Why People Believe Weird Things
About the book
In this age of supposed scientific enlightenment, many people still believe in mind reading, past-life regression theory, New Age hokum, and alien abduction. A no-holds-barred assault on popular superstitions and prejudices, with more than 80,000 copies in print, Why People Believe Weird Things debunks these nonsensical claims and explores the very human reasons people find otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories, and cults so appealing. In an entirely new chapter, “Why Smart People Believe in Weird Things,” Michael Shermer takes on science luminaries like physicist Frank Tippler and others, who hide their spiritual beliefs behind the trappings of science.
Shermer, science historian and true crusader, also reveals the more dangerous side of such illogical thinking, including Holocaust denial, the recovered-memory movement, the satanic ritual abuse scare, and other modern crazes. Why People Believe Weird Things is an eye-opening resource for the most gullible among us and those who want to protect them.
“Humans are pattern-seeking story-telling animals, and we are quite adept at telling stories about patterns, whether they exist or not.”
―
―
“There are many sources of spirituality; religion may be the most common, but it is by no means the only. Anything that generates a sense of awe may be a source of spirituality. Science does this in spades.”
―
―
―
"This
page is quoted
from chapter three of Michael Shermer's book Why People Believe Weird
Things. The chapter, titled How Thinking Goes Wrong, contains a list of
"Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things". These 25
Fallacies cover nearly every aspect of how non-skeptics, non-critical
thinkers, pseudoscientists, and yes, even scientists, fail in their
thinking processes and end up accepting conclusions based on incorrect
assertions and false logic. Also presented are Hume's Maxim and
Spinoza's Dictum, both important tools used in critical thinking."
From Why People Believe Weird Things
Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness
(Nor does perceived "persecution" Gerry, Dave, Bob, Ron and all you minor players who believe weird, self centered and deviant theology)
"They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. Yes, well, they laughed at the Marx brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right. Wilhelm Reich compared himself to Peer Gynt, the unconventional genius out of step with society, and misunderstood and ridiculed as a heretic until proven right: "Whatever you have done to me or will do to me in the future, whether you glorify me as a genius or put me in a mental institution, whether you adore me as your savior or hang me as a spy, sooner or later necessity will force you to comprehend that I have discovered the laws of living" (in Gardner 1952, p.259). Reprinted in the January/February 1996 issue of the Journal of Historical Review, the organ of Holocaust denial, is a famous quote from the nineteenth-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, which is quoted often by those on the margins: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident." But "all truth" does not pass through these stages. Lots of true ideas are accepted without ridicule or opposition, violent or otherwise. Einstein's theory of relativity was largely ignored until 1919, when experimental evidence proved him right. He was not ridiculed, and no one violently opposed his ideas. The Schopenhauer quote is just a rationalization, a fancy way for those who are ridiculed or violently opposed to say, "See, I must be right". Not so.
History is replete with tales of the lone scientist working in spite of his peers and flying in the face of the doctrines of his or her own field of study. Most of them turned out to be wrong and we do not remember their names. For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating a scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose "truths" never pass muster with other scientists. The scientific community cannot be expected to test every fantastic claim that comes along, especially when so many are logically inconsistent. If you want to do science, you have to learn to play the game of science. This involves getting to know the scientists in your field, exchanging data and ideas with colleagues informally, and formally presenting your results in conference papers, peer-reviewed journals, books, and the like."
Michael Shermer
Burden of Proof
Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
Michael Shermer
Bold Statements Do Not Make Claims True
"And yes Brethren...I am an Apostle"
Something is probably pseudoscientific if enormous claims are made for its power and veracity but supportive evidence is scarce as hen's teeth. L. Ron Hubbard, for example, opens his Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, with this statement: "The creation of Dianetics is a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to all his invention of the wheel and arch" (in Gardner 1952, p.263). Sexual energy guru Wilhelm Reich called his theory of Orgonomy "a revolution in biology and psychology comparable to the Copernican Revolution" (in Garnder 1952, p.259). I have a think file of papers and letters from obscure authors filled with such outlandish claims (I call it the "Theories of Everything" file). Scientists sometimes make this mistake, too, as we saw at 1:00 P.M., on March 23, 1989, when Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann held a press conference to announce to the world that they had made cold nuclear fusion work. Gary Taube's excellent book about the cold fusion debacle, appropriately named Bad Science (1993), thoroughly examines the implications of this incident. Maybe fifty years of physics will be proved wrong by one experiment, but don't throw out your furnace until that experiment has been replicated. The moral is that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinarily well-tested the evidence must be.
