2021/06/26

Michael Shermer - Wikipedia

Michael Shermer - Wikipedia

Michael Shermer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Michael Shermer
Michael Shermer wiki portrait4.jpg
Shermer on the Skeptics Society Geology Tour on June 8, 2007
BornSeptember 8, 1954 (age 66)
Los Angeles, California, U.S.
EducationPepperdine University (BA)
California State University, Fullerton (MA)
Claremont Graduate University (PhD)
OccupationAcademic historian of science and editor
TitleEditor-in-chief of Skeptic, senior research fellow at Claremont Graduate University and adjunct professor at Chapman University
WebsiteOfficial website
Signature
Shermer.jpg

Michael Brant Shermer (born September 8, 1954) is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and editor-in-chief of its magazine Skeptic,[1] which is largely devoted to investigating pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. The Skeptics Society currently has over 55,000 members.[2] Shermer engages in debates on topics pertaining to pseudoscience and religion in which he emphasizes scientific skepticism.

Shermer is producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family television series Exploring the Unknown which was broadcast in 1999. From April 2001 to January 2019,[3] he was a monthly contributor to Scientific American magazine with his Skeptic column. He is also a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).[4]

Shermer was once a fundamentalist Christian, but ceased to believe in the existence of God during his graduate studies. He accepts the labels agnostic,[5] nontheist,[6][7] atheist and others.[8][9][10] He has expressed reservations about such labels for his lack of belief in a God, however, as he sees them being used in the service of "pigeonholing", and prefers to simply be called a skeptic.[10] He also describes himself as an advocate for humanist philosophy[11] as well as the science of morality.[12]

Early life[edit source]

Michael Brant Shermer was born on September 8, 1954 in Los Angeles.[13][14] Shermer is a quarter Greek through his grandfather, while his grandmother was from Cologne, Germany.[15]

An only child, he was raised in Southern California, primarily in the La Cañada Flintridge area.[8][16][17] His parents divorced when he was four[16] and later remarried, his mother to a man with three children, who became Shermer's step-sister and two step-brothers, and his father to a woman with whom he had two daughters, Shermer's half-sisters. His father died of a heart attack in 1986, and his mother of brain cancer in 2000.[8][18]

Although Shermer went to Sunday school, he says that neither his biological parents, stepparents nor siblings were religious nor non-religious, as they did not discuss that topic often, nor did they attend church or pray together. Shermer began his senior year of high school in 1971, when the evangelical movement in the United States was beginning to gain popularity. One night at the behest of his best friend George, whose parents were Christian, Shermer converted to Christianity. The next day the two friends attended the Glendale, Presbyterian Church, where a sermon was given by what Shermer describes as "a very dynamic and histrionic preacher who inspired me to come forward at the end of the sermon to be saved." For the next seven years he evangelized door-to-door as part of his profoundly held beliefs.[8][18]

Shermer attended an informal Christian study fellowship group at a place called "The Barn" in La Crescenta, California, which Shermer describes as "a quintessential 1970s-era hang-out with a long-haired hippie-type, guitar-playing leader who read Bible passages that we discussed at length." Shermer enjoyed the social aspects of religion, and particularly relished its theological debates.[8]

Shermer was raised with guns. His stepfather was a hunter who took Shermer and their hunting dogs with him on hunting excursions half a dozen times a year, shooting game such as doves, ducks, and quail with shotguns. They ate everything they killed, for which Shermer's stepfather also displayed culinary skills. Growing up, Shermer owned a BB gun, then a pellet gun, then a 20-gauge shotgun, and then a 12-gauge shotgun.[19]

Shermer graduated from Crescenta Valley High School in 1972.[17] Desiring serious theological training, he enrolled at Pepperdine University with the intent of becoming a theologian. He initially majored in Christian theology. In addition to taking courses on the Bible, Shermer studied the writings of C.S. Lewis, and he attended chapel twice a week, which was required for all students. Despite the restrictions imposed on students, such as a ban on dancing and visiting the dorm rooms of opposite sex, Shermer found the university a good experience, and he accepted its teachings as a valid guide for behavior.[8] When he learned, however, that doctoral studies in theology required proficiency in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, Shermer, who did not find foreign languages to be his forte, switched his major to psychology.[8][17][20]

He has stated that at this point he "mastered one of the languages of science: statistics", and that he learned about forming hypotheses, the null hypothesis and testing hypotheses, which led to a change in his thinking.[8] He completed his BA in psychology at Pepperdine in 1976.[21]

Graduate studies and change of beliefs[edit source]

Shermer's master's degree in experimental psychology at the California State University, Fullerton, led to many after-class discussions with professors Bayard Brattstrom and Meg White at a local pub—The 301 Club—that went late into the night. These discussions,[8][22] along with his studies in the natural and social sciences, led him to question his religious beliefs.[18][22] He abandoned his devout religious views, fueled by what he perceived to be the intolerance generated by the absolute morality he was taught in his religious studies; the hypocrisy in what many believers preached and what they practiced; and his growing awareness of other religious beliefs, and how they were determined by the temporal, geographic, and cultural circumstances in which their adherents were born. From this, Shermer came to conclude it is "obvious that God was made in our likeness and not the reverse."[8] By midway through his graduate training, he removed the Christian silver ichthys medallion that he had been wearing around his neck for years.[18][22] He completed his MA degree from the California State University in psychology in 1978.[21]

The final step in Shermer's abandoning religion came when his college sweetheart, Maureen, was in an automobile accident that broke her back and rendered her paralyzed from the waist down. Shermer relates:[8]

When I saw her at the Long Beach Medical Center ER, the full implications of what this meant for her begin to dawn on me. There, in the ER, day after dreary day, night after sleepless night, I took a knee and bowed my head and asked God to heal Maureen's broken back. I prayed with deepest sincerity. I cried out to God to overlook my doubts in the name of Maureen. I willingly suspended all disbelief. At that time and in that place, I was once again a believer. I believed because I wanted to believe that if there was any justice in the universe — any at all — this sweet, loving, smart, responsible, devoted, caring spirit did not deserve to be in a shattered body. A just and loving God who had the power to heal, would surely heal Maureen. He didn't. He didn't, I now believe, not because "God works in mysterious ways" or "He has a special plan for Maureen" — the nauseatingly banal comforts believers sometimes offer in such trying and ultimately futile times — but because there is no God.[8][23]

Competitive cycling[edit source]

After earning his MA in experimental psychology in 1978, Shermer was unable to secure a position in a PhD program, and landed a job writing for a bicycle magazine in Irvine, California. His first assignment, a Cycles Peugeot press conference featuring John Marino, who had just ridden from Los Angeles to New York in 13 days, one hour, and 20 minutes, made a deep impression on Shermer.[8][24] He bought a bike and entered the Yoplait Yogurt 50-kilometer race through Griffith Park in Los Angeles the following weekend. His interest grew rapidly, and within a short time he had completed his first century ride (100 miles). Before long he was riding hundreds of miles a week.[8]

Shermer began competitive cycling in 1979, and he spent a decade as a professional rider. Shermer's best known bicycling is in the very long distance ultramarathon road racing discipline. Shermer is a founding member of the Ultra Cycling Hall of Fame.[25]

During the course of his cycling career, Shermer worked with cycling technologists in developing better products for the sport. During his association with Bell Helmets, a bicycle-race sponsor, Shermer advised them on design issues regarding their development of expanded-polystyrene for use in cycling helmets, which would absorb impact far better than the old leather "hairnet" helmets used by bicyclists for decades. Shermer advised them that if their helmets looked too much like motorcycle helmets, in which polystyrene was already being used, and not like the old hairnet helmets, no serious cyclists or amateur would use them. This suggestion led to their model, the V1 Pro, which looked like a black leather hairnet, but functioned on the inside like a motorcycle helmet. In 1982, Shermer worked with Wayman Spence, whose small supply company, Spenco Medical, adapted the gel technology Spence developed for bedridden patients with pressure sores into cycling gloves and saddles to alleviate the carpal tunnel syndrome and saddle sores suffered by cyclists.[26]

During the decade in which he raced long distances, he helped to found the 3,000-mile nonstop transcontinental bicycle Race Across America (known as "RAAM", along with Lon Haldeman and John Marino), in which he competed five times (1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1989), was an assistant race director for six years, and the executive race director for seven years.[8][27] An acute medical condition is named for him: "Shermer Neck" is pain in and extreme weakness of the neck muscles found among long-distance bicyclists. Shermer suffered the condition about 2,000 miles into the 1983 Race Across America.[28] Shermer's embrace of scientific skepticism crystallized during his time as a cyclist, explaining, "I became a skeptic on Saturday, August 6, 1983, on the long climbing road to Loveland Pass, Colorado", after months of training under the guidance of a "nutritionist" with an unaccredited PhD. After years of practicing acupuncture, chiropractic, massage therapy, negative ions, rolfing, pyramid power, fundamentalist Christianity, and "a host of weird things" (with the exception of drugs) to improve his life and training, Shermer stopped rationalizing the failure of these practices.[29] Shermer later produced several documentary films on cycling.[27]

