Scan barcode
expat37's review
4.0
Overall a very good and worthwhile read. I think some of the material needs to be re-evaluated and updated at this point in time.
edbrz's review against another edition
5.0
A wonderful explanation of why the mind makes up things that aren't real.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
3.0
Not bad, but an urban legend oops and a caveat
On page 220, Shermer repeats one version of the QWERTY myth when he says the normal typewriter layout was "designed for nineteenth-century typewriters whose key striking mechanisms were too slow for human finger speed." He then goes on to point out the sequence DFGHJKL on the home row and says, "It appears that the original key arrangement was just a straight alphabetical sequence, which made sense in early experiments before testing was done to determine a faster alignment. The vowels were removed to slow the typist down to prevent key jamming."
The first quote is partially wrong or confusing, and the second is incomplete, as illustrated by an entry on the typewriter at one of the two main urban legends-refutation websites, About.com's Urban Legend Reference Pages.
From About.com:
"For years, popular writers have accused Sholes of deliberately arranging his keyboard to slow down fast typists who would otherwise jam up his sluggish machine. In fact, his motives were just the opposite. ...
"If two typebars were near each other in the circle, they would tend to clash into each other when typed in succession. So, Sholes figured he had to take the most common letter pairs such as "TH" and make sure their typebars hung at safe distances."
So, the modern key spread was not done to slow down typists; it simply was, in a phrase Shermer should appreciate, a near-optimal evolutionary adaptation of the original keyboard layout to mechanical constraints of the time.
And, as for his implication that an alternative layout might be better? (Something believed by many others, not just him.) About answers that one, too:
"The Dvorak keyboard sounds very good. However, a keyboard need to do more than just 'sound' good, and unfortunately, Dvorak has failed to prove itself superior to QWERTY. ... A U.S. General Services Administration study of 1953 appears to have been more objective. It found that it really didn't matter what keyboard you used."
Not a huge deal, but a professional skeptic should get this one right.
====
Now, on to the more serious objection.
Shermer, in my opinion, explains HOW religious belief may have come into being, but not WHY.
Man the pattern-seeing, or even man the pattern-making out of white-noise seeing, I agree with. But, why do the seen patterns have to have a religious vision to them?
THAT's the question Shermer doesn't answer. To attempt an answer, he would have to delve into psychology of religion, as well as cognitive science, even more than he did, IMO. Paleoanthropology of early homo sapiens would also be needed.
Also, pattern-seeing falls somewhat short on the "how," in my opinion. Rather, I believe that religious belief was developed in part to FORCE patterns onto massively contingent medium-term temporal patterns.
For example, some ancient culture asks why it has a drought, which is NOT part of the normal rain patterns.
Answer... the seen pattern of some divinity, malevolent or angry.
On page 220, Shermer repeats one version of the QWERTY myth when he says the normal typewriter layout was "designed for nineteenth-century typewriters whose key striking mechanisms were too slow for human finger speed." He then goes on to point out the sequence DFGHJKL on the home row and says, "It appears that the original key arrangement was just a straight alphabetical sequence, which made sense in early experiments before testing was done to determine a faster alignment. The vowels were removed to slow the typist down to prevent key jamming."
The first quote is partially wrong or confusing, and the second is incomplete, as illustrated by an entry on the typewriter at one of the two main urban legends-refutation websites, About.com's Urban Legend Reference Pages.
From About.com:
"For years, popular writers have accused Sholes of deliberately arranging his keyboard to slow down fast typists who would otherwise jam up his sluggish machine. In fact, his motives were just the opposite. ...
"If two typebars were near each other in the circle, they would tend to clash into each other when typed in succession. So, Sholes figured he had to take the most common letter pairs such as "TH" and make sure their typebars hung at safe distances."
So, the modern key spread was not done to slow down typists; it simply was, in a phrase Shermer should appreciate, a near-optimal evolutionary adaptation of the original keyboard layout to mechanical constraints of the time.
And, as for his implication that an alternative layout might be better? (Something believed by many others, not just him.) About answers that one, too:
"The Dvorak keyboard sounds very good. However, a keyboard need to do more than just 'sound' good, and unfortunately, Dvorak has failed to prove itself superior to QWERTY. ... A U.S. General Services Administration study of 1953 appears to have been more objective. It found that it really didn't matter what keyboard you used."
Not a huge deal, but a professional skeptic should get this one right.
====
Now, on to the more serious objection.
Shermer, in my opinion, explains HOW religious belief may have come into being, but not WHY.
Man the pattern-seeing, or even man the pattern-making out of white-noise seeing, I agree with. But, why do the seen patterns have to have a religious vision to them?
THAT's the question Shermer doesn't answer. To attempt an answer, he would have to delve into psychology of religion, as well as cognitive science, even more than he did, IMO. Paleoanthropology of early homo sapiens would also be needed.
Also, pattern-seeing falls somewhat short on the "how," in my opinion. Rather, I believe that religious belief was developed in part to FORCE patterns onto massively contingent medium-term temporal patterns.
For example, some ancient culture asks why it has a drought, which is NOT part of the normal rain patterns.
Answer... the seen pattern of some divinity, malevolent or angry.
crowyhead's review against another edition
4.0
Michael Shermer doesn't have a problem with you if you believe in God. What he has a problem with is the way that some people (he mainly focuses on Christians here) try to use science to prove God's existence. Moreso, they use BAD science with little understanding of the scientific method, and that really rankles.
This is a really interesting book to read if you're curious about the history of the intersection of God and science, and if you are looking for something less adamantly atheistic than Hitchens or Dawkins, this is a good place to start. The book isn't without faults; it focuses pretty much exclusively on science and Christianity in the United States, and I would have liked to see explorations of how other cultures handle this split. I also would have liked more in-depth exploration of how individuals who are both religious and scientifically-minded negotiate this, but overall I found it extremely readable and thought-provoking.
This is a really interesting book to read if you're curious about the history of the intersection of God and science, and if you are looking for something less adamantly atheistic than Hitchens or Dawkins, this is a good place to start. The book isn't without faults; it focuses pretty much exclusively on science and Christianity in the United States, and I would have liked to see explorations of how other cultures handle this split. I also would have liked more in-depth exploration of how individuals who are both religious and scientifically-minded negotiate this, but overall I found it extremely readable and thought-provoking.
lovmelovmycats's review against another edition
2.0
This was a little boring. My hubby and I liked the part about cargo cults.
ericwelch's review
4.0
see my review of [b:Why People Believe Weird Things|89281|Why People Believe Weird Things Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time|Michael Shermer|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1171151110s/89281.jpg|1499170] for a joint review.
raehink's review
2.0
The author wonders why religious belief remains popular in contemporary America even though scientific and technological advances should bring a decline in faith. I was unimpressed with this.
More...