Michael Shermer
Unexplained Is Not Inexplicable
Many people are overconfident enough to think that if they cannot explain something, it must be inexplicable and therefore a true mystery of the paranormal. An amateur archeologist declares that because he cannot figure out how the pyramids were built, they must have been constructed by space aliens. Even those who are more reasonable at least think that if the experts cannot explain something, it must be inexplicable. Feats such as the bending of spoons, firewalking, or mental telepathy are often thought to be of a paranormal or mystical natures because most people cannot explain them. When they are explained, most people respond, "Yes, of course" or "That's obvious once you see it." Firewalking is a case in point. People speculate endlessly about supernatural powers over pain and heat, or mysterious brain chemicals that block pain and prevent burning. The simple explanation is that the capacity of light and fluffy coals to contain heat is very low, and the conductivity of heat from the light and fluffy coals to your feet is very poor. As long as you don't stand around on the coals, you will not get burned. (Think of a cake in a 450° oven. The air, the cake, and the pan are all at 450°F, but only the metal pan will burn your hand. Air has a very low heat capacity and also low conductivity, so you can put your hand in the oven long enough to touch the cake and pan. The heat capacity of the cake is a lot higher than air, but since it has low conductivity you can briefly touch it without getting burned. The metal pan has a heat capacity similar to the cake, but high conductivity too. If you touch it, you will get burned.) This is why magicians do not tell their secrets. Most of their tricks are, in principle, relatively simple (although many are extremely difficult to execute) and knowing the secret takes the magic out of the trick.
There are many genuine unsolved mysteries in the universe and it is okay to say, "We do not yet know but someday perhaps we will." The problem is that most of us find it more comforting to have certainty, even if it is premature, than to live with unsolved or unexplained mysteries.
Michael Shermer
29 comments:
Great article.
Come on Dennis!
Prove to me , without any shadow of a doubt, that the entire visible universe is NOT a "piece of lint" that is inside of some gigantic being's Belly Button?
Your can't prove that its not true , can you Dennis??
ERGO-- Dennis has indeed lost all credibility!
PS- I do wonder and meditate if the giant is either male or female. There are many genuine unsolved mysteries in the universe and it is okay to say, "We do not yet know but someday perhaps we will."
Here is how people like Shermer and Dennis discredit people who know more than they do.
Suppose they want to discredit person X. They just lump person X in with UFOs, witch doctors, morons, cheats, liars, and mental cases. Or with HWA, if they don't like HWA.
The burden of proof has to be shared equally. If not, the result is bandwagon reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. People who say otherwise are frauds.
The following quote from the article: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident." But "all truth" does not pass through these stages. Lots of true ideas are accepted without ridicule or opposition, violent or otherwise"; is in its essence the core thought of the COGs and their leaders.
On the inside of the greater COGs there is a majority acceptance of new "ideas" with only a few ridiculing or opposing. When the laity have a mindset that they are in the one "true" church, all new ideas coming down unto them are put into the picture frame of truth within the true church mindset.
On the outside, COG leader XYZ newest proclamation of truth is ridiculed and apposed by those not affiliated, but these men who head these COGs are not concerned, because in their minds they will be validated and their titleship(s) will be self evident in just a handful of years.
So in the present, whether "my" truth is peer reviewed or blindly accepted, the energy to protect and modify and advance that "truth" goes forward, because in the end, the COG leaders' mind is anchored to one thought; I was right and everybody else was wrong.
What Shermer won't tell you is how his friends in the establishment censor truth from their "scientific" publications. So, they control the "truth" by controlling what goes in the journals. There is plenty of evidence that this occurs, because many scientists complain of censorship for political purposes. So, the only way forward is sometimes outside the establishment.
What Anonymous won't tell you is how his friends in the church censor truth from their "theological" publications. So they control the "truth" by controlling what goes in the publications. There is plenty of evidence that this occurs, because many pastors and members complain of censorship for religious purposes. So, the only way forward is sometimes outside the Church.
Interesting how the Bible does not promote or praise one intelligent or critically thinking character. The ones that did were made fun of, dethroned or eliminated from the picture one way or the other. Even the Serpent in the Garden told the truth. "
Genesis 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
This is a true statement by the Serpent (Not yet evolved into Satan in the text) The Knowledge of Good and Evil and Eternal life was not for humans. Those were God Fruit Trees. But eating of them would give them both benefits and it freaked God (EL) out and his Council so he had to drive them out " That's WHAT THE STORY SAYS!
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become LIKE ONE OF US, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
(SO out you go!)
Just for actually noticing that Jesus Second Coming was going long, really long and none of the Apostles promises were coming true, in fact some were dying, one was labeled a "Scoffer"
They get called a scoffer because, evidently, they did not know, nor were they told from the beginning that "the Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some count slackness.." and that "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day." Oh...now you tell us! Or are you just making that up because you notice too but don't want to be a scoffer?
