What do you think?
Rate this book
Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown
"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
"Extremely entertaining." —Science News
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
"Extremely entertaining." —Science News
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
29 people are currently reading
753 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
August 17, 2014
Some of the essays in this book are excellent, while others are just boring. For example, Shermer takes 19 pages to report on the "Bright" episode in his life. He coined the word "bright" to mean skeptics, or non-believers. Most people reacted critically to the name, and he eventually was forced to drop it. But Shermer organizes page-long lists and tabulations of statistics on the issue--this was a big yawn for me.
Another 22-page essay was about a controversy dealing with a few anthropologists who studied the Yanomamo people of the Amazon. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Another big yawn.
Clearly, Shermer is a big fan of Stephen Jay Gould. There are many references to him scattered throughout the book, and an entire essay is devoted to Gould. I enjoy reading Gould's books, but Shermer's essay is weighed down by tabulations and statistics of Gould's literary output; just not very interesting.
On the other hand, I enjoyed the short essay about sports psychology. And, the chapter about "Mutiny on the Bounty" was absolutely fascinating. The story told in the movies is a complete falsehood. William Bligh was not a tyrannical monster, who unleashed punishments on his crew for little reason. Instead, Bligh was a relatively enlightened captain, who cared for the well-being of his crew. Shermer goes into some detail, trying to unravel the true reasons for the mutiny.
Shermer seems to be intrigued with the whole idea of "contingencies and counterfactuals: What Might have been and what had to be." In other words, if some key historical action or coincidence had never taken place, would history have developed any differently? For example, what would have happened if "Neanderthals won and we lost?" Or, "what if there had been no agricultural revolution?" What would have happened if General McClellan had not fortuitously gotten a hold of General Lee's battle plans during the Civil War, during the Battle of Antietam?
I thought that the best essay in the book is about the concept of intelligent design. Shermer puts forward ten of the arguments that believers in intelligent design use to rationalize their beliefs. Then, Shermer tears these arguments apart, and does not leave a shred of their arguments unturned.
Another 22-page essay was about a controversy dealing with a few anthropologists who studied the Yanomamo people of the Amazon. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Another big yawn.
Clearly, Shermer is a big fan of Stephen Jay Gould. There are many references to him scattered throughout the book, and an entire essay is devoted to Gould. I enjoy reading Gould's books, but Shermer's essay is weighed down by tabulations and statistics of Gould's literary output; just not very interesting.
On the other hand, I enjoyed the short essay about sports psychology. And, the chapter about "Mutiny on the Bounty" was absolutely fascinating. The story told in the movies is a complete falsehood. William Bligh was not a tyrannical monster, who unleashed punishments on his crew for little reason. Instead, Bligh was a relatively enlightened captain, who cared for the well-being of his crew. Shermer goes into some detail, trying to unravel the true reasons for the mutiny.
Shermer seems to be intrigued with the whole idea of "contingencies and counterfactuals: What Might have been and what had to be." In other words, if some key historical action or coincidence had never taken place, would history have developed any differently? For example, what would have happened if "Neanderthals won and we lost?" Or, "what if there had been no agricultural revolution?" What would have happened if General McClellan had not fortuitously gotten a hold of General Lee's battle plans during the Civil War, during the Battle of Antietam?
I thought that the best essay in the book is about the concept of intelligent design. Shermer puts forward ten of the arguments that believers in intelligent design use to rationalize their beliefs. Then, Shermer tears these arguments apart, and does not leave a shred of their arguments unturned.
August 29, 2019
Clever title; terrific book
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 calling skeptics "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 phenomenon of "self-organized criticality" (from chaos theory). I found it especially interesting that he identified various mass hysterias as chaotic phenomena with their own self-organizing and feedback mechanisms. On pages 142-147 he recalls the witchcraft hysteria in Europe and the colonies from 1560-1620 and then demonstrates a striking parallel with the Satanic cult/false memory mass delusions from the late 1980s through the mid-1990s. One is reminded of flying saucer sighting and alien abduction phenomena that followed similar patterns, and in fact Shermer mentions these as well.
