have another of his to get to, and am glad to have read this. Seventy-five of his Scientific American columns/essays on the topics: Science; Skepticism; Pseudoscience and Quackery; The Paranormal and the Supernatural; Aliens and UFOs; Borderlands Science and Alternative Medicine; Psychology and the Brain; Human Nature; Evolution and Creationism; and Science, Religion, Miracles, and God. I bought a copy from a used book store and when I took it off the shelf, flipped through the pages, I noticed pencil notes similar to mine that I didn't remember making. I had to consult my cognitive prosthetic - Goodreads - to confirm that I hadn't read it before! Then I noticed departures from my "style". So I decided to leave the original notes (I find interest in what others find interesting) and switched my annotations to green and blue ink. Why does that trivium matter? It doesn't...just saving the observation for posterity.

Anyway, so... many... notes! And, as usual with a Shermer book, some jumping off points, except more than the average this time: nine books, three possibles more if I ever get time (they're nutjob ones promoting cryonics), a documentary, an academic paper and an article. Jeez! And some great nuggets. Shermer is extremely well-read, lays out his arguments logically, admits to uncertainty...is an all-around champion of science, skepticism, and critical thinking. He's a candle in the dark, to borrow from Carl Sagan.

Selected excerpts from my plethora of notes:

About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorize; and I well remember someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!

That gem was from Mr. Darwin in a letter to his friend Henry Fawcett.

A single sentence that sums up the logic, reason and science that tosses Robert Anton Wilson's quantum psychology, Robert Lanza's biocentrism and similar nonsense into the trash bin where it belongs: "Quantum effects wash out at large scales."

Column title: "I Was Wrong" and the epigraph: "Those three words often separate the scientific pros from the posers."

This:

[Edward] Tufte codified the design process into six principles: “(1) documenting the sources and characteristics of the data, (2) insistently enforcing appropriate comparisons, (3) demonstrating mechanisms of cause and effect, (4) expressing those mechanisms quantitatively, (5) recognizing the inherently multivariate nature of analytic problems, (6) inspecting and evaluating alternative explanations.” In brief, “information displays should be documentary, comparative, causal and explanatory, quantified, multivariate, exploratory, skeptical.”

And when Shermer asked Tufte to summarize the goal of his work, he said "simple design, intense content". Yeah. That's been fundamental to my toolbox for years. Three jumping off points in this one. Three Tufte books. Starting one right after I finish this review.

Shermer labels an observation from Isaac Asimov, "Asimov's Axiom":

When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Another jumping off point...Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong.

Apparently, on February 15, 2001, Fox aired a highly advertised special “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?” NASA, we were told, faked the whole thing on a movie set. Fortunately, I was in Korea at the time and we didn't get that on the Armed Forces Network. And because I think critically, I doubt I would have watched it, but I appreciate that Shermer takes thousands for the team. I both loved and had an issue with this line: "Such flummery should not warrant wasting precious time in responding, but in a free society skeptics are the watchdogs of irrationalism—the consumer advocates of bad ideas." My note was that skeptics are rather consumer advocates against bad ideas.

Great quote from Frank Sulloway: “Anecdotes do not make a science. Ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred anecdotes are no better than ten.”

I say something similar - borrowed and personalized, of course - on Homo sapiens having savannah firmware:

Biological evolution operates at a snail’s pace compared to technological evolution (the former is Darwinian and requires generations of differential reproductive success; the latter is Lamarckian and can be implemented within a single generation).

In his column titled "The Political Brain", Shermer includes a Francis Bacon quote, from Bacon's Novum Organum of 1620:

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises … in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.

Always guard against your own confirmation bias! And as Shermer says, "Skepticism is the antidote for confirmation bias."

And one sentence in a column titled "Free to Choose" just resonates (and sticks it a bit to Steven Pinker, intentionally or not): "There are no blank slates for mice and men."

And the epigraph for "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind" : "The advance of science, not the demotion of religion, will best counter the influence of creationism." And sadly, since that was written, the not-left-wing has amplified its mindnumbing denial of science.