Shermer still cycles actively, and participated in the Furnace Creek 508 in October 2011, a qualifying race for RAAM, finishing second in the four man team category.[20][30]

Shermer has written on the subject of pervasive doping in competitive cycling and a game theoretic view of the dynamics driving the problem in several sports. He wrote specifically about r-EPO doping, which he saw as both widespread and well known within the sport, which was later shown to be instrumental in the doping scandal surrounding Lance Armstrong in 2010.[31][32][33]

Earning his PhD and teaching[edit source]

While cycling, Shermer taught Psychology 101 during the evenings at Glendale Community College, a two-year college. Wanting to teach at a four-year university, he decided to earn his PhD. Because Shermer's interests lay in behaviorism and he did not believe he could make a difference in the world by working in a lab with Skinner boxes, he lost interest in psychology and switched to studying the history of science,[8] earning his PhD at Claremont Graduate University in 1991. His dissertation was titled Heretic-Scientist: Alfred Russel Wallace and the Evolution of Man: A Study on the Nature of Historical Change.[34]

Shermer later based a full-length book on his dissertation; the book, titled In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History, was published in August 2002.[35][36][37]

Earlier that year, in his book The Borderlands of Science, Shermer rated several noted scientists for gullibility toward "pseudo" or "borderland" ideas, using a rating version, developed by psychologist Frank Sulloway, of the Big Five model of personality. Shermer rated Wallace extremely high (99th percentile) on agreeableness/accommodation and argued that this was the key trait in distinguishing Wallace from scientists who give less credence to fringe ideas.[38][clarification needed]

Shermer then became an adjunct professor of the history of science at Occidental College, California. In 2007, Shermer took a position as a senior research fellow at Claremont Graduate University. In 2011, he took a position as an adjunct professor at Chapman University,[39][40] and was later made a Presidential Fellow.[41] At Chapman, he teaches a yearly critical thinking course called Skepticism 101, in which he tries out new ideas on students.[8]

Scientific skepticism[edit source]

In 1992, Shermer founded the Skeptics Society, which began as a hobby in his garage, but eventually grew into a full-time occupation. The Skeptics Society publishes the magazine Skeptic, and organizes the Caltech Lecture Series. As of 2008, it has over 55,000 members.[2][42]

Shermer is also a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).[4]

Published works[edit source]

Shermer is the author of books which attempt to explain the ubiquity of irrational or poorly substantiated beliefs, including UFOs, Bigfoot, and paranormal claims. In 1997, he wrote Why People Believe Weird Things, which explores a variety of "weird" ideas and groups (including cults), in the tradition of the skeptical writings of Martin Gardner. A revised and expanded edition was published in 2002. He writes in the Introduction:

So we are left with the legacy of two types of thinking errors: Type 1 Error: believing a falsehood and Type 2 Error: rejecting a truth. ... Believers in UFOs, alien abductions, ESP, and psychic phenomena have committed a Type 1 Error in thinking: they are believing a falsehood. ... It's not that these folks are ignorant or uninformed; they are intelligent but misinformed. Their thinking has gone wrong.

In How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, Shermer explored the psychology behind the belief in God. In its introduction, Shermer wrote "Never in history have so many, and such a high percentage of the population, believed in God. Not only is God not dead as Nietzsche proclaimed, but he has never been more alive."[citation needed]

From April 2001 to January 2019, he wrote the monthly Skeptic column for Scientific American.[3] He has also contributed to Time magazine.[43]

In February 2002, he characterized the position that "God had no part in the process [of the evolution of mankind]" as the "standard scientific theory".[44] This statement was criticized in January 2006 by the scientist Eugenie Scott, who commented that science makes no claim about God one way or the other.[45]

In May 2002, Shermer and Alex Grobman published their book Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, which examined and refuted the Holocaust denial movement. This book recounts meeting various denialists and concludes that free speech is the best way to deal with pseudohistory.

Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown was released in 2005. His 2006 book Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design marshals point-by-point arguments supporting evolution, sharply criticizing intelligent design. This book also argues that science cannot invalidate religion, and that Christians and conservatives can and should accept evolution.

In June 2006, Shermer, who formerly expressed skepticism regarding the mainstream scientific views on global warming, wrote in Scientific American magazine that, in the light of the accumulation of evidence, the position of denying global warming is no longer tenable.[46]

The Mind of The Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics was released in 2007. In it Shermer reports on the findings of multiple behavioral and biochemical studies that address evolutionary explanations for modern behavior. It garnered several critical reviews from academics, with skeptic Robert T. Carroll saying: "He has been blinded by his libertarianism and seduced by the allure of evolutionary psychology to explain everything, including ethics and economics."[47][48][49]

In February 2009, Shermer published The History of Science: A Sweeping Visage of Science and its History, a 25-hour audio lecture.[citation needed] In May 2011, Shermer published The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies: How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.[50][51][52]

Prior to work on science and skepticism, Shermer published books on cycling and others on child education in the math and science disciplines. These include collaborations with Arthur Benjamin.[20]

In January 2015, Shermer published The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom.

Harriet Hall says of Shermer's 2018 publication, Heavens on Earth: The Scientific Search for the Afterlife, Immortality, and Utopia, that "the topics of Heavens on Earth are usually relegated to the spheres of philosophy and religion, but Shermer approaches them through science, looking for evidence -- or lack thereof." She goes on to say that "[s]ome will argue that Shermer goes beyond the science" but that "it will definitely ... make the reader think."[53]

In a January 2019 Ask Me Anything podcast, Shermer announced plans for three upcoming books publications: a collection of essays and scholarly works spanning the last 15 years, a collection of the final 70 Skeptic columns previously published in Scientific American, and a non-fiction book on an undisclosed topic.[3]

Media appearances and lectures[edit source]

Shermer giving a talk at FreedomFest in Las Vegas, Nevada in July 2016

Shermer appeared as a guest on Donahue in 1994 to respond to Bradley Smith's and David Cole's Holocaust denial claims, and in 1995 on The Oprah Winfrey Show to challenge Rosemary Altea's psychic claims. Shermer made a guest appearance in a 2004 episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, in which he argued that events in the Bible constitute "mythic storytelling", rather than events described literally. His stance was supported by the show's hosts, who have expressed their own atheism. The episode in question, The Bible: Fact or Fiction?, sought to debunk the notion that the Bible is an empirically reliable historical record. Opposing Shermer was Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University.[54]

Shermer made several appearances on NBC's daytime paranormal-themed show The Other Side in 1994 and 1995. After getting to know the show's producers, he made a formal pitch to their production company for his own skepticism-oriented reality show whose aim would be to present points of view of both believers and skeptics. His proposals were not fruitful, but several years later, one of the executives of that company went to work for the then-newly formed Fox Family Channel, and impressed with Shermer's show treatment, requested he pitch it to the network. The network picked up the series, Exploring the Unknown, of which Shermer became a producer and cohost. The series, which was budgeted at approximately $200,000 per episode, was viewed by Shermer as a direct extension of the work done at the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine, and would enable Shermer to reach more people. The equivocal title was chosen so as to not tip off guests or viewers as to the skeptical nature of the show.[55] Various segments from Exploring the Unknown can be found on Shermer's YouTube channel.[56] In 1999, Shermer produced and co-hosted the Fox Family TV series Exploring the Unknown.[citation needed]

Shermer has been a speaker at all three Beyond Belief events from 2006 to 2008. He also spoke at the 2006 TED Conference on "Why people believe strange things".[57] In 2008, he delivered the commencement speech at Whittier College, which awarded him with an honorary doctorate of Humane Letters.[58] He is also an occasional guest on Skepticality, the official podcast of Skeptic.[31]

Shermer has debated Deepak Chopra on multiple occasions,[59][60] including during their March 2010 appearance on the ABC News program Nightline.[61] He has named Chopra his personal favourite debating partner.[20]

On August 21, 2010, Shermer was honored with an award recognizing his contributions in the skeptical field, from the Independent Investigations Group during its 10th Anniversary Gala.[62]

Personal life[edit source]

As of 2007, Shermer lives in Altadena, California.[63] He married Jennifer Graf, a native of Cologne, Germany, on June 25, 2014.[64] The ceremony was performed by Shermer's sister, Tina, who was ordained online for the occasion.[65] A lifelong dog lover, he previously had a dog named Darwin, and as of April 2018, they have a Chocolate Labrador Retriever named Hitch, in honor of Christopher Hitchens.[66]

Political positions[edit source]

Politically, Shermer has described himself as a lifelong libertarian.[67] In a 2015 interview, Shermer stated that he prefers to talk about individual issues, lamenting that, in the past, people would refuse to even listen to him because of his self-description as a libertarian. In this same interview, he also mentioned that his research into gun control led him to believe that some measures to reduce gun-related violence would be beneficial.[68] The first president he voted for was Richard Nixon in 1972, which, in light of the Watergate scandal, he calls his "most embarrassing vote".