2 Peter:3:3-
The Day of the Lord
Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. (It's actually the first as this author is not Peter and did not write 1 Peter. 2 Peter is a play on 1 Peter by someone much later in the game writing as if Peter.)I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to WHOLESOME THINKING (Hardly) . 2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
(That "Through your Apostles" part bothers me).
3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
(The standard argument that they scoff because they want to sin. But they were actually telling the truth and noticing reality. It has nothing to do with wanting to sin. You told them not to marry and be like Paul. You told them to share common because time was short. You told them it was all about them and coming soon, very soon)
4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”
(Which would be an accurate observation)
5 But they deliberately
(Oh now wait a minute! Deliberately? Really? No...they are just NOTICING!)
forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
(Ummm...what does this have to do with anything? Besides, today we know this is not quite an accurate or literally true tale)
Con't
Con't
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness.
(How come you didn't mention this 50 years ago? How do you understand slowness? Soon, the night is far spent, behold I come quickly, Of things which must shortly come to pass is not a formula for SLOW!)
Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
(Uh oh..you didn't tell us this either. We had the impression we were more special than that. I get it. You mean God is giving us more time)
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
(Well now...that's not the way Revelation describes it. Have you two guys read each others
"What Anonymous won't tell you is how his friends in the church ..."
You have not one shred of evidence that that anonymous is a member of any church or any religion.
Dennis: TL;DR. Same old stuff I bet.
All this to say that the Serpent actually made a fair observation and told the truth. Next thing you know, the Serpent is Satan. The Noticers actually also made fair and true observations and ended up being called scoffers who only scoffed because they wanted to sin. Sounds familiar....
Critical thinking was and still is dangerous and unacceptable to the Priestly and Apostolic order. It's why HWA also made fun of intellect and GTA told me to get a hair cut because my hair in the 60s was blocking my intellect being over my forehead. Honest! He said that! I so wish I had thought to ask him if my hair blocked my intellect, what did my skull do? lol
Try as we might, we can’t avoid being influenced by the primary elements of the greater, surrounding system. As an example, you can deftly practice fiscal responsibility your entire life. But, like it or not, if there’s an economic depression, you will not be able to totally escape its effects.
We will be affected by the primary ideas and events occurring in our life span. The only intelligent approach is to extract the best, to absorb what you need in order to conduct a good life for you and your family. Avoid those things which would tend to debase and devalue you.
Voluntarily embracing Armstrongism as the greater surrounding system of your life leads to waste and ruination.
Dennis, who you calling a con't? 😁
Kev
Dennis said:
The Noticers actually also made fair and true observations and ended up being called scoffers who only scoffed because they wanted to sin.
**************************
All I know is that my brother in law used to be on the radical end of "belief". He actually carved out the commandments and put them around his front door, we wore tassles, and when my sister and niece were on their periods he made them bathe several times a day. Plus when they did go out to eat once they got home they had to wash their clothes because of the public seating.
Then he got a good job operating a crane, but he had to occasionally work on the sabbath. At times he'd switch with others so he didn't have to, but occasionally he still had to to keep the job. He figured once he got more seniority that then he could tell them no sabbaths.
A couple years ago he started studying the Jesus Myth. Now he and my sister don't believe in Jesus, claim the Feast days are man made, but claim they still believe in God.
Which God I wonder. Not the O.T. God if the Feast days are man made, and definately not Jesus. So which God? Buddha? Vishnu?
Needless to say he works nearly every sabbath and feast day.
But nope, he didn't determine that the bible is untrue because he wanted to sin. He just wised up!
Oh well. The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it?
Kevin McMillen
According to Genesis eternal life comes from eating a fruit. Even if an evil person ate the fruit they would have eternal life. And the LORD God said, "The man has now become LIKE ONE OF US, knowing good and evil. Does that mean prior to human creation, God was either doing or condoning evil??
Religiously, I am right, and everyone else, including Dennis the spiritual menace, is wrong. How do I know this? Glad you asked. Cause God answers my prayers.
Enjoy your few remaining twilight years before you sizzle in the lake of fire Dennis. Sizzle, sizzle, sizzle.
Should have been "he" wore tassles, not we. I love autocorrect.
Kevin
Anonymous said...
According to Genesis eternal life comes from eating a fruit. Even if an evil person ate the fruit they would have eternal life. And the LORD God said, "The man has now become LIKE ONE OF US, knowing good and evil. Does that mean prior to human creation, God was either doing or condoning evil??