His entire two columns covering his previously complied Baloney Detection Kit should laminated. And his entire essay "The Fossil Fallacy" should be required reading in every high school (and every legislature...if they can actually read.)

That's enough. Read it. Recommended.

[Jeff Harris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a nice collection on various topics by Michael Shermer. As with most essay collections like this, many of the topics discussed are repeated in his various books but it is nice to hear them in the form of what seemed to be his first time writing on it. Shermer narrates the audiobook as well which I enjoy since these topics are tough to narrate if you are not interested in the content.

If you haven't read one of his books yet, this is a good starting point to get a taste of his style and content.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Informed, beautifully composed, sharp, witty and fun to read

Let’s start with the prose. Shermer writes a delightful line. He eschews the mundane and celebrates the poetic. He likes the word that stands out, that surprises, e.g., “hoaxed” (as a verb), “phlogiston”, “flummery” (works well with “flapdoodle”), “homiletics,” “watchphrase,” to note a few.

Here’s some (perhaps overwrought) alliteration:

(On magnets increasing blood flow) “This is fantastic flapdoodle and a financial flimflam.” (p. 76)

(An observation on hosting a workshop at Esalen) “…the paranormal piffle proffered by the prajna peddlers…” (p. 120)

And here are some chapter titles alliterated: “Mesmerized by Magnetism,” “Cures and Cons,” “Codified Claptrap,” “The Myth Is the Message,” “Rupert’s Resonance,” “Quantum Quackery,” etc.

I especially liked the way he worked some fancy poets and bit of their poetry into the narratives, including Dylan Thomas, W.B. Yeats, Alexander Pope, and Alfred, Lord Tennyson. And it was fun to read again Arthur C. Clarke’s three laws. First Law: “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” Indeed. And the Third: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” I would add, as Shermer himself observes elsewhere in the book, any really advanced beings will be to us as gods. And it felt like a return to my youth to recall Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics from his novel “I, Robot”:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

But what really makes this book stand out (and others by the very articulate Dr. Shermer : see my review of his “Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown”) is just how incisive he is in revealing, exposing, satirizing, demeaning and being amused by the oceans of BS that surrounds us. Here are a couple of examples of his perceptive, penetrating, perspicacious and piercing prose:

“…[T]ruth in science is not determined democratically. It does not matter whether 99 percent or only 1 percent of the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution. The preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeography, etc.) all independently point to the same conclusion: evolution happened.” He calls this a “convergence of evidence” and adds, “Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proven.” (p. 224)

Writing about rising above our nature, Shermer avers, “Limited resources led to the selection for within-group cooperation and between-group competition in humans, resulting in within-group amity and between-group enmity.” (Call it tribalism.) “This evolutionary scenario bodes well for our species if we can continue to expand the circle of whom we consider to be members of our in-group.” Shermer adds that he believes that the trend is for including more people, women and minorities into the in-group deserving human rights. (p. 209) Call it the trek from bands to tribes to nation states to internationalism.

I also liked this little comeuppance for “the end is nigh” people: “I’m skeptical whenever people argue that the Big Thing is going to happen in THEIR lifetime. Evangelicals never claim that the Second Coming is going to happen in the NEXT generation…Likewise, secular doomsayers typically predict the demise of civilization within their allotted time (but that they will be part of the small surviving enclave.” (p. 155)

Naturally I have a few differences with Shermer, but only a few. Here’s one. In the chapter “Why ET Has Not Phoned In” he believes that the lifetime of communicating civilizations (“L” in the famous Drake equation for estimating the number of technological civilizations in our galaxy) is rather short. He gives L = 420.56 years based on the lifetime of civilizations historically on earth. I believe this is in error since the rise and fall of Rome and some Chinese dynasties, etc. which Shermer has averaged do not connote planet civilizations capable of communicating over vast distances of interstellar space. Those civilizations, if only based on the fact that they have the technology to communicate, clearly must be longer-lived. What he is suggesting is that civilizations such as Rome, Egypt, etc. typically don’t last long enough to become technologically capable of interstellar communication. What he is apparently not noticing is that these very same civilizations haven’t really disappeared from the earth, but have evolved into the civilizations now present, which is what one might expect on other planets in the galaxy.