One the best chapters in the book is "The New New Creationism: Intelligent Design Theory and Its Discontents" in which Shermer demolishes the new new argument from design and reveals the intellectual vacuousness of intelligent design in a most delightful manner. This chapter alone with worth the price of the book. Quite simply, Shermer exposes the naked True Believer once again hiding behind a curtain of pseudoscience.
Now it could be said that Shermer is something of a true believer himself--a true believer in science. In thinking about this recursive irony I am reminded of the admonition towards moderation in all things including moderation. (Properly speaking this is a paradox, a paradox of self-reference, as pointed out long ago by Bertrand Russell.)
But can science be taken in moderation? Is it possible to say that, well, we need to be scientific about most things, but then there are (shall we say) "affairs of the heart" to which science has properly speaking nothing to say--or indeed, should it not be the case that science and religion must forever be on separate planes? Personally, like Shermer, I am a rational skeptic and believe that science is a tool that can be applied to all of our affairs, in business and politics, history and religion, and even in choosing a mate, while recognizing that, left to our own devices, we tend to follow the scientific method willy-nilly, by starts and fits, by happenstance and sometimes only when it is thrust upon us by dire necessity.
Yes, in religion as well. Which is why Shermer is an agnostic (the only rational conclusion, based on the evidence) while I personally believe in a God without attributes (which raises the ironic question, does a God without attributes really exist?).
Here is a final word from Shermer, typical of his clear thinking and expressive prose: "...truth in science is not determined vox populi...a scientific theory stands or falls on evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution. The preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, population genetics, biogeography, etc.) all independently converge to the same conclusion--evolution happened." He calls this a "convergence of evidence" and adds that "By whatever name, this is how historical events are proven." (p. 174)
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
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 calling skeptics "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 phenomenon of "self-organized criticality" (from chaos theory). I found it especially interesting that he identified various mass hysterias as chaotic phenomena with their own self-organizing and feedback mechanisms. On pages 142-147 he recalls the witchcraft hysteria in Europe and the colonies from 1560-1620 and then demonstrates a striking parallel with the Satanic cult/false memory mass delusions from the late 1980s through the mid-1990s. One is reminded of flying saucer sighting and alien abduction phenomena that followed similar patterns, and in fact Shermer mentions these as well.
One the best chapters in the book is "The New New Creationism: Intelligent Design Theory and Its Discontents" in which Shermer demolishes the new new argument from design and reveals the intellectual vacuousness of intelligent design in a most delightful manner. This chapter alone with worth the price of the book. Quite simply, Shermer exposes the naked True Believer once again hiding behind a curtain of pseudoscience.
Now it could be said that Shermer is something of a true believer himself--a true believer in science. In thinking about this recursive irony I am reminded of the admonition towards moderation in all things including moderation. (Properly speaking this is a paradox, a paradox of self-reference, as pointed out long ago by Bertrand Russell.)
But can science be taken in moderation? Is it possible to say that, well, we need to be scientific about most things, but then there are (shall we say) "affairs of the heart" to which science has properly speaking nothing to say--or indeed, should it not be the case that science and religion must forever be on separate planes? Personally, like Shermer, I am a rational skeptic and believe that science is a tool that can be applied to all of our affairs, in business and politics, history and religion, and even in choosing a mate, while recognizing that, left to our own devices, we tend to follow the scientific method willy-nilly, by starts and fits, by happenstance and sometimes only when it is thrust upon us by dire necessity.
Yes, in religion as well. Which is why Shermer is an agnostic (the only rational conclusion, based on the evidence) while I personally believe in a God without attributes (which raises the ironic question, does a God without attributes really exist?).
