Slashdot Mirror
The Borderlands Of Science
Michael Shermer's background is psychology and ultra-long-distance cycling; he's written a number of books on cycling and analysis of (and refutation of) Holocaust deniers. He's also president (apparently for life) of the American Skeptics society and a reasonably good writer. In this book, Shermer spends a lot of time talking about the scientific method, its strengths and potential flaws -- and, more importantly, its system for dealing with its flaws (which he claims "sets science apart from all other knowledge systems and intellectual disciplines" -- a heady claim I wish he discussed more).
Since this is supposed to be a review of The Borderlands Of Science and not Weird Things, I'll just say that if you like one, you'll like the other as well. In Borderlands, Shermer analyzes beliefs that are defensible, beliefs that could (or were once thought to) be scientifically accurate. Among these are, for instance, ramifications of cloning, confirmation bias in explaining racial differences in sports (about which Malcolm Gladwell has also written), and a whole, whole lot of discussion of Alfred Wallace. Wallace and Charles Darwin were both responsible for the theory of evolution. Wallace is not remembered as widely for a number of reasons, which are explored in frightening detail in roughly three and a half of the 16 chapters of this book. Not coincidentally, Shermer did his doctoral thesis on Wallace. The ratio of stuff-about-Wallace-or-Evolution to everything-else, by chapter, is 3:7; Shermer is pretty focussed on this specific discussion.
The book has four sections: a short introduction (which is quite heavy in skeptical theory, exactly what I wanted) and the main body, discussing borderlands theories, people, and history. In "Theories," Shermer tends to stray a little from 'why people believe weird things' into 'why stupid people believe weird things' (as he did in the book of the same title) and that's fun. He covers a lot of quite current topics (like cloning, Wacky Unified Field Theories, and the importance of Punctured Equilibrium in the evolution of evolutionary theory).
In section two, "People," he discusses the Copernican revolution and its effects, then goes off about Alfred Wallace. Here, he does something weird that needs more discussion. In analyzing Wallace, he constructs a psychological profile, which he derived by having a large number of Wallace experts fill out a survey of the "strongly agree, 9, 8,.. 3, 2, strongly disagree" sort, and then uses the results of these surveys to fill in his discussion of why Wallace became a scientific spiritualist, for instance. It's an interesting technique that he also uses with Steven Jay Gould and Carl Sagan. It is tempting to ask how much confirmation bias exists in a survey of this sort, though. Since I've already let the spoiler out of the bag, Shermer discusses Gould and Sagan, spends some time doing a statistical analysis of Sagan's greatness as a scientist (by comparing published papers by topic with a number of other contemporary, canonically great scientists) and pauses briefly to smack Freud upside the head in a somewhat snarky comparison of Freud and Darwin.
Finally, in section three, "Histories," he does a lovely discussion of the myth of pastoral tranquillity, including a quick summary of four ancient civilizations that probably managed to destroy themselves through environmental stupidity without (as he puts it) any need of Dead White European Males coming in and inflicting devastation from outside. Shermer then analyzes (and debunks) the theory of transcendent genius, the Mozart Myth, as he calls it, and goes back to two more chapters on Wallace and evolution, in a discussion of the Piltdown Man hoax and why that should have (but doesn't seem to have) supported the idea that science can be self-correcting and learn from its mistakes.
I like what Shermer is doing, and he writes well and readably. If I sound a bit impatient, it's because I want him to be writing about the application of critical thinking rather than case studies, and when he starts out writing just what I want to read, then goes off in a different direction, he leaves me standing at the intersection saying "hey, wait, this isn't the bus I wanted." The book could stand to be either edited down into two books (a Wallace analysis, and a case-studies book on how science inspects itself), or edited up with a clearer discussion of the math involved in his statistical analysis of Sagan or his psychological profiling of people.
In the end, I liked this book, I learned a fair bit from it, and I would recommend it to people who want to learn more about both critical thinking and science history.
You can purchase The Borderlands of Science from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Jee-e-e-bus. Seriously. Let me add that they would have also not believed in dragons, griffins, or Invisible Pink Unicorns.
As a self-professed Skeptic, I have to say that the thing that I utter the most often is "I don't know. And you know what? Neither do you." So many people believe in so many things without any sort of examination, it boggles the mind.
Sure there are cranks, but there are cranks everywhere, with everything. Don't turn into a sheep simply because you disagree with the hardliners.
RinkRat
As a self-professed Skeptic, I have to say that the thing that I utter the most often is "I don't know. And you know what? Neither do you." So many people believe in so many things without any sort of examination, it boggles the mind.
Certainly! I agree 100%. Now, I must admit, Im a member of a rather large religion. So Faith has a good amount of sway in my life. But what it boils down to is proof.. what I consider proof may not be what you consider proof. So it is *still* rather subjective.
A lot of my opinions on this sort of thing have been formed in a sort of reverse way. I belong (and have for 10 years) to a group that does medieval recreation.. and in just 10 years, the amount of things "discovered" (re-discovered, really) from that period has changed the way a lot of people look at it. Things that 10 years ago "did not exist" have been found, mostly intact, and have changed some of the theories about life back then (tm) and how people went about it.
This, of course, doesnt stop school textbooks from claiming that "castles didnt have windows" and "houses were drafty all the time because they didnt have glass" (both of which are untrue for most of the middle ages.. just because they didnt have glass doesnt mean they didnt have wooden shutters or thick paper or a number of other solutions, and they also _did_ have glass for a pretty good amount of the later period.)
But any time someone states something as "concrete" either A) exists or B) doesnt exist
without having some form of proof one way or the other, (and absence of proof does not neccesarily mean absense of existance.. which seems to be the rule a lot of the "debunkers" run on, at least the hard line ones), I tend to take exactly the same attitude you stated above. "I dont know and neither do you."
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
>> 1000 years ago, they probably would not have believed in Lions or a round earth or some magical force that cannot be explained like gravity.. but they all exist.
Skeptics in history like Gallileo and Copernicus who didn't want to believe in a flat Earth, around which the Sun revolved, just because thats what religion told them to do.
Most of what we know was only learned because someone said "prove it"
The skeptic is once again playing an increasingly important role in the TV age.
Watch any of the 'educational' commercial channels (Discovery, TLC, Science) and see the 'documentaries' on complete horse-pooey like ghost-hunting, bigfoot, loch ness monsters, ufos. The amount of air-time this stuff gets is enormous, because it's entertaining. But people are buying it - people think this is science.
Having someone pop up and remind us that it's all fantasy, theory and unproven is healthy for our society.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Scientists are prone to this fallacy, perhaps because they are temperamentally uncomfortable with uncertainty. That's why they became scientists in
the first place. That's also why saying "I don't know" is considered, among scientists, so virtuous; it's hard to bring themselves to say it.
That's one of the worst pieces of BS I've heard in a long time!
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
To quote Richard Feynman (a bona-fide, real scientist(TM), and a Nobel laureate at that..)
I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing - I think it's much
more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be
wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees
of certainty about different things but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and
there are many things I don't know anything about such as whether it means
anything to ask "why are we here?" But I don't have to know an answer -
I don't feel frightened by not knowing things.
This the view most scientists share, although most did not put it as well as ol' RPF.
A skeptic IMO is just someone who doubts the veracity of a popular opinion just because it's a popular opinion, and sets about disproving it.
Wrong, completely wrong. A skeptic is the very definition of an open mind. Many laugh, but that's just because they don't understand the difference between an open mind and an uncritical mind.
I will explain:
A skeptic is one who accepts no statment without reason (evidence, backing, logic) to support it. The skeptic never needs to disprove anything, because the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Once the claim is demonstrated or proven to the skeptics' satisfaction, then the skeptic has no choice to accept it.
The person with a close mind might appear to be a skeptic at first glance, but after the claims and closed-minded person's objections have all been addressed, the closed minded person will still refuse to accept something. Think of it like an issues list on a project. After the work is done and the issues are resolved, the project should be done. When proving your claim to a skeptic, all the issues have to be resolved and closed. If your debate partner acknowleges that all his questions have been answered, yet still refuses to believe, that's a signal that the person might be closed minded.
Never confuse a closed mind with a skeptical one. And never confuse an open mind with a credulous one.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Those are the hardest words for many people to say. For many (a majority, I believe) of, the place where "I Don't Know" is kept is a very scary place. Most people will grasp any idea that comes along just so they can cram it into that empty place.
Witness the common "Well, do you have a better explanation?" argument. Amazingly, this argument is convincing to many otherwise reasonable people!
"I Don't Know". Cherish it. Consider your understanding of your world a project. "I Don't Know" is your TODO list.
Here's a couple of my favorites. The first is from Indiana Jones The Last Crusade. I don't know where the second is from:
Indy: ... the search for fact. Not truth.
If it's truth you're interested
in, Doctor Tyree's Philosophy
class is right down the hall.
The man who knows and knows he knows is wise. Follow him.
The man who knows not and knows he knows not is ignorant. Teach him.
The man who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool. Shun him.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick