Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown

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.

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

Being a sceptic takes courage. Scepticism means assaulting dogmas - read "entrenched stupidity" - and coping with the reaction. Shermer, who puts his scepticism on public view in his magazine, isn't lacking courage. With a flair for investigative journalism and a fine prose style to render results into words, he is always an informative and entertaining read. This collection of his articles is a delight, unmarred by the passage of time. Each one addresses a topic of enduring interest, guaranteeing a "read again" condition for these essays for some time to come. Shermer displays his mettle up front by taking up roles in performing in the "paranormal". He "reads" Tarot cards, palms of hands and the stars. All of these experiments demonstrate the gullibility of those too inept or too lazy to learn how hollow these techniques really are. Why people believe such phenomena can answer the problems of everyday life remains one of our great mysteries. Shermer isn't addressing these topics from an "intellectual high ground" but from real experience. In his youth he was a Christian, buying into all the contrived legends and empty myths that superstition perpetuates. Discovering reality, he abandoned the trappings of deceptive teachings and struck out against them - all of them. This collection of essays isn't only a display of his experiences, it's ammunition we may all use in dealing with other misleading or manipulative teachings. As a collection of writings on various topics, this book is naturally difficult to categorise. He discusses the difficulties the "secular humanists" endured with the creation of The Brights. The Brights are an attempt to coalesce the various non-theists in our society. While the name is logical, especially given its true meaning, American society has granted it the rank of a slur on those who refuse to accept easy dogmas. Essays on "heresies of science" and "spin-doctoring science" are a depressing indication of how the public lacks understanding of what science does and has done. If a particular column must be selected as noteworthy, it's Shermer's discussion of the Cancer in the Classroom, "intelligent design". Although much has been written on this insidious threat from Christians attempting to destroy scientific education, Shermer's essay "The New New Creationism" is an excellent overview. He summarises the history and tactics of the movement, recognising that only reality can counter it. Understanding of reality comes through education. It's a vicious circle. Shermer concludes the collection with an adulatory essay on Stephen J. Gould. It's almost embarrassing to read. Shermer recounts John Maynard Smith's assessment that Gould's ideas were "so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with". Although intending to praise Gould, Shermer then goes on to prove Maynard Smith correct. Following the US academic theme of "publish or perish", Shermer does his sums - even to the level of word count. H

This may be a bit esoteric for the general reader, but for those with more than a passing interest in science and its struggles with both the true believers from without and the heretics from within, this is a first class read. Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer addresses the friction within science in 14 well polished essays ranging in subject matter from playing psychic for a day to what to call rational skeptics to an in-depth look at the work of the late Stephan Jay Gould. Ten of the essays previously appeared in Skeptic or other magazines or journals. Shermer's style reminds me somewhat of Gould himself since both men write readable prose that sometimes tends toward the ornate, replete with allusions and asides as well as a tendency toward a fine examination of relevant minutia. I was in particular somewhat surprised and amused at Shermer's lengthy, but fascinating treatment of the controversy over skeptics calling themselves "Brights" (Chapter 2, "The Big 'Bright' Brouhaha"). It seems that while fussing over whether the cause of rational skepticism is being held back by the lack of an agreeable label to pin on practitioners, somebody came up with the tag "Brights." Oh boy. Shermer and others embraced the term enthusiastically. However, one doesn't need a PhD in human psychology to realize that some people ("dims"?) might find the label arrogant and delusive. Turns out that most rational skeptics themselves rejected the term, and I presume it is now as dead as the dodo--however not before Shermer and others gave it more than the good old college try. It would appear that as objective as one can be about the self-serving delusions of others, when it comes to ourselves, we sometimes can't find a mirror anywhere in the house. My suggestion is to live with the term "skeptic" or "rationalist" and realize that as such we will forever remain a minority within the human community--although I did kind of like the suggested term "eclectic" and think it appropriate and agreeable to wear although its meaning is not precisely descriptive of what a rational skeptic is or should be. One idea that appears in depth in this book is what Shermer, whose doctorate is in the history of science, sometimes calls "contingent-necessity." One recalls that Gould often spoke of contingence in evolution and famously remarked that if the earth's history were played out again, chances are we wouldn't be here. Certainly the mass extinction that killed off the dinosaurs is an example of the kind of contingency he had in mind. But Shermer takes the reader further and explains that "History is a product of contingencies (what might have been) and necessities (what had to be)." (p. 155) He gives a number of examples to explain what he means. The QWERTY typewriter keyboard arrangement can be seen as an example of a contingency that we got stuck with (pp. 138-140), while the keyboard itself was more or less a necessity. Shermer goes on to explore the phe

I devoured this book in two days. If you subscribe to Skeptic Magazine you've probably seen some of this before (Psychic For a Day), but aside from that, it's great stuff. Some have commented that the book is a little dry but I think the mix of data and personal narrative is about right.