Here is a final word from Shermer, typical of his clear thinking and expressive prose: "...truth in science is not determined vox populi...a scientific theory stands or falls on evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution. The preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, population genetics, biogeography, etc.) all independently converge to the same conclusion--evolution happened." He calls this a "convergence of evidence" and adds that "By whatever name, this is how historical events are proven." (p. 174)
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
September 1, 2019
I am a great fan of Michael Shermer, the founder and editor of Skeptic magazine, which I am subscribed to. I also own most of his books and I have read most of them. This is a collection of essays about various topics all related to objectivity and reason. I found some of them extremely stimulating. My favourite has to be the essay about the rift between those who support evolution and those who 'believe' in Intelligent Design. The essay may not be exhaustive because of its limited length and it is good to read around it, but it covers lightly most of the challenges encountered in this debate and serves very well as intial reading about the subject. Another favourite of mine, albeit totally different, is about the mutiny on the Bounty and its revisionist versions. Shermer handles this with scholary information and yet keeps it very readable, almost like a detective story. I was not very interested in the essays that were based solely on statistics and I had to skip some of them. I was particularly disappointed with the one on Stephen Jay Gould. Gould is one of my other favourites and in the first part of the essay he is handled with humanity but, later on , he becomes the victim of data and statistics. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend this book for people who, like me, are interested in humanism, scepticism and coming close to an objective truth. The essays are not directly linked to each other so one can skip those that are of no interest.
February 13, 2011
Given how many other books are claiming my attention, I'm not sticking with this one. Hopefully it'll earn me some good credit at Arty Bees. I was seduced into buying it by his first excellent chapter on how he passed himself off as a psychic.
Before discovering science, Shermer studied to become an evangelical pastor, and I'd argue that the preaching / teaching -genes that led him to that point still dominate his work, although to a different end. I admire the breadth of his curiosity, his determination to find the best way to live and the vigour of his investigations, but got tired of his tone. He is always wanting to make pronouncements. His favourite phrase seems to be 'I conclude that...' and his fondness of finding the certain statement (ironic in a leading skeptic) prompt him to make obvious statements and even use the odd cliche, apparently without irony ('...denial is not just a river in Egypt').
Maybe I'm being too mean on him, but with all the other terrific writers on science around (Chown, Dawkins etc) plus all the fiction and poetry to be read, there's just not enough time for Shermer right now.
Before discovering science, Shermer studied to become an evangelical pastor, and I'd argue that the preaching / teaching -genes that led him to that point still dominate his work, although to a different end. I admire the breadth of his curiosity, his determination to find the best way to live and the vigour of his investigations, but got tired of his tone. He is always wanting to make pronouncements. His favourite phrase seems to be 'I conclude that...' and his fondness of finding the certain statement (ironic in a leading skeptic) prompt him to make obvious statements and even use the odd cliche, apparently without irony ('...denial is not just a river in Egypt').
Maybe I'm being too mean on him, but with all the other terrific writers on science around (Chown, Dawkins etc) plus all the fiction and poetry to be read, there's just not enough time for Shermer right now.
February 2, 2019
If you are not familiar with Dr. Shermer then this book is not the place to start. As a fan of Dr. Shermer and his work this book was not his best but it made sense to me having read most of his other works. I would have like to rate it 3.5 but I decided to round up. Science Friction is a collection of essays of not necessarily related topics so you won't find any continuity. His best work is the Science of Good and Evil and a good place to start if you are a skeptic.
September 12, 2022
Even though this is a compendium of previously published essays, I liked it since I had not read most of them. I am more than familiar with Shermer though, through his contributions in Skeptic magazine and other books. I like that he is a historian by training and how his essays draw parallels from my discipline together. I've always felt that Evolutionary Biology is History. I especially liked his analysis of Stephen Jay Gould's works at the end of the book. Gould's professional works were part of my readings as a working Evolutionary Biologist and I read and mostly enjoyed his other works too. PuncEq was always treated mostly derisively among my colleagues and I always felt it was a tempest in a teapot. But his critique of the zealous overemphasis on the adaptationist program I embraced. Shermer correctly understood this, which is pretty good for a Historian.
December 31, 2019
I love Skeptic magazine so I assumed I would enjoy this and for the most part I did. For me the last part of the book dragged and so after completing it went back to the beginning to remind myself what I had enjoyed. There was some good essays and some that I seemed to get lost because it seemed to drag on about nothing and data that was sometimes endless and not convincing.
October 9, 2023
It's truly amazing that even mildly amusing and interesting things can be made completely unbearable reading by an smug pompous author with an ego the size of Jupiter.