In 2000, he voted for Harry Browne to "vote his conscience", on the assumption that the winner of the Al Gore – George W. Bush contest would be irrelevant. He later regretted this decision, believing that Bush's foreign policy made the world more dangerous, and he voted for John Kerry in 2004. Shermer has named Thomas Jefferson as his favorite president, for his championing of liberty and his application of scientific thinking to the political, economic, and social spheres. He says of Jefferson, "When he dined alone at the White House there was more intelligence in that room than when John F. Kennedy hosted a dinner there for a roomful of Nobel laureates."[69]

Positions on gun control[edit source]

Shermer once opposed most gun control measures, primarily because of his beliefs in the principle of increasing individual freedom and decreased government intervention, and also because he has owned guns for most of his life. As an adult, he owned a .357 Magnum pistol for a quarter of a century for protection, although he eventually took it out of the house, and then got rid of it entirely. Though he no longer owns guns, he continues to support the right to own guns to protect one's family.[19] However, by 2013, the data on gun homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings convinced him that some modest gun control measures might be necessary.[70]

Positions on capital punishment[edit source]

Shermer also previously favored capital punishment, primarily in sympathy for victims' families, but later he came to oppose the death penalty, partially out of a resistance to giving the government too much power – in light of the hundreds of executed individuals who were later revealed to be innocent – and partially from his view that retributive justice is driven by humanity's baser instincts, and it does not effect restorative justice.[8] He changed his mind about the issue during research for The Moral Arc, reasoning that "[Capital punishment] is one of these barbaric practices that we need to get rid of. [The United States of] America is really the last of the 19 industrialized democracies to have the death penalty. (...) The Italian enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccaria, in his book On Crimes and Punishments, put forward the idea that the punishment should fit the crime and that the criteria should be whether it keeps people from committing crimes, and the Death Penalty does not do that."[68]

Awards and honors[edit source]

Bibliography[edit source]

This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

Books[edit source]

Articles and chapters[edit source]

  • "Agnosticism". Invited contribution in Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, edited by J. Gordon Melton. ABC-CLIO. 2010.
  • "The Chain of Accidents and the Rule of Law: The Role of Contingency and Necessity in Evolution". Contribution for edited volume, The Nature of Nature (Bruce L. Gordon, Editor). 2010.
  • "A noble conception". Commentary. Nature Physics, 2009, 5, 162-163
  • "Testing Tenure: Let the Market Decide". Invited commentary on "Is Tenure Justified?" by Stephen J. Ceci, et al., Behavioral and Brain Sciences, December, 2006, Volume 29, No. 6, 584-585.
  • "Science and Pseudoscience". Encyclopedia of Philosophy. MacMillan, 2006.
  • "The Skeptic's Chaplain: Richard Dawkins as a Fountainhead of Skepticism". Contribution for edited volume in tribute to Dawkins, Oxford University Press, 2006.
  • "Pseudoscience". Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Carl Mitcham (Ed.) Macmillan Reference. In Press, 2004.
  • "Skepticism". Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Carl Mitcham (Ed.) Macmillan Reference. In Press, 2004.
  • "Rethinking Stephen Jay Gould: Science and Politics in Evolutionary Theory". Rethinking Marxism, Winter, 2003.
  • "How to be Open-Minded Without Your Brains Falling Out". Journal of Thought. July, 2003.
  • "Agnosticism." Entry in Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices. J. Gordon Melton and martin Baumann, Editors. Denver: ABC-CLIO, Vol. 1: 22-23. 2002.
  • "This View of Science: Stephen Jay Gould as Historian of Science and Scientific Historian". Social Studies of Science. September, 2002.
  • "The Crooked Timber of History: History is Complex and Often Chaotic. Can We Use This to Better Understand the Past?" Complexity, Vol. 2, No.6. July/August 1997: 23-29.
  • "Chaos Theory". Invited entry in The Encyclopedia of Historiography. D.R. Woolf (Ed.) New York: Garland Publishing. 1996.
  • "Exorcising Laplace's Demon: Chaos and Antichaos, History and Metahistory". Invited paper for History and Theory. Wesleyan University. Vol. 34, No. 1. 1995. 59-83.
  • "The Chaos of History: On a Chaotic Model that Represents the Role of Contingency and Necessity in Historical Sequences". Nonlinear Science. Vol. 2, No. 4. 1993: 1-13.
  • Shermer, Michael Brant (1991). "Science Defended, Science Defined: The Louisiana Creationism Case". Science, Technology, & Human Values. SAGE Publications. 16 (4): 517–539. doi:10.1177/016224399101600405. ISSN 0162-2439. S2CID 144767620.
  • Shermer, Michael (1990). "Darwin, Freud, and the Myth of the Hero in Science". Knowledge. SAGE Publications. 11 (3): 280–301. doi:10.1177/107554709001100305. ISSN 0164-0259. S2CID 143000899.
  • Shermer, Michael (June 2010). "When ideas have sex". Scientific American. Vol. 302 no. 6. p. 18. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0610-32.
  • — (April 2013). "Proof of hallucination : did a neurosurgeon go to heaven?". Skeptic. Scientific American. Vol. 308 no. 4. p. 67. Retrieved 2015-05-01.
  • — (May 2013). "Gun science : how data can help clarify the gun control debate". Skeptic. Scientific American. Vol. 308 no. 5. p. 69. Retrieved 2016-02-11.[74]
  • — (February 2018). "Our Actions Don't Matter in a Cosmic Sense—But That Doesn't Mean They Don't Matter". Scientific American. Vol. 318. p. 1. Retrieved 2018-01-17.

Media work and appearances[edit source]

Television[edit source]

Exploring the Unknown (1999)
Other television and film appearances

Audio courses[edit source]

  • Shermer, Michael (2009), The History of Science: A Sweeping Visage of Science and its History (audio lecture) (Audio lecture of 1991 course)
  • Shermer, Michael (2009), War: History, Causes, and Solutions (audio lecture)
  • Shermer, Michael (2013), Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist (audio lecture), The Great Courses

Radio and Web appearances[edit source]

Public lectures, speeches and debates[edit source]

References[edit source]

