World Famous Comics: Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown
Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown
By: Michael Shermer Publisher: Holt Paperbacks Average Rating: Binding: Paperback Label: Holt Paperbacks Number of Items: 1 Number of Pages: 336 Publication Date: December 27, 2005 Release Date: December 27, 2005
“Michael Shermer has given a lot of things a lot of thought. If your perceptions have ever rubbed you the wrong way, you’ll find Science Friction fascinating.” —Bill Nye, The Science Guy
A scientist pretends to be a psychic for a day—and fools everyone. An athlete discovers that good-luck rituals and getting into “the zone” may, or may not, improve his performance. A son explores the possiblities of alternative and experimental medicine for his cancer-ravaged mother. And a skeptic realizes that it is time to turn the skeptical lens onto science itself.
In each of the fourteen essays in Science Friction, bestselling author Michael Shermer explores the very personal barriers and biases that plague and propel science, especially when scientists push against the unknown. What do we know and what do we not know? How does science respond to controversy, attack, and uncertainty? When does theory become accepted fact? As always, Shermer delivers a thought-provoking, fascinating, and entertaining view of life in the scientific age.
“Meaty accounts [and] entertaining discussion . . . well worth having.” —The Washington Post Book World
“[Shermer’s] main obsession is the truth . . . Amateur skeptics will learn from his matter-of-fact dismissals of astrology and creationism.” —Psychology Today
A Condescending Bore I bought this book hoping for something akin to Penn and Teller's B******t. I like to think of myself as a skeptical thinker and was hoping to see these psychics and televangelists get a little comeuppance but all I got was a guy who is way too enamored with himself and his chosen profession. I am not religious by any means but I found his constant carping against religion tiring. I wouldn't mind if it were a matter of merely pointing out the con men that use religion for their own purpose but you start to lose my interest when you generalize everyone in a group and than start the name calling. Pretty petty for a man of science I thought . I know several smart compassionate people who also happen to be religious just as I know smart compassionate atheists. As far as I'm concerned it's not religion that causes conflict but the "my group is right" mentality of all special interest groups. I wasn't expecting to be recruited to the Brights movement. Speaking of which, there was way too much discussion on the naming of the Bright movement and I can't help but think this would only be interesting to a Bright.
I think I could have lived with the God bashing if there had at least been something interesting here. In one chapter Shermer attacks historians for using other than comparative, scientific methods. He sites "Germs, Guns and Steel" by Jared Diamond but I was never sure to what effect. I was confused as to whether he was agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions. I have read Diamond's book and it seemed to me Shermer was drawing the same conclusions but presenting it as a wholly original idea proving his point. Or maybe I just didn't understand what he was talking about. This book is definitely not laymen friendly (in my case anyway). I'm not a scientist but I do pride myself on being able to follow technical writing but several of the essays here are presented in a dry fashion and I had a hard time holding my attention. He reminds me of the boorish know it all at a cocktail party you can't wait to get away from.
There are several examples I could site of what seems to be the basic problem I had with this book and that is the idea that he and science are right and everyone else is wrong. In one chapter, Shermer takes historians to task for not using objective methods when evaluating events of the past. Science he assures us is the only way to the truth because it is completely objective, implying that no scientist has ever skewed data to reach the conclusion he or she wanted or needed. For someone who prides himself on being a skeptic that doesn't seem like very critical thinking to me.
average at best, but an easy and enjoyable read I'll be brief here. The book is alright, and as someone who is interested in science and the philosophy of science, I had fun reading it. I'm not a scientist but I found the book to be a little too simplistic. Shermer is no scientist either, and its appearant from some of the writing and examinations of various scientific concepts; it's obvious that the author is written by a non-scientist. The book is just a collection of some 12 or 13 essays about various scientific (sometimes barely) issues. Many of these are simply defending/asserting very obvious points that are easily recognized by most people, things like the rejection of creationism as a science, the importance of skepticism, etc. He does a good job on these. However, there are a handful of chapters in which Shermer tries to scientify history, discern patterns, and just generally make the case for greater quantification of history. His attempts to do so are incredibly absurd. He claims to apply chaos theory as well as evolutionary biology to historical periods, and from this application he arrives at a handful of truisms that most gradeschoolers recognize. We should keep in mind that evolutionary biology, and chaos math especially, are very strict scientific fields. There isn't a way to apply the postulates and principles of these fields directly to a subject like history. So what he actually does is to take the broad implications of the scientific fields and tweak them so they become somewhat applicable to society and human interaction. The approach is incredibly silly on a number of levels, beginning with the premise itself. Why does he apply chaos theory and evolutionary biology towards studying history, why not string theory or the implications of general relativity? Equally silly are his arbitrary selections of eras in history to which he applies his "model". I suppose I understand what he is TRYING to do, which is argue that fields like history could stand to be more concise if we were to consider a scientific, meaning strong deterministic explanations for why events take place in history. This has been done pretty well before (Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for example). These essays in science friction however fall miserably short of success. Unfortunately, Shermer's honest attempt to make history more scientific was betrayed by a highly irrational methodology. The attempt strikes me as fairly naive, but oh well.
