©1998 by Michael Shermer; (P)1998 by Audio Renaissance, an imprint of Renaissance Media, Inc.
I love true crime. YA books and I didn'tuse too but seriese. Vampire, harry potter, especailly dystopian novels.
Learn to think for yourself. How come I have never asked myself these questions? This book is so revealing.
This book contained many of the same arguments in the author's other book, How We Believe, with additional discussion of topics such as the Holocaust deniers as well creation scientists. There was too much debunking of the deniers and creationists and not enough analysis of why people believe such things. I suppose the reasons why people believe nonsense is really limited to a few reasons, such as hope, fear, laziness, etc., that are applicable to a variety of situations. There's not a whole lot more that can be said about this.
No need to read both of the author's book. I liked How We Believe much better than this one.
This book is really clear and easy to follow without being patronising. I love the section on logical fallacies.
When I brought this book, I was expecting an audiobook focused on the philosophical and psychological causes of false beliefs. Instead, this book is just a long skeptic diatribe directed towards fraudulent psychics, creationists, UFO abductees and holocaust deniers. The author even took the time to launch himself in a poorly and bitter attack on Ayn Rand that, in my opinion, reeks of personal bitterness. The last ten minutes are dedicated, almost as an afterthought, to summarily explain the "excuses" humans use to believe in "Weird Things".
I was expecting something close to Malcom Gladwell, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. Mr. Shermer fell short.
If you want a book to refute Creationism, Holocaust Denial or encounters of the third kind, this Audiobook is pure ammunition for your cause. If you REALLY want to know why people believe in real things, please invest your credit/money elsewhere.
I Love Rock!
Yes I'd recommend it because there are some good stories and ideas here.
He read the book and made understandable considering the topics could have come off dry but he made it all the more interesting hearing it the way he meant it to be heard.
I was very interested in this topic, as a research psychologist who knows quite a bit about the depth of studies that examine the biases in how people make inferences. I found this book immensely disappointing. It "reads" (listens) much more like a diatribe against specific beliefs some people hold than any reasoned explanation in depth about "why" people believe what they believew when others do not, and when much evidence is to the contrary.
I did find the section on the holocost deniers interesing, but the book could have just as well been all about that (which is what the author really seemed mostly to want to write about). I could say so much more, but the key is that he focuses on the weird things far far more than anything about the "why," where there could have been so much more depth--which does not seem to exist in his examination.
I was hoping to get a better understanding of how our brains work and why we believe inexplicable things. Instead this is a book about things that people believe and why they are weird or wrong for believing them. I disagreed with a number of his critical analyses, and I was somewhat offended by his self-appointed position of intellectual superiority. This book could have been much better researched and more imaginative than it was.
"Shermer is all over this."
Shermer has been the editor of Skeptic Magazine for some years and in that time has come across many weird beliefs and has attended many dubious seminars and psuedo-science events. Shermer tells it how it is and uses reason and whit to get over the real science and socoilogy behind ridiculous claims. I read the book first, and it would be a good idea to get an unabridged version of this (If Shermer has the time) but this is an excellent listen covering some of his adventures to the other side of science. I would also recommend 'Borderlands of science' and his most recent release of his lectures on the history of science.
"sceptical of sceptical"
It's a sceptical of sceptical of sceptics.
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
Report Inappropriate Content