  1. ^ Shermer, Michael (ed.). "Masthead". Skeptic. Archived from the original on 2012-03-16. Retrieved 2014-09-05.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Mouallem, Omar (August 27, 2008). "Making a living of bullshit detecting". VUE Weekly.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Michael Shermer. "Dr. Michael Shermer — Ask Me Anything # 2". Skeptic.com (Podcast). The Skeptics Society. Event occurs at 5:35. Retrieved January 17,2019.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Our Team". American Council on Science and Health. Retrieved April 2, 2019.
  5. ^ Shermer, Michael (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things. Henry Holt. p. 136
  6. ^ Shermer, Michael (November 14, 1999). "Response To Positive Atheism's December, 1999, Column 'Atheism & Fundamentalism'"". Positive Atheism. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007. Retrieved April 2, 2019.
  7. ^ Shermer, Michael (July 25, 2007). "Is tenure justified? Testing Tenure". Skeptic
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r "Michael Shermer Interview". April 27, 2015. TheBestSchools.org. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
  9. ^ Stossel, John. Stossel. December 16, 2010 Fox Business Channel.
  10. ^ Jump up to:a b Shermer, Michael (June 2005). "Why I Am An Atheist". michaelshermer.com
  11. ^ "Humanist Manifesto III Public Signers". American Humanist Association. 2008. Archived from the original on 2012-10-05. Retrieved 2012-04-09.
  12. ^ Shermer, Michael (January 2011). "The Science of Right and Wrong". michaelshermer.com
  13. ^ Shermer, Michael (September 2004). "Mustangs, Monists & Meaning". Scientific American. The Work of Michael Shermer. 291 (3): 38. Bibcode:2004SciAm.291c..38S. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0904-38. PMID 15376748. Retrieved 2016-12-19.
  14. ^ Meyer, Ronald Bruce (2013-09-08). "September 8: Michael Shermer (1954)". Freethought Almanac. Retrieved 2015-05-02.
  15. ^ Shermer, Michael (April 2, 2019). "Nicholas A. Christakis — Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society (SCIENCE SALON # 60)". Skeptic/YouTube. 10:40 mark. Retrieved April 2, 2019.
  16. ^ Jump up to:a b Shermer, Michael. The Believing Brain. 2011. Times Books. Chapter 4
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b c Shermer, 2002, p. 127
  18. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Shermer, The Believing Brain, Chapter 6
  19. ^ Jump up to:a b Shermer, Michael (2013). "The Sandy Hook Effect". Skeptic. Vol. 18 No. 1. p. 39
  20. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Michael Shermer". Meet The Skeptics. November 2011. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved February 7, 2014.
  21. ^ Jump up to:a b "Skeptic Magazine: Meet Michael Shermer". The Skeptics Society. 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-04.
  22. ^ Jump up to:a b c Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, 2002, p. 128
  23. ^ Shermer (2011), The Believing Brain, "Chapter 3: A Skeptic's Journey"
  24. ^ Fleming, Ed (March 2, 2014). "UltraCycling Hall of Fame Founding Member: John Marino" Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine, ultracycling.com. Retrieved July 5, 2017.
  25. ^ Lumia, Carrie (March 2, 2014). "Michael Shermer – Ultra Cycling Hall of Fame". UltraMarathon Cycling Association. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014.
  26. ^ Shermer, Michael (2007). The Mind of The Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics. Holt Paperbacks. pp. 59 -61 ISBN 978-0-8050-7832-9
  27. ^ Jump up to:a b "Michael Shermer: Curriculum Vitae". michaelshermer.com. Retrieved June 18, 2012.
  28. ^ Libby. "A Pain in the Neck: Shermer's Neck". UltraMarathon Cycling Association. Archived from the original on 12 April 2013. Retrieved 28 May 2011.
  29. ^ Shermer (2002), pp. 13–15.
  30. ^ "2011 Furnace Creek 508 – Great American Toad – team data". AdventureCORPS, Inc. Retrieved 7 February 2014.
  31. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Skepticality: Episode 200. Michael Shermer". Skepticality. 29 January 2013. Retrieved 3 February 2014., 1h20 onward
  32. ^ "Nash Equilibrium, the Omerta Rule, and Doping in Cycling". True/Slant. 7 July 2010. Archived from the original on 22 February 2014. Retrieved 7 February 2014.
  33. ^ Shermer, Michael (2008). "The Doping Dilemma". Scientific American. 298 (4): 82–9. Bibcode:2008SciAm.298d..82S. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0408-82. PMID 18380145.
  34. ^ Shermer, Michael Brant (1991). Heretic-scientist: Alfred Russel Wallace and the evolution of man : a study on the nature of historical change (Thesis/dissertation, Manuscript). Claremont Graduate School. OCLC 26379537.
  35. ^ van Wyhe, John (March 14, 2003). "In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History by Michael Shermer" Human Nature Review, Volume 3: 166-68
  36. ^ Manning, Aubrey (2003). "Review: In Darwin's Shadow". Reports of the NCSE. Volume 23. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved May 3, 2015.
  37. ^ Mallet, James (October 10, 2002). "Move over Darwin: A look at the co-disocoverer of natural selection. Neo-Wallaceism anyone?". Nature (Vol 419), pg. 561. University College London website. Retrieved July 5, 2017.
  38. ^ Greenspan, Stephen (December 30, 2008). Annals of Gullibility: Why We Get Duped and How to Avoid It. Praeger. p. 160. Archived at Google Books. Retrieved May 3, 2015.
  39. ^ Ellington, Kim; Bennett, Bo (May 7, 2014). "The Humanist Hour #97: Science and Skepticism with Michael Shermer", TheHumanist.com. Retrieved July 5, 2017.
  40. ^ "Michael Shermer" profile at RateMyProfessors.com. Retrieved May 3, 2015.
  41. ^ "Presidential Fellows", Chapman University website. Retrieved July 10, 2015.
  42. ^ "Skeptic » Upcoming Lectures » Upcoming Science Salons". skeptic.com.
  43. ^ Shermer, Michael (November 25, 2014). "The Reason Every One of Us Should Be Thankful". Time.
  44. ^ Shermer, Michael (2002). "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind". Scientific American. 286 (2): 35. Bibcode:2002SciAm.286b..35S. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0202-35. PMID 11828698. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
  45. ^ Scott, Eugenie. (2006). "Intelligent Design and the Creationism/Evolution Controversy" (00:42:42~00:43:53). University of Michigan. YouTube. July 12, 2013.
  46. ^ Shermer, Michael (June 2006). "The Flipping Point". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 2007-10-14. Retrieved 2006-12-11.
  47. ^ Carroll, Robert. "Shermer's March to Nirvana". The Skeptic's Dictionary. Retrieved 2016-07-14.
  48. ^ Drutman, Lee. "The economics of man's nature". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 14, 2016.
  49. ^ Cowen, Tyler. "For Sale: Big Ideas About Humanity". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 14, 2016.
  50. ^ "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies: How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved April 23, 2018.
  51. ^ Chivers, David (August 17, 2011). "Book Review: The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer". The Humanist. American Humanist Association. Archived from the original on October 24, 2015. Retrieved April 23, 2018.
  52. ^ Bailey, Ronald (August 2, 2011). "A Trick of the Mind: Looking for patterns in life and then infusing them with meaning, from alien intervention to federal conspiracy". Reason. Reason Foundation. Archived from the original on January 6, 2016. Retrieved April 23, 2018.
  53. ^ Hall, Harriet (2018). "Tackling the Big Questions". Skeptical Inquirer. 42 (4): 59–60.
  54. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Bible: Fact or Fiction?", Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Season 2. Retrieved July 5, 2017.
  55. ^ Shermer, Michael (2001). The Borderlands of Science. Oxford University Press, pp. 10–13.
  56. ^ "Skeptic (Michael Shermer)". YouTube. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  57. ^ Michael Shermer: Professional Skeptic, TED Conference website, November 2006.
  58. ^ Jump up to:a b "105th Whittier College Commencement Ceremony" Archived 2015-07-10 at the Wayback Machine. May 23, 2008.
  59. ^ "The Great Debate:Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer". Skeptic. September 28, 2005
  60. ^ Shermer, Michael (April 5, 2011). "The Woo of Creation:My evening with Deepak Chopra". Skepticblog.
  61. ^ Harris, Dan (March 23, 2010) "'Nightline' 'Face-Off': Does God Have a Future?". ABC News.
  62. ^ "The IIG Celebrates its 10th Anniversary". Independent Investigations Group. Retrieved September 5, 2010
  63. ^ Shermer, Michael (2007). "The Skeptic's Chaplain: Richard Dawkins as a Fountainhead of Skepticism". Skeptic. Vol. 13. p. 47.
  64. ^ Shermer, Michael (September 16, 2014). "Anomalous Events That Can Shake One's Skepticism to the Core". Scientific American. Retrieved November 13, 2014.
  65. ^ Shermer, Michael (June 25, 2014). "Married by Minister Tina, AKA my sister. Ordained online on the spot with Open Ministry (free instant!) what a world". Twitter.[non-primary source needed]
  66. ^ Shermer, Michael (April 16, 2018). "Dr. Gregory Berns — What It's Like to Be a Dog: Animal Neuroscience (Science Salon # 22)". Skeptic. Skeptics Society/YouTube. Event occurs at 0:50; 2:18. Retrieved April 23, 2018.
  67. ^ Shermer, Michael (September 13, 2009). "The Case for Libertarianism". HuffPost. Retrieved October 6, 2015.
  68. ^ Jump up to:a b Shermer, Michael (February 17, 2015). "Arcing Toward Morality - Interview with Dr. Michael Shermer". Skepticality. Retrieved May 27, 2016.
  69. ^ Shermer, Michael (November 2004). "Who's Getting Your Vote?". Reason.
  70. ^ Shermer, Michael (October 2013). "When Science Doesn’t Support Beliefs", Scientific American, October 2013.
  71. ^ "Anniversary Meeting 2001" Archived 2013-05-13 at the Wayback Machine. The Linnean (January 2004). Vol 2, No 1, p. 1 Linnean Society of London.
  72. ^ "Skeptic Magazine Founder to Address Library Patrons" Archived 2015-07-11 at the Wayback Machine. CSUF News, California State University, Fullerton. February 17, 2015.
  73. ^ "NCAS Philip J. Klass AwardOctober 2006". National Capital Area Skeptics. October 2006.
  74. ^ Scientific American often changes the title of a print article when it is published online. This article is titled "The Science of Guns Proves Arming Untrained Citizens Is a Bad Idea" online.
  75. ^ "Michael Shermer and Out of Body Experiences" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, July 23, 2007, originally broadcast on Wide World of Sports (ABC), August 1983
  76. ^ "Michael Shermer on How to Fake UFO Photographs" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, July 23, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  77. ^ "Michael Shermer on Spoonbending" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, July 23, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  78. ^ "Michael Shermer Firewalking Across Hot Coals" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, June 2, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  79. ^ "Michael Shermer Tests the Polygraph and Lie Detection, Part 1" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, July 23, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  80. ^ "Michael Shermer Tests the Polygraph and Lie Detection, Part 2" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, July 23, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  81. ^ "Michael Shermer Learns the Art of Con Games, Part 1" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, July 23, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  82. ^ "Michael Shermer Learns the Art of Con Games, Part 2" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, July 23, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  83. ^ "Michael Shermer Decodes the Bible Code" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official YouTube channel, July 23, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  84. ^ "Michael Shermer Explores Graphology/Handwriting Analysis, Part 1" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, July 23, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  85. ^ "Michael Shermer Explores Graphology/Handwriting Analysis, Part 2" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, July 23, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  86. ^ Michael Shermer Remote Viewing Experiment Part 1 on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official YouTube channel, July 9, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  87. ^ "Michael Shermer Remote Viewing Experiment Part 2 " on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, July 23, 2007, Originally broadcast on Exploring the Unknown, Fox Family, 1999
  88. ^ "Michael Shermer Abducted by Aliens in Race Across America" on YouTube, Michael Shermer's official channel, June 19, 2007, Originally broadcast on television news segment, August 1983
  89. ^ "Does God Have a Future?", Nightline, ABC, March 23, 2010, Full debate on YouTube
  90. ^ "What Were You Thinking?", Dateline NBC, NBC News, April 25, 2010
  91. ^ "Did You See That?", Dateline NBC, NBC News, July 16, 2010
  92. ^ "Show Summary". Retrieved 22 May 2011.
  93. ^ "Mr. Deity and the Skeptic" on YouTube. September 15, 2009.
  94. ^ "Mr. Deity and the Believing Brain" on YouTube. August 3, 2011.
  95. ^ Shermer appeared on Skepticality on 29 January 2013, May 24, 2011 and July 13, 2005
  96. ^ The Rubin Report. "Michael Shermer and Dave Rubin: Skepticism, Conspiracy Theories, Libertarians (Full Interview)". Retrieved 2016-01-24 – via YouTube.
  97. ^ "JRE #770 - MICHAEL SHERMER". 7 March 2016.
  98. ^ "JRE #846 - MICHAEL SHERMER". 14 September 2016.
  99. ^ "JRE #961 - MICHAEL SHERMER". 16 May 2017.
  100. ^ "JRE #1068 - MICHAEL SHERMER". 24 January 2018.
  101. ^ "JRE #1222 - MICHAEL SHERMER". 10 January 2019.
  102. ^ Roaming Millennial (2017-01-26), Interview with Michael Shermer | Skepticism, Irrational Beliefs & Ideologies (Part 1), retrieved 2017-01-27
  103. ^ Roaming Millennial (2017-01-26), Interview with Michael Shermer | The Science of Morality (Part 2), retrieved 2017-01-27
  104. ^ Reality Trip with Ben Fama Jr. (27 August 2017). "Michael Shermer: Why Do People Still Believe Weird Things".
  105. ^ Shermer, Michael (February 2006). "Why people believe weird things". TED
  106. ^ Shermer, Michael (February 2010). "The pattern behind self-deception". TED.
  107. ^ Torgovnick May, Kate (March 10, 2014). "Introducing the TED All-Stars: 50+ speakers who’ll return to the stage at TED2014". TED Blog.
  108. ^ Reasonable Doubt on YouTube
  109. ^ Morrison, Patt (March 23, 2012). "The 'Reason Rally:' Atheists gather en masse in D.C. this weekend". 89.3 KPCC.
  110. ^ Shermer, Michael (March 2012). "Reason Rally Rocks". michaelshermer.com
  111. ^ Shermer, Michael (March 24, 2012). "The Moral Arc of Reason". skeptic.com
  112. ^ "Does Science Refute God?". NPR. December 11, 2012
  113. ^ "Science Refutes God". Intelligence Squared: Debates. December 5, 2012