Great except for one chapter Shermer blows away many common myths and exposes the way our faulty thinking gets us in trouble, It is similar to Eric Hoffer's book, "The True Believer," as a psychological explanation of why we cling to certain beliefs. I would give it five stars except that one chapter on his personal family encounter with death seems out-of-context and sappy.
Esoteric Collection of Essays There are two kinds of people in the world; those who question what they see and hear and those who prefer to leave the contemplation to others. Society is a delicate balance between these two forces. Too much faith in conventional wisdom can lead to stagnation while too much questioning can lead to paralysis by analysis and chaos. What Michael Shermer does is try to encourage healthy skepticism without such excessive skepticism that we can't draw conclusions. Mr. Shermer quotes Paul Kurtz saying, "If there are any lessons to be learned from history, it is that we should be skeptical of all points of view, including those of the skeptics"
As the founder of Skeptic magazine Michael Shermer knows a little something about skepticism. In fact Mr. Shermer along James (The Amazing) Randi and Martin Gardner have essentially created a new skeptic movement. The Skeptic philosophy is a non-partisan, scientific movement using the tools of logic and the scientific method to determine the truth or falsity of claims both large and small. Skeptic targets range from New Age mysticism to fundamentalist Creationism to Holocaust deniers.
Mr. Shermer goes beyond analysis and sees science as the next stage in the evolution of morality beyond organized religion stating that, "What we really need is a new set of morals and an ethical system designed for our time and place, not one scripted for a pastoral/agricultural people who live 4000 years ago". Later he states that, "Just as science has been our candle in the dark illuminating our path into the heart of human nature, science is our greatest hope for the future, showing us how best we can utilize our natures to ensure our survival." I'm not sure that science is quite up to the task of defining morality but I do agree that it holds a better chance than fundamentalist Christianity.
Science Friction is a collection of articles written by Mr. Shermer so don't expect any overarching theme. The articles range from an ill-advised attempt by a group of atheists, agnostics and progressives to label themselves as `Brights' to an analysis of the true cause of the mutiny on the bounty. As a long time reader of Skeptic magazine I have to warn other readers that you may find many of the chapters in Science Friction very familiar. The chapters range from breezy and readable to extremely dense as in the chapter `Exorcising Laplace's Demon'. I have to say that I prefer the books of Martin Gardner but Mr. Shermer is a fine heir apparent to the king of debunking.
Fact or Friction? I like science writers because of their obvious intelligence and (usually) great writing skills. Shermer is more that a great writer. He is a skeptic, a rationalist and humanist; he is also what one might call a member of the NPR crowd - white, educated, well-to-do, secular and left of center. He has faults and prejudices as do we all but in the end he has penned a fascinating collection of "fireside chats".
While the style and tone remain static the subject matter is joyfully varied - ranging from reviews to biography to lists to revelation. It is hard to choose a "best" when so many are fine. The article on Stephen Jay Gould has aroused about as much controversy as Gould himself. His (Gould not Shermer) real crime was suggesting that Darwin's explanation was not the last word on the matter and there might even be an error or two in his findings. The deification of Darwin, replete with quotes biographical allusions and even the old "What did Darwin say?" is solidifying into a new quasi- religion.
What drives Shermer is not science per se but the history and philosophy of science. The article on "lists" of people and events was entertaining. Perhaps the best was the story of clashes in anthropology and how revisionism and ideology affect our judgement. The author is clearly in the "progressive" camp and makes the common mistake of overstating the danger in ID and fundamentalism (the vast majority of people on Earth reject evolution and we're doing just fine. After all, we have the right to be wrong in America.)
Several personal tales are here - from his days as a student and evangelical Christian to his growing interest in science and skepticism. They range from the sublime,the death of his mother by cancer, to the absurd, the hilarious episode when certain intellectuals renamed themselves "Brights" with all the resulting bad publicity that anyone with an atom of sense could have predicted. The breakdown of the book makes it a perfect candidate for "bathroom reading". Get it
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Trevor