Unlike most people Shermer is positive about the prospect for cloning human beings. He comes up with “The Three Laws of Cloning” in the chapter “I, Clone” and argues that we have nothing to fear. I agree, but with this understanding: we already have too many people on the planet, cloned or otherwise.

And here’s a small difference of experience. I write a lot of essays very similar to Shermer’s (although perhaps not as eloquently) and I have found that being forced into a tight window of expression actually improved my prose. Shermer feels that something is sometimes lost when he has to trim his essays. Typically he was restricted to about 700 words for these essays which are from his column in the Scientific American magazine, although augmented and in some cases corrected for this volume.

One last thing: on page 223 Shermer’s title subhead reads “The advance of science, not the demotion of religion, will best counter the influence of creationism.” I agree, but I could not help but read “The advance of science, not the DEMON of religion, will best counter the influence of creationism.”

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

I saw this recently released book on the shelf in the library and grabbed it immediately. I am a big proponent of critical thinking and skepticism so I was very excited to read this book. I was hoping he would tackle many of the pressing issues of the day from a skeptic's perspective. Not quite.

What I didn't realize was that this book is a compilation of previously published short essays written by Shermer for magazines such as Scientific American going back up to 15 years. Some are great but some feel dated. The topics jump around and the book feels like exactly what it is, a bunch of stand alone essays. Still enjoyable for the most part but doesn't break any new ground. I didn't really feel I took anything new away from reading this book.

I agree with most of Shermer's views but one essay entitled "Eat, Drink, and Be Merry" really pissed me off. He asserts that what we eat has very little affect on our overall health. As a physician who has a personal interest and has read extensively the scientific literature on this topic I can say that this assertion is dead wrong. He seems to base his entire argument on a single book written by Barry Glassner. He just regurgitates Glassner's writing (which is likely an example of cashing in on confirmation bias to sell books to people who don't want to eat healthy food). He entirely ignores the mountain of scientific evidence that our diet is by far the most important factor influencing our health and that the modern western diet is the root cause of the epidemic of chronic diseases and obesity plaguing our society. Come on Shermer aren't you supposed to be one of our foremost sceptics and critical thinkers. This one essay ruined the whole book for me. Shame!

I still gave it 3 stars because I can't slam a skeptic too hard. They are my peeps afterall.

[Trevyn Hubbs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shermer's collection of essays has style and breadth, but not much depth.

I appreciated the brevity, witty quotes, breadth of topics, and his wry style of writing. I suspect an ebook version would be the best way to read--Shermer includes hyperlinks to sources occasionally, and generally makes many brief references that would be nice to be able to cross reference if one is inclined. If you disagree with Shermer's points, you may understandably find his arguments lacking depth.

For my part, I enjoyed comparing his semantic style across dozens of two to three page essays. Often he starts with a historical quote or anecdote before flatly laying his thesis and expanding through a few examples or related arguments. The hardest thing in a short essay is to get a coherent point across and then tie it together neatly with a compelling ending, and I found myself trying to anticipate how Shermer would pull off this feat. His style entertains and engages, all the while provoking thought.

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am always excited when one of my favorite authors releases a new book. However, this is not new material, rather it's a compilation of monthly columns Shermer wrote for Scientific American. As such, these are short snippets of thought, meant to arouse interest rather than satisfy curiosity. I imagine many if not most of these brief essays are freely available online, but it is nice to have them in one binding. I wouldn't recommend this over Shermer's other books, despite the fact that these are largely rudimentary or at least introductory subjects. It would be better to dive directly into The Believing Brain or something because Shermer is capable of elucidating complex ideas in captivating and entertaining ways over an entire book.

[Gendou · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fun collection of skeptical writings. They feel kind of disorganized so don't expect a central thesis that's carefully and thoroughly defended. It's more like a juicy a stack of debunking and wisdom from Shermer.

