Why People Believe Weird Things - Michael Shermer

MadArchitect

Chapter 3: How Thinking Goes Wrong

What precisely is the point of the first two paragraphs in this chapter? How do they relate to the theme of the chapter? They don't appear to be fallacies, so why not start with the third paragraph, the one that actually takes us into the subject of the chapter? I'd like to believe that Shermer's not just beefing up his reputation with the reader by showing how he's managed to see through yet two more likely hoaxes, but I'm having difficulty seeing any other sound reason for starting a chapter about fallacies with two a full page of anecdotes about charlatans and debunking.

Marti, in answer to your question concerning what Shermer means by weird, you might settle on the section entitled "Hume's Maxim". Hume's maxim is a sort of shorthand version of Ockham's razor. Shermer quotes it out of context, so when Hume begins "The plain consequence is", we don't know what it is a consequence of. At any rate, the maxim runs, "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, tht its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." But it should be noted that Hume's maxim is a method for determining what is "more probable", not necessarily what is true. Devoid of its original context, I don't find the argument terribly convincing, especially if you interpret miracle, as most believers would, as a unique and improbable occurence. In a rhetorical argument, Hume's suggestion that a miracle he did not witness is improbable and unconvincing would be superfluous, really. It's only when miracles are taken for the commonplace that we should be concerned about whether or not they're probable, and then, what's the point of calling them miracles?

Now... on to the fallacies!

1. Theory Influences Observations -- I have no real problem with the inclusion of this particular fallacy, but Shermer's example doesn't seem terribly apt. It may very well be that the Columbus' mistaken impression that he had landed in Asia led he and his crew to draw some incorrect observations, but the only one that is clear from Shermer's description is that of identity, which is a nominal confusion at worst. Oddly, "What the Bleep Do We Know?" gave a better Columbus example, even though it's almost certainly spurious.

3. Equipment Constructs Results -- Shermer ends this description with a statement which is, given its context, odd: "Obviously, galaxies and intelligences exist".... But given the last three fallacies, maybe it's not so obvious on the face of it. It's entirely possible that this statement is an offhand example of the first fallacy, that theory influences observation, and if we care to stray into the realm of the hypothetical we might also entertain the idea that the equipment used to observe galaxies and intelligences have helped confirm the theory by "constructing results". None of this really serves to undermine the point of Shermer's chapter, but it does point towards a certain looseness in his style that may allow fallacies to creep into the very book that seeks to eliminate them.

I shouldn't have to comment on the irony of fallacy #4: Anecdotes Do Not Make a Science. Scanning through the previous two chapter and the prologue, I count no less that seven anecdotes offered in the service of Shermer's hypothesis about weird beliefs. The same complaint might be levelled against Shermer on the stregth of #19: Overreliance on Authorities. Maybe he is simply being cautious about possible accusations of plagerism, but he's offered up a vertiable pantheon of big name sources, everyone from Einstein to Pope, Socrates to Spinoza. He may not be taking their respective words for the claims they've made (although, how precisely do you "examine the evidence" of a writer like Hume?), but he does sometimes seem to be borrowing authority in order to impress his point upon his audience.

My only major problem with 4-9 and 11 is that they don't really deserve the title "fallacy". I'll accept them all under the category of "distracting claims" or "slight of hand". Number ten is basically a specific form of the part for whole fallacy. Number thirteen is more of a premise than a fallacy; fourteen falls in roughly the same category. Both of them have to do with the impression of significance attached to a given event.

24. Problem-Solving Inadequacies -- Shermer's illustration of this point is interesting, and it might be worth looking into Barry Singer's psychological experiment cited here. To my mind, Shermer does not given enough insight into Singer's methods. Frankly, it seems to me that the process as described would suggest to the subjects that some causality must underly the problem presented to them, and that this assumption is not, as Shermer implies, a general feature of human nature, but something socialized by the cultural mileau in which the subjects were raised. The most obvious source for such socialized responses would be schooling, and if the subjects associated a psychological study with the experience of classroom learning, then they'd likely approach with a academic demeanor the problems presented to them by the psychologist. That Shermer does not go more in depth into Singer's methodology (and really, a sentence of two would have sufficed) almost constitutes an abuse of authority.

If anyone is familiar with Singer's study, I'd love to hear about his methodology and whether or not his controls were double-blind or not.

Personally, I wonder how well Shermer's inquiries have lived up to the spirit of Spinoza's dictum, quoted at the end of this chapter. If "hope springs eternal" is the fruit of Spinoza's impact on Shermer, it seems to me a sort of Pyrrhic victory. Judge for yourself: the dictum runs, "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." But after all, Shermer's goal is not simply to understand "weird beliefs" for what they are; he what's to substantiate the conviction that such beliefs are wrong, and to avoid them. That certainly sounds to me like scorn.

This, incidentally, is the end of Part 1 of the book, and with that we stand on the threshold of the new. As far as I can tell, the next three parts of the book, consisting of twelve chapters, deal with specific instances of "weird belief" and with Shermer's efforts to debunk those beliefs, all in the interest of illustrating or elaborating on his theory of why. Whether or not it will be of much worth going through those sections as thoroughly as I have with the last three chapters, I don't know. I certainly hope so -- if those section turn out to be the mere formality of fitting the evidence to a theory that Shermer has already fleshed out in its finished form, I'll almost certainly be bored and unimpressed.

MadArchitect

Thanks, Chris. Yeah, generally I try to be a bit more explicit in the title line. I don't really remember what possessed me to title this thread as I did. Hopefully the move and the title change will give this thread a second wind, but I doubt anyone will really be so dedicated to Shermer as to read through all my posts here.