External links[edit source]

Library resources about
Michael Shermer
By Michael Shermer
Posted by at
Labels: ,

[Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist by Michael Shermer | Goodreads

Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist by Michael Shermer | Goodreads

Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist
(The Great Courses)
by Michael Shermer
 4.11  ·   Rating details ·  469 ratings  ·  57 reviews


Despite our best efforts, we're all vulnerable to believing things without using logic or having proper evidence-and it doesn't matter how educated or well read we are.

But there is a method for avoiding such pitfalls of human nature, and it's called skepticism. By using rational inquiry and seeing subjects from a scientific perspective, we can approach even the most sensitive claims with clear eyes to ultimately arrive at the truth.

During 18 lectures that will surprise, challenge, and entertain you, you will learn how to think, not just what to think-and you'll come to understand why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You'll discover how skepticism can help differentiate between real science and pseudoscience, as well as between "scientific" history and pseudohistory-distinctions that have serious educational and political implications.

Fascinating case studies illustrate how you can apply the methods of skepticism to detect specious claims and faulty logic in any scenario you encounter such as:
•The methodology employed by Holocaust deniers
•Arguments made by proponents of creationism
•The biology of near-death experiences and the sensed-presence effect
•Psychic abilities and other "paranormal" phenomena.

As you learn how our brains work to form beliefs, you'll examine the classic fallacies of thought that lead us to experience mistakes in thinking and to form bad arguments in favor of our beliefs.

Is there a God? Is there life after death? Is there a basis for morality without God? Skepticism 101 doesn't shy away from controversial questions, nor does it give final answers. What it offers are methods and hard evidence for rationally evaluating various claims and positions, and an opportunity to understand why you believe what you believe.

Listening Length: 9 hours and 10 minutes (less)
GET A COPY
KoboOnline Stores ▾Book Links ▾
Audiobook, Unabridged
Published July 8th 2013 by The Teaching Company
ISBN139781682766132
Edition LanguageEnglish
SeriesThe Great Courses
Other Editions (4)
Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist (Great Courses) (Teaching Company) (Course Number 9388 Audio CD) 
Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist 
111x148 
Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist
All Editions | Add a New Edition | Combine
...Less DetailEdit Details
EditMY ACTIVITY
Review of ISBN 9781682766132
Rating
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Shelves to-read edit
( 831st )
Format Audiobook edit
Status
June 26, 2021 – Shelved as: to-read
June 26, 2021 – Shelved
Review Write a review
 
comment
FRIEND REVIEWS
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.
READER Q&A
Ask the Goodreads community a question about Skepticism 101
54355902. uy100 cr1,0,100,100 
Ask anything about the book
Be the first to ask a question about Skepticism 101

LISTS WITH THIS BOOK
How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale CarnegieHow to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas RockwellHow to Cook Everything by Mark BittmanHow to Be Alone by Jonathan FranzenHow to Be a Domestic Goddess by Nigella Lawson
How To...
528 books — 85 voters
Timefulness by Marcia BjornerudHow to Think Like a Roman Emperor by Donald J. RobertsonHow to Think Like a Neandertal by Thomas WynnHow to Think Like an Anthropologist by Matthew EngelkeMastermind by Maria Konnikova
"How to Think Like . . ."
85 books — 4 voters


More lists with this book...
COMMUNITY REVIEWS
Showing 1-30
 Average rating4.11  ·  Rating details ·  469 ratings  ·  57 reviews

Search review text


English ‎(55)
More filters | Sort order
Sejin,
Sejin, start your review of Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist

Write a review
Amirography
May 26, 2017Amirography rated it really liked it
Shelves: cognitive-science, philosophy
This book presents, for the most parts, why being skeptical is a necessary surviving skill. It utilizes many different real-life examples, to make abstract taught rather more tactile; while not using them as a proof at the same time.
I would argue that its greatest flaw is his lack of knowledge or preciseness when it comes to morality and animals. He explains normative ethics (Study of what people generally think they ought to do), as ethics in general (What we ought to do, regardless of our intuition), and calls it absolute truth, which was the problem with Sam Harris's book on ethics. He goes on about how animals have pre-ethical abilities while associating same abilities as "The absolute morality". Ironically, he immediately uses Frans Du Waal's works, as an anecdote to his perception, which is absolutely ridiculous, as Frans Du Waal has been utterly against calling other animals anything but parallel to us in historic terms.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed this book. It was an easy read and a fun and general introduction to what should be a scientific skepticism in the twenty-first century. (less)
flag24 likes · Like  · 3 comments · see review
Clif Hostetler
Mar 19, 2016Clif Hostetler rated it liked it
Shelves: current-events
These are eighteen lectures intended to teach listeners to be open-minded enough to accept new ideas without making fools of themselves by believing apparent truths that are actually false. As indicated by the title, these lectures encourage scientific and skeptical thinking.