[John Matthew IV · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great collection of columns from Scientific American. Fun to read but also makes you think and learn. Highly recommended.

p. 29: The Science Network
p. 55: Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
p. 83: "The choice is not between scientific medicine that doesn't work and alternative medicine that might work. Instead, there is only scientific medicine that has been tested and everything else ("alternative" and "complementary" medicine) that has not been tested."
p. 90: "I believe it is better to tell the truth than to lie .... And I believe that it is better to know than to be ignorant." -- H.L. Mencken
p. 102: Data and theory. Evidence and mechanism. These are the twin pillars of sound science.
p. 112: Antiquity Journal (https://antiquity.ac.uk/)
p. 125: Arthur C. Clarke's Laws: 1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
p. 154: Nutritional science says that we get virtually all of the vitamins and minerals we need through a balanced diet, and that more is not better (see www.nutriwatch.org).
p. 158: The effects of being poked by needles, however cannot be ignored. Understanding the psychology and neuropsychology of acupuncture and pain will lead to a better theory.
p. 160: http://whohastimeforthis.blogspot.com/
p. 165: "Although we would all like to believe that changes in diet or lifestyle can greatly improve our health, the likelihood is that, with few exceptions such as smoking cessation, many if not most changes will produce only small effects. And the effects not be consistent. A diet that is harmful to one person may be consumed with impunity by another." -- Marcia Angell
p. 195: The Principle of Freedom: All people are free to think, believe, and act as they choose, as long as they do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.
p. 201: Yanamamo: The Fierce People by Napoleon Chagnon, the best-selling anthropological book of all-time
p. 256: Debunked! by Georges Charpak and Henri Broch.

[Nazaar Al hashem · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this book even though its language is a little bit complicated for me. Here is some of what I found interesting in this book:
- Man is by nature a political animal.
- Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle.
- The science network.
- I have watched a lot of TED videos, but I didn’t know the meaning of TED I mean the short form which means ( Technology, Entertainment, Design).
- Practice makes perfect.
- The new world order to be financed by GOD ( Gold, Oil, Drugs).
- The steel melts at 2777 degrees Fahrenheit while the jet fuel burns at only 1517 degrees Fahrenheit, therefore some people use this information as an evidence that the planes did not bring the 09/11 towers down.
- In our blood only four iron atoms are allocated to each hemoglobin molecule, and they are separated by distances too great to form a magnet.
- I believe it is better to tell the truth than to lie..... and I believe that is better to know than to be ignorant.” Amen.
- An old Japanese proverb “ there is no medicine that cures stupidity”.
- Humans are pattern-seeking, storytelling animals. Like all other animals, we evolved to connect the dots between events in nature to discern meaningful patterns for our survival.
- Intuition is the key to knowing without knowing how you know.
- The many are smarter than the few.
- The human being is the only animal that thinks about the future.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 1 out of 5]

Amazone

Disappointing

Unfortunately the author's smugness and narcissism were a real turn-off.
John

.........


oh cmon Honest John, Shermer's ego isn't as big as Jupiter...

Saturn maybe!

........

Synonyms of smugness
vanity
ego
pridefulness
pride
arrogance

complacency
self-satisfaction
pomposity
superiority
pompousness

conceitedness
confidence
self-importance
conceit
self-congratulation

self-love
assurance
self-admiration
amour propre
snobbishness

self-righteousness
superciliousness
haughtiness
self-confidence
hubris

overconfidence
disdainfulness
pretentiousness
self-centeredness

oh and a little bit modest!



I'm not sure if he's trying to sneer like Pee Wee Herman or Dr. Evil
or if he's constipated

The weirdest thing is that when you are a fundamentalist Christian for decades, and snap, you never quite lose that fanatical urge to preach your 'new belief system', and pretty much that's what Shermer is.

yes yes i'm a bible thumper with a very rational eye on sinners
yes yes i'm a skeptic with a very rational eye on idiots who dare to disagree with me

And when 98% of my time is fighting creationists and ufo cults, everyone else who disagrees with me has to be a moron too, especially if you don't like Pepsodent. Because i'm never wrong!

[John Demarco · Rating 1 out of 5]

Is this book really about skepticism, or is it about how and where to aim it? Does the author realize that 'conspiracy theories' are also the result of people exercising skepticism? Does the author realize that there are conspiracy theories because there have been actual conspiracies, and that a cumulative distrust of governments and corporate entities lies at the core and NOT a fault in thinking as he proposes? Does the author realize that when certain discussions are intentionally kept off the media, people will smell a rat whether there is a rat or not?

In other words, the issue appears to be far more nuanced than Michael Shermer is letting on. It's evident that he has no interest in clarifying the politics of skepticism itself, but merely wishes to define how, when, and where skepticism should be used. In other words, this is not an unprejudiced overview of skepticism - Shermer has an agenda, and this is to appropriate skepticism for a specific use, which is to separate the 'good' skeptics from the 'kooks.' His aim here is for a certain sector of society to control the narrative as to who can be skeptical and under what circumstances.

Where I would totally welcome a book that approaches the topic without prejudice, I look at this and find myself extremely...skeptical.

[Jakub Ferencik · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just finished reading this essay in preparation for my presentation on Shermer's paper, "Science & Pseudoscience: The Difference in Practice & the Difference It Makes."

Skeptic is a wonderful collection of essays from Shermer's magazine titled, "Skeptic" after the Skeptics Society of which he is a founder.

Shermer addresses every issue related to pseudoscience imageinable. Not only that, he distinguishes between normal science, borderlands science, & Pseudoscience. The demarcation question has been on the mind of historians of science, philosophers, and scientists for the past 100 years ever since Karl Popper's "Falsifiability" & the resulting formation of Logical Positivists. Most of the discussion, however, is highly theoretical. That is why I find Shermer's approach rather refreshing.

Telepathy, Fortune Telling, Hypnosis, Big Foot sightings, Ufology, 9/11, witches, Creationism/ Intelligent Design, the Resurrection, Holocaust-revisionism, etc. etc. Shermer provides a great resource to provide counter-evidence to most claims made by superstitious men & women. He is doing monumental work.

[Yofish · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a a set of essays that the author wrote when he was an essayist for Scientific American. There’s a certain sameness to the essays, which is not unexpected for a selection that were not really written to be read back-to-back.

The basic theme of about half of them is “Science Good; Pseudo-science Bad.”

But he’s a good writer, and there’s not too much repetition between the essays. (That said, they *were* organized by topic, more or less, and I made an effort to jump around the “chapters” as much as possible---surely that helped me not to notice what repetition there might have been.)

One weird thing is that there was almost never an indication of when the essay originally appeared. Knowing that would have helped some, partly just to judge whether the info was out of date. Sometimes it didn’t matter, as much of the skeptic’s mantra doesn’t really change, and it is exceedingly rare that hokum becomes not-hokum. And sometimes there was an update appended to the end of the essay. Still, it would have been nice to know.

[Sergey Kryzhanovsky · Rating 2 out of 5]

Автор психолог и преподаватель. Также скептик. И учёный. Заодно пишет статьи в Scientific American. Из 75 таких статей и состоит книга-сборник.

Аудиторию не понимаю. Шермер разочаровал. 90% текста состоят из очевидных утверждений категории “астрология фигня”, “экстрасенсы фигня”, “религия фигня” и категории “физика рулит”, “наука рулит”, “эволюция рулит”. Но хоть как развёрнуто разложить факты, исследования и любопытные байки — на это не хватает колоночного формата статеек (по 1000 слов максимум).

Поймите правильно. С моей жизненной позиции автор во всём прав. Но блин, если я (допустим, скептик) читаю книгу скептика, хочется прочесть не давно известные утверждения, которые советским детям и так в школе утверждали. Хочется другого. Да хоть развлечения или свежего обоснования. А тут этого нет.

Не рекомендую. Прочёл 300+ страниц мокрейшей воды только на упрямстве.