Mr. Pessimistic

Quote:
but I doubt anyone will really be so dedicated to Shermer as to read through all my posts here.

Dedicated to Shermer yes...there may be another reason some of us will not read through your posts!

::09

I have not even read this book yet! SO much to read...

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

marti1900

I confess to having abandoned you, Mad, when we got to the list of fallacies, because without the book, I couldn't do much with it.

And with regard to fallacy No. 4, Anecdotes Do Not Make a Science, there is a very old Yiddish proverb: A example is not proof.

I also confess I kind of lost interest when he doesn't quite come through with his come-on of 'wierd things'. I am still hung up on that. For the erudite and casual reader alike, 'weird things' in a book title has a popular culture promise to it. And since he apparently has not satisfied my notion of weird things in his book, and does not seem to have produced a true definition of his idea of weird things, he can debunk all he wants, but stuff like 'theories do not make a science' etc. are not my idea of weird things. Erroneous basis for science, perhaps, but not weird.

So I feel like the John enticed by the calculating beautiful hooker. Once in the room, she removes her false teeth, her blonde wig, her 'wooden' leg, her support bra, and she is not what she seemed in the street. The John and I share the same feeling...we were cheated.

Marti in Mexico

MadArchitect

Shermer is, I think, a latter day Enlightenment kind of guy. What he means by weird is, essentially, unreasonable or irrational. And he has pretty specific criteria for how one might substantiate a belief. Which is fine; that's how modern skepticism works. What's problematic to me is simply that his criticisms are so easily applicable to Shermer's own arguments.

Mr. Pessimistic

Yes...after reading your first two posts (the first couple of sentences actually), I can see this revived discussion reviving also our heated battles and ending up in even more angst than before.

So I think I shall pass...All you have done is try to reduce thier stance to that of dogmatism and you are simply wrong and, IMO, determined to do just that.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 11/30/05 4:31 pm

MadArchitect

Well, I'd be interested to read your thoughts anyway. How about this: you post in this thread what you think of Shermer's book, the more detail the better, and respond to any of the points that I made in my posts. And unless you invite me to do otherwise, I'll promise to not respond. At least to what you say in this thread -- I won't promise to not respond if you bring up Shermer in another thread, but I won't argue with anything you say in this thread.

Chris OConnor

MadArchitect

Yeah, I know he'll probably feel disinclined anyway, but I'd hate to see other people lose out on a potential discussion just because he doesn't want to talk to me about the book.

Mr. Pessimistic

The problem, Mad, is that you frame this as me not wanting discussion...but it is actually that any discussions we have had have never produced anything beneficial to me and end up in angst.

Reading your first post on Gould's intro pisses me off...because all you are doing is trying to equate debunking psudo-science with religion. You do this by coining your strawman phrase - "Psudo-religion". All this makes me want to do is relegate you to dupedom. For someone who fancies himself so deep, to pose this type of surface-scratch crap for discussion shows that you are dead set in drawing false analogies in order to support your own pre-concieved notions that science and skepticism are dogmatic endeavors and thus have equal credibility to religion...which is horseshit, IMO.

Do you really think that religion has a trademark on our "Dark side" or other concepts regarding human nature?? Religion has responded to human traits like "evil" and others, but just because certain phrases were coined by followers of religion, which dominated our early development, does not mean that referring to these concepts with those same words, which do well to help conceptualize the matter under discussion, suggest that there is a 'psudo-religious' fault in Gould's reasoning...or that religion is thus valid. Gould was never AGAINST religion anyway...he even wrote "Rock of Ages", a book about how science and religion can co-exist. So you relegate his attempts at inclusion to some sort of fault? hmmm...

It can also be said that the use of religious reference by Gould and Shermer may have a more sarcastic, 'right back at ya' meaning. I have noticed in the past that Gould and Shermer use religious, especially Christian religious words and ideas to refute the very same...by showing how ludicrous and misunderstood it can be. I for one love to see the words from the bible contradict what the mindless followers actually do with them and think they mean.

Anyway...you see where this will lead...so I ask: How can we/I proceed without this ending up in a mess again?

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

MadArchitect

misterpessimistic: The problem, Mad, is that you frame this as me not wanting discussion...but it is actually that any discussions we have had have never produced anything beneficial to me and end up in angst.

It seems to me that if you did want a discussion, you'd keep trying to make it work, even if it hasn't in the past. I'm trying to be civil here and encourage discussion. If you're not doing the same, how am I to interpret that?

Reading your first post on Gould's intro pisses me off...because all you are doing is trying to equate debunking psudo-science with religion.

Hmm. Here's the problem with my promising not to comment. Once you start making assumptions about what I've already written, there's not much I can do to defend myself or clarify what I was trying to do when I wrote my original posts. But a promise is a promise. No arguments here.

Anyway...you see where this will lead...so I ask: How can we/I proceed without this ending up in a mess again?

It's hard to tell when you're being rhetorical and when you're really looking for a response. I'll assume here that you really want me to answer. And I guess the answer all depends on the question of how things ended up "in a mess" in the past. Are we just trying to avoid pissing you off? If that's it, then the answer is probably not carry on a discussion at all, since you never seem happy with what I say unless we happen to agree. Are we trying to avoid misunderstanding one another? If so, then I think we just have to take it more slowly and not assume that we always know what the other person means. Are we trying to come to some agreement? I think that's pretty unlikely, but it never hurts to try.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT