![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer
Foreword by Stephen Jay Gould
Started to reread this. But the author asserts rather than proves, especially annoying in a book that purports to teach that one needs reliable proof to believe something. On page 27 one finds the following sentence. "Shouldn't we know by now that the laws of science prove that ghosts cannot exist?" I followed up by reading every other reference to ghosts in the index. On 28-29 the author compares ghosts to mental abstractions such as the law of gravity. I didn't find this especially convincing since it only addressed the false proposition that the law of gravity didn't exist before Newton named it. Page 33 continues this false dichotomy with an assertion that ghosts have never been confirmed to any extent. But to make this statement one should explain what would constitute confirmation. For example, if I am trying to prove that Vitamin D is essential to mammalian life, I need to assert something like "the rate of illness in the experimental group will be significantly higher than that in the control group." Or, if I am trying to establish that an endangered species has made a comeback, I could specify what evidence: den sites, evidence of feeding, excrement, actual sightings or photographs from trail cameras, dead specimens in the excrement or stomach contents of prey animals, I would expect to find. On page 55 the author notes that mundane explanations for odd noises should be ruled out before concluding that the noises are evidence of ghosts. Well, I don't know of any reputable paranormal investigator who doesn't do just that. Is there a highway or train track nearby that would explain noises or lights? is there an ill-fitting window to explain cold spots? is there a likelihood of a person faking evidence? But what, pray tell, is the scientific law that rules out the existence of unknown types of energy or substances? If we grant that radio waves existed before we developed radios what makes it _impossible_ for ghosts to exist in the absence of an ectoplasmeter? I suppose there may be such a law, but the author expects us to take it on faith. Ironic.
Foreword by Stephen Jay Gould
Started to reread this. But the author asserts rather than proves, especially annoying in a book that purports to teach that one needs reliable proof to believe something. On page 27 one finds the following sentence. "Shouldn't we know by now that the laws of science prove that ghosts cannot exist?" I followed up by reading every other reference to ghosts in the index. On 28-29 the author compares ghosts to mental abstractions such as the law of gravity. I didn't find this especially convincing since it only addressed the false proposition that the law of gravity didn't exist before Newton named it. Page 33 continues this false dichotomy with an assertion that ghosts have never been confirmed to any extent. But to make this statement one should explain what would constitute confirmation. For example, if I am trying to prove that Vitamin D is essential to mammalian life, I need to assert something like "the rate of illness in the experimental group will be significantly higher than that in the control group." Or, if I am trying to establish that an endangered species has made a comeback, I could specify what evidence: den sites, evidence of feeding, excrement, actual sightings or photographs from trail cameras, dead specimens in the excrement or stomach contents of prey animals, I would expect to find. On page 55 the author notes that mundane explanations for odd noises should be ruled out before concluding that the noises are evidence of ghosts. Well, I don't know of any reputable paranormal investigator who doesn't do just that. Is there a highway or train track nearby that would explain noises or lights? is there an ill-fitting window to explain cold spots? is there a likelihood of a person faking evidence? But what, pray tell, is the scientific law that rules out the existence of unknown types of energy or substances? If we grant that radio waves existed before we developed radios what makes it _impossible_ for ghosts to exist in the absence of an ectoplasmeter? I suppose there may be such a law, but the author expects us to take it on faith. Ironic.