[Anatoly Bezrukov · Rating 3 out of 5]

Подборка 75 колонок автора в журнале Scientific American, посвящённых главным образом науке и критическому мышлению, а также всему, что им противостоит (креационизм, лженаука, когнитивные искажения и т.п.".
Тем, кто что-то читал по обозначенным темам, эта книга не особо нужна: практически ничего нового я в ней не нашёл. Тем, для кого эта тема нова, книга может показаться поверхностной и неубедительной (оно и понятно: колонка в журнале с жёстким ограничением по количеству знаков не может быть подробной и обоснованной).
Шермер клеймит confirmation bias, однако сама книга может рассматриваться как одно из проявлений этого искажения: она является "ещё одним доводом", не дополняющим ничем существенным общую картину.
Плюс одна звезда за высказывание Сагана о том, что мы, будучи созданными из звёздного вещества, являемся тем средством, с помощью которого вселенная осознаёт сама себя.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

Once again, Michael Shermer solidifies himself as one of my favorite skeptics and favorite authors. I held off on reading this particular book for a long time because I don't typically like books that are collections of articles or essays, but I was surprised by this one. Usually, books like this seem to jump from topic to topic and feel a bit disorganized, but this book had a great flow to it. Books on skepticism are extremely important to help keep our heads clear as we navigate outlandish claims that are made on a daily basis, and this book covers a wide range of topics. From aliens to religion and psychics to immortality, this book has it all.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've complained about Michael Shermer in a previous review. I like Michael, I enjoy his videos and he is clearly trying hard to do things I value. I also agree with virtually everything he writes. Yet his writing annoys me. He names things "it's what I call blah-blah". He makes numbered lists "Here are 18 reasons Holocaust deniers are wrong".

This book is a collection of Shermer's essays from Scientific American. They are pretty good, but the length restriction prevents him from getting into anything in depth. I call this The Shermer Short Problem.

[Павло Коробчук · Rating 4 out of 5]

автор в легкій манері викриває купу стереотипів - наукових, НЛОшних, релігійних, біологічних, гастрономічних, технічних тощо. Він практично полемізує з читачем ,а іноді з конкретними науковцями, яких викриває.
Єдиний мінус - місцями хочеться скептично поставитися до скептичних думок автора.
Але загалом книга нікому не буде зайва, вона відкриває очі на дуже багато речей.
А книжки ми читаємо, щоб відкривати очі на світ)

[Julie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The essays are good, but too short to really make much of an impact. There can't be much depth in a collection of very short pieces on science and skepticism, so I didn't really feel engaged.

Of course, I'm a person who hates short stories because they lack elbow room, so it's unsurprising I would be unenthralled by these pieces in book form.

[Lukas Cech · Rating 5 out of 5]

A collection of good scientific arguments and rational thinking

A good look into many commonly believed myths, pseudoscience and the supernatural, through a healthy rational and scientific lense. Shame is that because of confirmation bias, mostly the "converted" will read and get the author's point.

[Adam Ashton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked getting a taste of a different method of thinking; rigorous way of filtering through new ideas and seemingly bizarre claims. Each section was about 3 pages, which was enough to get a tiny taste of the topic and HOW to think about it (more so than WHAT to think)

[Whitney · Rating 4 out of 5]

There were some very interesting points made and I really appreciate the updates added on some of the chapters for clarification over time and changes. The topics are far wider ranging than I expected. There is an essay for everyone in this book.

[Michelle Scott Roark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting. Confirms many of my biases of course. But also was interesting regarding Shermer’s use of some pseudoscientific things (Airborne, for instance). Nice to see that even the “top skeptic” can get misled.

[Shannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting, I appreciated the facts laid out clearly with data on who provided the data. This is always a great question to ask to understand why a study produces the results it does, who is collecting the data. Who paid for the study and whether the team looks at all of the data.

[kenny gemmoon · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5
Interesting how in my life, I have travelled all the way from believing in God firmly and aggressively through indoctrination by my family, to bitter atheism, to now benevolent curiosity and agnosticism. Thanks to books like these.

[Karri Ojala · Rating 4 out of 5]

An entertaining surface-level dive into scientific topics in 70+ essays from Michael Shermer, originally written for the Scientific American. Shermer writes with passion and clarity, highlighting some of the most common pitfalls in human thinking and behavior.

[Larry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book of essays, revised from original pieces in Scientific America. Short chapters on a range of topics from quackery to pseudoscience to the paranormal and more. Strong arguments for rational thought and clear thinking in a world rife with magical thinking, deliberate misinformation campaigns, propaganda and anti-scientific attitudes.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed it. Short 200 word summaries on various (mainly contemporary topics.