Thinking skeptically doesn’t come naturally to the human brain which has been hardwired by evolution to be a belief engine. Our early ancestors while walking across the African Savanna had to quickly develop an image of possible causes for a sound behind a nearby bush; was it a predator or the wind? Those who waited around to collect more data in order to be certain about the cause ended up being victims who didn’t pass along their genes.

Thus today we have brains that naturally look for and find patterns of possible meanings from the flow of sensory data flowing into our brains. One process used by our brains is what the lecturer, Shermer, calls “patternicity” which is the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless data. Another process of our brains is what he calls “agenticity” which is the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency.

Our brains were evolved to connect the dots of our world into meaningful patterns that explain why things happen. We can’t help it, it’s just what our brains do. These meaningful patterns become beliefs, and these beliefs shape our understanding of reality. To keep these brain processes from leading to false conclusions Shermer quotes Rachard Feynman as saying, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool.”

One interesting fact noted is that, “Students that scored well on these [science knowledge] tests were no more or less skeptical of pseudoscientific claims than students that scored very poorly.” The reason for this failing according to Shermer is that students are taught facts about science, but not how to do science.

The title “Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist” is actually the name of a freshman foundation course taught by Shermer at Chapman University. When I did an on-line search I found the syllabus for the class at the following link:
http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/Skep...

The following list of lecture titles and their descriptions give a pretty good idea of the topics covered by these lectures.

LIST OF LECTURE TITLES AND DESCRIPTIONS
(These descriptions are copied from The Great Courses)

1. The Virtues of Skepticism: As the professor introduces you to the definition of skepticism and the concept behind the larger skeptical movement, learn how myths like the Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon get started, why scientists aren’t able to effectively debate pseudoscientists, and why smart people believe in what skeptics call “weird things."

2. Skepticism and Science: What is the difference between a theory and a construct? How does skepticism relate to science? How do we know anything is true? Answer these and other questions as you explore how science works, what it means to think like a scientist, and the essential tension between skepticism and credulity.

3. Mistakes in Thinking: We All Make From coincidences and false reasoning to tautology and false analogies, there are a number of classic thinking fallacies and biases that interfere with our ability to reason clearly and rationally. This lecture provides an overview of the 12 most prevalent types of fallacies of thought that can lead us to make mistakes in our thinking.

4. Cognitive Biases and Their Effects: Once we form beliefs and commit to them, we reinforce them through powerful cognitive heuristics-otherwise known as rules of thumb or cognitive biases-that guarantee we are always correct. Explore the various types of biases we allow to influence us and learn how they can both help and hinder how we understand the world.

5. Wrong Thinking in Everyday Life: Has the status-quo effect ever led you to complacency? Have you ever held onto a stock too long because its value fell below what you paid for it? Explore the research on how people behave irrationally when it comes to money and which cognitive biases and fallacies of thought most interfere with our ability to make rational decisions about purchases and investments.

6. The Neuroscience of Belief: We all have a natural tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise. Learn why we’re hardwired to be superstitious and prone to making false positive errors through an investigation of the evolutionary origin of superstition and magical thinking. Discover how the brain’s neural networks drive the two central processes-patternicity and agenticity-that lead to the formation of beliefs.

7. The Paranonnal and the Supernatural: According to Professor Shermer, there is no such thing as the paranormal or the supernatural. There is just the normal, the natural, and the mysteries we have yet to explain. Discover how faulty neural activity and anomalous neural firing can lead to paranormal, supernatural, and extraordinary experiences, then consider scientific explanations for these natural phenomena.

8. Science versus Pseudoscience: Who has the burden of proof in science-the person making the claim or the person hearing about the claim? Delve into human psychology, the need to believe, and the age-old techniques psychics use to lure people into believing that paranormal powers are real. Then, see how the preconceived notions of scientists can skew research results.

9. Comparing SETI and UFOlogy: What is the difference between scientists engaged in SETI-the search for extraterrestrial intelligence-and proponents of the existence of UFOs? Make a distinction between science and pseudoscience through an analysis of the supposed alien crash-landing at Roswell, physiological explanations for the experience of alien abduction, and an exploration of the attempt to answer the question “are we alone?".

10. Comparing Evolution and Creationism: From the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” trial to the 2006 Dover trial over the theory of Intelligent Design, look at the history of the evolution and creationism debate, which has important political and cultural ramifications for science and education. Break down the “God of the Gaps" argument and consider why people shouldn’t fear evolution.

11. Science, History, and Pseudohistory: How can we tell the difference between scientific history and pseudohistory? What is the difference between historical revisionism and historical denial? Find out in this lecture that looks at the methodology of alternative historians and revisionists, specifically people who deny the Holocaust despite an overwhelming convergence of evidence. Conclude with an example of good historical science.

12. The Lure of Conspiracy Theories: Why do people believe conspiracy theories?Address the larger topic of conspiracies and conspiracy theories by contrasting erroneous claims surrounding Princess Diana’s death, the terrorist attacks of September 11, and the assassination of President Kennedy with the true conspiracy that led to the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Learn the characteristics that indicate a conspiracy theory is unlikely to be true.

13. Inside the Modern Cult: See how the power of belief and other strong psychological forces can override the rational mind and lead people to become members of cults. Learn the many characteristics that define a cult, from veneration of a leader to isolation from friends and family, then examine Heaven’s Gate as a case study for a modern cult.

14. The Psychology of Religious Belief: Investigate the issues of God, morality, and the afterlife through the eyes of a skeptic. Why do so many people across cultures believe in some form of God? What role do evolution and our cultural history play in the tendency to be religious? Look at dramatic parallels in the mythology of one religion to another as you consider the many cultural and historical factors that go into the world's religions and their varying beliefs about God.

15. The God Question: The question of God's existence has plagued humanity since ancient times, but it’s no less important a topic for skeptics to consider today. Using the Christian conception of God, examine the best arguments for and against his existence and judge the answer for yourself.

16. Without God, Does Anything Go?: If we hypothesize that God does not exist, is morality as we know it null and void? Consider why humans are and should be moral, independent from religion and an all-knowing God. Delve into the evolutionary theory of morality through a discussion of the Natural Law theory, the cross-cultural endorsement of the Golden Rule throughout history, and evidence of pre-moral sentiments in animals and how these gave rise to real moral emotions in humans.

17. Life, Death, and the Afterlife: Polls show that the vast majority of people believe in an afterlife. In this last lecture on science and religion, learn the primary psychological reasons why this may be the case, and consider the dualistic nature of most religions, where the soul is separate from the body. Explore biological explanations for near-death experiences-and why the events seem so real to people who report having them.

18. Your Skeptical Toolkit: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Explore this skeptic’s motto and assemble a “skeptical toolkit” of general principles that you can use for what the late great astronomer and skeptic Carl Sagan called “the fine art of baloney detection." Conclude with two broad observations about science and skepticism that illustrate just how important these modes of thinking are to our lives and to our society.
(less)
flag13 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Jim
Feb 19, 2020Jim rated it really liked it
Shelves: 3lecture, 1audio, 2non-fiction, science
I hadn't connected Shermer with Skeptic Magazine, but I should have. I had a subscription for a year some years back. It was good, but pricey & I didn't have time to read it properly. Anyway, he's the guy that started it. He's been knocking down all sorts of bunk for a long time. He mentions quite a bit of it in his lectures. I don't know how he manages to actually hang around with some of these nut jobs. Might be that he is one himself since he was in the first & several other runnings of the Race Across America, a 3000 mile bike race. My crotch hurts just thinking about it.

The lectures are well done. Nothing earth shattering, but just a very good overview of how to think properly & skeptically. He's a good speaker & makes his points well. The Table of Contents says the rest pretty much. It's from the PDF that accompanied the course. I didn't need to refer to it very often. I'll just put in a few notes, mostly further suggested reading. Highly recommended.