No, in the myth, there were no evil people, just naïve and in the original Sumerian tale from which this was taken, humans were worker bees that existed to work for the gods. In the Sumerian tale the gods grew tired of the noise humans made and wanted rest from it. (Sabbath) so they sent a flood to get rid of them. In the Genesis story, it seems Adam and Eve would not have known what was good or what was evil before eating the of the tree. If so, I wonder why they were condemned for doing what they didn't know was wrong even when told not to. They would not know being told not to was evil or good. That aside, The Gods, El and his Council of gods, had the knowledge of good and evil and eternal life. These were not for the humans in both the Sumerian and Genesis story.
I suspect the story, written by Priests, not any Moses, sent the message that humans were as they were because of knowing good from evil and being evil, the Priesthood was available to intervene between humans and God, via sacrifices at that time etc, and bring them Eternal life which now was not just for the Gods but for humans in the Hebrew view.
The Sumerian view of Edin (Eden)
The texts mention that at some point the gods mutinied against their labor.
"When the gods like men
Bore the work and suffered the toll
The toil of the gods was great,
The work was heavy, the distress was much.
Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labor was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labor, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was put to death, and his body and blood was mixed with clay. From that material the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods.
You have slaughtered a god together (Interesting parallel to the Gospels)
With his personality
I have removed your heavy work
I have imposed your toil on man.
…
In the clay, god and man
Shall be bound,
To a unity brought together;
So that to the end of days
The Flesh and the Soul
Which in a god have ripened –
That soul in a blood-kinship be bound.
This first man was created in Eden, a Sumerian word which means ‘flat terrain’. In the Epic of Gilgamesh , Eden is mentioned as the garden of the gods and is located somewhere in Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
Initially human beings were unable to reproduce on their own, but were later modified with the help of Enki and Ninki. Thus, Adapa was created as a fully functional and independent human being. This ‘modification’ was done without the approval of Enki’s brother, Enlil, and a conflict between the gods began. Enlil became the adversary of man, and the Sumerian tablet mentions that men served gods and went through much hardship and suffering.
Adapa, with the help of Enki, ascended to Anu where he failed to answer a question about ‘the bread and water of life’. "
"Critical thinking was and still is dangerous and unacceptable to the Priestly and Apostolic order."
Critical thinking is dangerous to any order and that includes Shermer and his people. I'd bet that cut-and-paste google scholar Dennis will never look into who this Shermer guy really is and find out what he's really all about.
Anonymous said...
Religiously, I am right, and everyone else, including Dennis the spiritual menace, is wrong. How do I know this? Glad you asked. Cause God answers my prayers.
Enjoy your few remaining twilight years before you sizzle in the lake of fire Dennis. Sizzle, sizzle, sizzle.
January 27, 2019 at 5:14 AM
*********************************
It must be awesome to not be like other sinners. You probably fast twice a week and give tithes of all that you possess. You are one awesome anonymous!
Going to be interesting to find out who really sizzles.
Kevin McMillen
Morgantown, WV
https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-folklore/origins-human-beings-according-ancient-sumerian-texts-0065
Kevin
Zecharia Sitchin can tell us all about Nibiru and the Anunnaki:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=planet+x+nibiru+enki&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=planet+x+nib+enki&sc=0-17&sk=&cvid=71166509CB8045ED9E12863A422C55D5
Kevin
I read Sitchin's 12th Planet over 20 years ago. Would it really matter that much if the God of the bible is really Marduk/Anu?
So what? So much for atheism if Anu can really give eternal life.
Maybe reading Sitchin's, The King Who Refused to Die might be enlightening!
Kevin
642. I imagine the publishers felt using "weird" in the title would be more in tune with the vernacular and catchy than saying " Why Do People Believe Untrue Things"
The answer to the question in the blog entry is that members were/are not allowed to obtain second opinions. Anything that conflicts with what your leader or minister says is automatically wrong, or, poof! You are Korah, and headed for the Lake of Fire.
I imagine the publishers felt using "weird" in the title would be more in tune with the vernacular and catchy ...
And the fact that they lied to sell more books doesn't alter your opinion about their credibility or that of the author?
Kevin
People often know whether they have succeeded or failed to qualified for eternal life.
Claiming that it's wrong to acknowledge that one is doing well, is a killjoy, bully trait. The 'you're dirt and deserve to be treated like dirt' thingy.
No 304, doesn't bother me a bit. The book is about weird beliefs people have. Many in religion have not only untrue beliefs but also qualify as weird, strange or " you're shittin' me right?" Saying something is untrue, for example, only gets "untrue to you" as a defensive response, when in fact weird better defines it because it is weird. Like Dave Pack weird.
Post a Comment