LECTURE 1
The Virtues of Skepticism ...................................................................4
LECTURE 2
Skepticism and Science ...................................................................11
He never mentions William Kingdon Clifford or The Ethics of Belief! Incredible since he's practically recreated the text in the first 2 lectures.
LECTURE 3
Mistakes in Thinking We All Make ....................................................20
LECTURE 4
Cognitive Biases and Their Effects ...................................................28
I recommend reading Brain Bugs: How the Brain's Flaws Shape Our Lives, too. It goes into more detail.
LECTURE 5
Wrong Thinking in Everyday Life ......................................................37
LECTURE 6
The Neuroscience of Belief ..............................................................45

Up to this point, he's shown just how flawed our thinking & memories are. He's also pointed out the correct methods for determining the facts or thinking like a scientist. From this point on, he starts taking on the major areas where people get fooled & showing how.

LECTURE 7
The Paranormal and the Supernatural .............................................53
LECTURE 8
Science versus Pseudoscience .......................................................62
LECTURE 9
Comparing SETI and UFOlogy .........................................................70
LECTURE 10
Comparing Evolution and Creationism .............................................79
LECTURE 11
Science, History, and Pseudohistory ................................................87
LECTURE 12
The Lure of Conspiracy Theories .....................................................95
LECTURE 13
Inside the Modern Cult ...................................................................102
LECTURE 14
The Psychology of Religious Belief ................................................111
LECTURE 15
The God Question ..........................................................................119
LECTURE 16
Without God, Does Anything Go?...................................................127
LECTURE 17
Life, Death, and the Afterlife ...........................................................135
LECTURE 18
Your Skeptical Toolkit......................................................................143

If this lecture is too long, the Debunking Handbook by John Cook is only 6 pages long & available for free from SkepticalScience.com. I read it a couple of years ago & gave it 5 stars. (less)
flag11 likes · Like  · 4 comments · see review
Ivonne Rovira
Mar 21, 2016Ivonne Rovira rated it really liked it
Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society and editor-in-chief of its magazine Skeptic, has written the book on skepticism — literally now, with Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist, a series of lectures on science, pseudoscience, and the in-between. He does the same service for history, pseudo-history, and historical revisionism. I was fortunate enough to listen to these lectures on the Audible edition released by The Teaching Company.

Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist doesn’t quite measure up to Shermer’s excellent The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense, with which it shares some material. However, readers will find the lectures a surprisingly entertaining read and definitely worth it.
(less)
flag6 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Bevan Lewis
May 31, 2017Bevan Lewis rated it really liked it
Excellent introduction to the skeptical way of viewing the world. Open minded people will enjoy this presentation which provides.a useful toolset for understanding the world. With ever greater numbers of charlatans and odd beliefs along with a deteriorating media (to mediate news, not that they're always perfect!) this kind of education is really important. Highly recommended (less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Gendou
Apr 25, 2015Gendou rated it it was amazing
Shelves: non-fiction, skepticism
These lectures are like an extended edition of Shermer's book Why People Believe Weird Things. I particularly liked the chapter on arguments for and against god. Spoiler alert, the against arguments are way more convincing. (less)
flag2 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Xin
Dec 13, 2020Xin rated it did not like it
A lousy attempt to use the name of skepticism to stamp out any political or scientific skepticism. I couldn’t believe that the study of scientific methods, the science of the sciences, a philosophy to encourage ppl to think science more as a theory that needs periodic revolutionary restarts, has deteriorated into a pendantic tool that tells a student of science they can only think in one way but not in any another, a tool that the professor used favorably and constantly to “disprove” political rumors about Obama and Romney, degrading the “conspiracy theorists” who believe there might be an alternative truth to what’s presented by MSM or attacking religion in general. Also the teacher quotes “statistically speaking” all the time but fails to successfully display any grasp of knowledge of Bayesian thinking. The teacher’s “scientific standards” of thinking show his own lack of deep understanding of mathematics/statistics which is the foundation of all sciences.

Don’t listen to this. If you have time, read Kuhn’s original writings, or some introductory book on statistical or Bayesian thinking. Dude is a fake. Strong disrecommend. He is a true anti-skeptic, use the name of skepticism to stamp out and demean any one who dares to voice any skepticism against “well-accepted” scientific “truths”, and refuses to think inside the box laid out by their peers, the “experts” and society. Be aware. Don’t be fooled.

Enjoy your own unconventional thinking. Always seek out an angle or a perspective that no one has tried before. No matter how crazy it sounds. Riemann refused to think inside the box, challenged the core beliefs of Euclidean geometry and came up with a brand new form of mathematics, which was the mathematical foundation of Einstein's theories of relativity. Einstein was not a great mathematician who invented a whole new branch of mathematics to describe the world in the way he needed, but he had a mathematician friend who had heard of Riemann's work and didn't think he was crazy. This is why ppl always said that great mathematicians and physicists produce their best work before they are 35, when they're still at the peak of their creativity (or when they are too inexperienced to be boxed in by orthodox thinking or too rebellious to think only in the way they are told to).

Enjoy your creativity. Enjoy your independent individualistic thinking. That's what makes this world so beautiful! Don’t ever let other people’s skepticism stop you, no matter how “scientific” they claim themselves to be. (less)
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review
Xavier
Dec 13, 2019Xavier rated it really liked it
Shelves: audiobook, science, philosophy, non-fiction, library, fighting-false-info, great-courses
How important it is think critically and to question everything. It's okay to say, "I don't know. Let me do some research and get back to you." It's okay not to know everything and to ask questions. Look at both sides of the argument and come to your own conclusions but keep in mind that a new piece of information may arise and completely change your view. To pursue knowledge and understanding is to swim in a river with a gentle current -- it's always in flux and a new scene will present itself around every bend. To think like a scientist is to constantly ask and receive answers, to do research and experimentation to come to a conclusion, always learning something new. A static mind doesn't grow.

The teacher of this course Mr. Shermer seems to be a big fan of the poetic scientist Carl Sagan and so he will find a good friend in me! He mentions how some of those who are pious will make the claim that skeptics and scientists lack spirituality. I'll quote Mr. Sagan who can put it more eloquently than I ever could,

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”

If that doesn't evoke some emotion in both the religious and the atheistic, I don't know what will. (less)
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review
Bremer
Oct 31, 2020Bremer added it
A skeptic will believe in an idea when there is sufficient evidence for that idea being true. Until then, depending on the quality of evidence and the probability of that idea’s truth, a skeptic will either suspend their judgement or lack a belief in such an idea.

Skeptics are open to many diverse—even seemingly paradoxical—ideas, but they will not accept those ideas as being true until there is empirical evidence and logic, which supports those ideas.

People who are intelligent and well-educated can still believe in strange, illogical ideas.

Just because a person is smart in one area doesn’t mean that they are smart in another. People are prone to believing in many superstitious ideas like ghosts and fortune telling, elusive fairies and demons and telepathy, knocking on wood for good luck, and peeing on a wart for its removal.

Smart people not only can believe in strange ideas, but they often argue for their beliefs much better than the average person, rationalizing for their side, while being resistant to any counter arguments.

Often someone will claim a supernatural event happened to them, such as one of their dreams predicting a future event, while ignoring all those times when their premonitions did not occur.

It is normal to remember a significant event while ignoring an insignificant event.

Such events, which may feel personally unique, may occur regularly in a probabilistic sense. All insignificant events, however, are often not accounted for, when considering the totality of such events. The hits are recorded but the misses are not.

Science is a method that leads to provisional conclusions. The scientific method aims at objectivity under external validation. Science is based on rational thought and logic and evidence.

There is a tension in science between skepticism and credulity. For paradigm shifts to occur in the field, scientists need to be willing to challenge established views. They need to criticize the cherished beliefs of civilization as well.

What distinguishes science from pseudoscience is the validity of each claim, the consistency of those claims with other theories, the quality of the evidence presented, the ability of each claim to be tested, and so on.

It is important to be rigorous when investigating claims because people are deeply flawed thinkers, prone to biases, misconceptions, and perceptual mistakes.

Many people are seduced by compelling anecdotes while never considering the evidence behind those anecdotes. Anecdotes are not data, no matter how many people believe in them, unless they are backed by sufficient evidence.

The burden of proof is on those who make claims rather than on those who do not agree with the claims presented. One doesn’t have to disprove every story invented.

When confronted with claims, a skeptical person should look for sound reasoning. It is all too common for proponents of a belief to argue on irrational, self-contradictory grounds, based on enthusiasm and tradition and appeals to emotion.

One fallacy that individuals use is the argument from ignorance. They may say that if they or anyone else cannot explain X, then their proposed explanation must be true. It is much more rational to say “I don’t know” than to assume a conclusion.

Another fallacy comes from equating correlation to causation. The human mind naturally seeks relationships and patterns. At the same time, many events may be coincidental, or probable, but not necessarily connected.

Often during heated arguments, people use ad hominem fallacies. They insult their opponents rather than addressing their arguments directly.

Even if such insults are true, that still doesn’t invalidate the other person’s argument. An ad hominem argument, rather than dealing with the substance of the argument, acts to distract.

Along with these fallacies, among others, people have cognitive biases.

Many biases aren’t conscious.

Individuals look for ideas that confirm their belief systems while filtering out, neglecting, and ignoring contrary evidence.

They may form conspiracies about past events once they’ve been given the benefit of hindsight.

They may justify poor choices with rationalizations while ignoring any opposing evidence.

It is common for individuals to consider their views to be rational. They will see their opponents, however, as emotional.

There are many cognitive biases such as trusting in authorities only because they are authorities, generalizing a trait of one person to all people of that same group, and focusing on negative ideas much more than positive ideas.

Scientists are as prone to wrong thinking and biases as everyone else. That is why there needs to be a rigorous standard for evidence.

People have evolved to find patterns, even when there are none, and look for threats, even when none exist.

Scientific thinkers must be able to distinguish what is real from what is an illusion, while not being seduced by the appearance of patterns.

It’s normal for people to ascribe agency to natural patterns (like the constellations) and find great significance in probability (like a pair of dice landing on the same number three times in a row).

When something that is unexplained, mysterious, or unknown gains validity through evidence, it will eventually be incorporated into science. Ideas that cannot be tested, or analyzed, under peer-reviewed standards, will still be considered unknown, meaningless, or unexplained, until there is reason and evidence in support of them.

Science is a method that filters good ideas from bad ideas. It is a long, self-correcting process.

Even the most obvious, ordinary, basic phenomena, which are assumed as true by most people, must still undergo the same amount of scrutiny as the wildest ideas. Even ideas that appear to have evidentiary support, overtime, may be falsified. Superior models may replace outdated models, new evidence may challenge an existing paradigm.

With so many claims about what reality is, it is important to be skeptical. As Carl Sagan, a famous scientist and public educator and author, once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Scientists don’t have the burden of proof to disprove every idea. It is up to those who make positive assertions to prove themselves.

At the same time, scientific thinkers must be aware of the vast number of biases that interfere with how people determine what evidence is credible. Hindsight bias, confirmation bias, and other such biases, affect all people to a degree. Science is a method that cuts down on these biases overtime.

No scientific principles are absolute. All scientific principles must be tested and theories must lead to predictable results. It is important to question what is seen as acceptable and challenge the premises for any given conclusion.

Claims about reality should always be taken as false, meaningless, or unknown, until those claims gain enough evidence in support of them being true. Then they should be accepted tentatively. They may later be shown to be outdated, false, limited, full of errors, and so on.

Not all claims are created equal. Many claims are often misperceptions, misconceptions, hallucinations, lies, manipulations to serve ideological motives, speculations, opinions, untestable ideas, and so on, and so on.

Those who believe in irrational ideas can influence not only themselves, but those around them. They can form groups, which are destructive to the well-being of others. Their groups can create divisions in society, where the out-group is seen as less than human. Groups tend to conform to in-group values, while being hostile to outsiders.

They will listen to authorities that support their views, even when those authorities are wrong. Eloquent speakers can persuade uncritical people to follow them, even when their words are manipulations.

People can be convinced of outlandish ideas. Even smart people can fool themselves. There are no exceptions.

It is common for humans to believe in supernatural events because humans are hardwired to be social creatures, to feel good when they believe in transcendent ideas, following what those in their closest environments follow. There may even be a genetic predisposition toward believing in supernatural ideas, inherited from past ancestors. Culture then shapes what is passed down, providing a structure for what is already there.

People are natural-born believers. While it is crucial for individuals to be open to the unknown, to novelty and a future of what could be, they must not be so open that they neglect to critically think about issues that affect their well-being and the well-being of others.

To be duped into joining cults and stupid fads, into voting for politicians who promote disastrous policies for the environment, to be fooled into ordering sham products, donating life savings to charlatans, and wasting years on false solutions, while spreading misinformation to those who are nearest, is not only unwise.

It may ultimately be dangerous.
(less)
flagLike  · comment · see review
Tom
Feb 02, 2015Tom rated it it was ok
Fell short on the "how" part of the subtitle. Most of the time was on the author's view on specific topics. However much I might agree with the position he takes on the topics, it does not address the how... how does one overcome these natural human fallacies in logic. Identification of logic fallacies and how to overcome them are different learning objectives. I wanted the latter and was therefore disappointed (less)
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review
John
May 10, 2016John rated it liked it
This was kind of fun and definitely brought up some good points, but the author was very clearly heavily to the left, which shows several times throughout the book (who ever heard of a liberal professor!?). In itself that isn't bad, but when you're trying to promote critical thinking, it should be done so from a politically neutral stance.

3/5 (less)
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review
Russ
Mar 29, 2016Russ rated it did not like it
I usually like the courses from the Great Courses. This one would be better titled as I Hate Religion and you're stupid for believing in God. Any relevant or useful information could have been provided in a much shorter format. (less)
flag1 like · Like  · see review
Dave
Apr 04, 2018Dave rated it it was ok
Shelves: gave-up-on, other-non-fiction, audio
Having listened to Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking (Great Courses by Steven Novella), I did not find this to be nearly as useful.

If you are considering this set of lectures, I suggest that you try Your Deceptive Mind.
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review
Natalie
Nov 13, 2018Natalie rated it really liked it
Important skills to have in the world of fake news.
Also really interesting to learn how some of our natural assumptions evolved and why we have them.
flag1 like · Like  · see review
Laura
Mar 03, 2020Laura rated it it was ok
Useful information, but I found his monist, materialist assumptions had too much influence.
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review
Budi Arsana
Jun 12, 2020Budi Arsana rated it did not like it
The quality is not what i expected from the great course series. And content have too much cites from other sources.
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review
Bart
Apr 12, 2021Bart rated it liked it
An interesting take on skepticism. However, this is more an addendum to “The Demon-Haunted World” by Ann Druyan and Carl Sagan rather than a separate position.
In many places, the author is oversimplifying things too much but on the other hand, provides discussion on the currently most popular disbelief in the world.

For instance, he presents the concepts of creationism and intelligent design in a sort of straw man fashion, by quickly summarizing it all as being a part of the supernatural, so unexplainable and therefore, unscientific.

Nevertheless, I do like his take on conspiracies vs. conspiracy theories and how easily manipulated people can be about those things. He also shares some wisdom re: the practical ways of being a skeptic at the end of the series. I do think that part should have been more emphasized with more time and detail. It felt a bit rushed. (less)
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review
Chris Boutté
Dec 24, 2020Chris Boutté rated it it was amazing
A while back, when I first became interested in the subjects of skepticism and critical thinking, I picked up a Michael Shermer book and didn't like it. That was about a year ago, and after reading numerous other books on the subjects, his name kept coming up, so I decided to give him another try, and he blew me away. I'm officially a fan after going through his Skepticism 101 course. He is extremely well-versed on why people believe in the supernatural and paranormal, and he has great strategies for scientific thinking. I'm super excited that I gave his work another chance because he has a ton of books that I can't wait to read. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review
Angie Boyter
Dec 30, 2020Angie Boyter rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
If you are new to this subject, you will probably enjoy this course more than my husband and I did. We listened to this course over lunches, one lecture per meal, and it was as entertaining as the radio would have been, although we were tempted to cut a couple of the lectures short. It was well presented, and there were some interesting examples and a few insights ,but for someone who has read a bit on the subject already, e.g., Dan Ariely, there is nothing new here.
In addition, there is not as much reference to scientific method as one might expect. There are a lot of references to scientific studies, however, like the Milgram study, which would be quite interesting if you do not already know them.
A minor but annoying flaw, surprising in someone like Shermer, who does a lot of public cpeaking, is his frequent (often multipl per lecture) mispronunciation of words. Admittedly, I am sometimes unsure how to pronounce a term I have only read, but if I were going to use the term in lectures, I would take the trouble to learn the proper pronunciation. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review
Graeme Roberts
Feb 06, 2018Graeme Roberts rated it it was amazing
This Great Courses audiobook is excellent. Michael Shermer is meticulously balanced and courteous in explaining scientific thinking and how to apply it to contentious issues. Ironically, no one who believes in conspiracy theories, attends seances, denies the existence of the Holocaust, or believes in UFOs will ever listen to it. It will help the rest of us, however. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review
Posted by at
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)