He seems to write thirty versions of the same book, and honestly he's not really the greatest of writers
He seems to write thirty versions of the same book, and honestly he's not really the greatest of writers
May 13, 2018
Very good, but sometimes a bit confusing, subjects I am not all that familiar with, but overall informative. Good insights too.
January 30, 2019
Some interesting essays, but I put it down mid-way through and couldn't pick it back up before returning it to the library.
Read
February 12, 2026review text for 1160
April 25, 2024
Unfortunately wasn’t as engaging as Why People Believe Weird Things to me, but I enjoyed most of the articles enough.
April 5, 2010
Many years ago, too far back to remember now, I was watching one of those shows they used to show around Halloween (and are now ubiquitous on cable) about ghosts and ghost hunting or something of that ilk. On that show they interviewed Michael Shermer about why people beleive in mysterious ghosts and aliens and whatnot. He had just published Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, and I was totally entranced by what he had to say.
I ran out and got the book as soon as I can, and never read it.
My husband read it, and ended up getting very involved in the whole Skeptical movement as a result. I still have book:Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time|89281] on my bookshelf, I've started it a few times, but found myself drifting off, unable to pay attention to it. One day, I might just grit my teeth and read the whole thing.
In many ways, this book was much the same. In it Shermer has gleamed some of his best essays and articles dealing with the concept of who's skeptical of the skeptics? They run from confronting the what to call atheists, skeptics, non-beleivers, Brights or whatever you want to call it, to questioning the scientific method, a particularly gripping article about Intelligent Design, and even an odd foray into what really happened on the Bounty and how our own prejudices affect our ability to view history and study cultures and peoples scientifically.
I did find myself engrossed in some of the articles from beginning to end, particularly, Psychic for a Day, Heresies of Science, The New Creationism, and The Hero on the Edge of Forever. Unfortunately though, there were several articles in the book, in particular Spin-Doctoring Science where I almost felt like Shermer was trying too hard to bludgeon his point home.
I know, it's sort of blasphemous to say bludgeoned by data and statistics when you're talking about science, but in several of the articles, Shermer goes off on tangents of data without really explaining how it relates to the article's main point. In the end you just want to ask him to make it stop, you beleive him, really, no more quotes, references, charts or other proof is really going to make a difference. In many ways these sections read more like a college textbook than a collection of essays.
That being said, it's only a small part of this book that falls into this overwhelmed by data problem. Most of the book is terribly readable, and enjoyable. If you art interested in finding out about Skepticism, this may be a good starting place. If you're interested in scientific philosophy this is also a very good book. If you are running for the door the minute anyone throws a chart, or a graph in front of you, perhaps you should pass this one up in favor of more personal and prosaic fare.
I ran out and got the book as soon as I can, and never read it.
My husband read it, and ended up getting very involved in the whole Skeptical movement as a result. I still have book:Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time|89281] on my bookshelf, I've started it a few times, but found myself drifting off, unable to pay attention to it. One day, I might just grit my teeth and read the whole thing.
In many ways, this book was much the same. In it Shermer has gleamed some of his best essays and articles dealing with the concept of who's skeptical of the skeptics? They run from confronting the what to call atheists, skeptics, non-beleivers, Brights or whatever you want to call it, to questioning the scientific method, a particularly gripping article about Intelligent Design, and even an odd foray into what really happened on the Bounty and how our own prejudices affect our ability to view history and study cultures and peoples scientifically.
I did find myself engrossed in some of the articles from beginning to end, particularly, Psychic for a Day, Heresies of Science, The New Creationism, and The Hero on the Edge of Forever. Unfortunately though, there were several articles in the book, in particular Spin-Doctoring Science where I almost felt like Shermer was trying too hard to bludgeon his point home.
I know, it's sort of blasphemous to say bludgeoned by data and statistics when you're talking about science, but in several of the articles, Shermer goes off on tangents of data without really explaining how it relates to the article's main point. In the end you just want to ask him to make it stop, you beleive him, really, no more quotes, references, charts or other proof is really going to make a difference. In many ways these sections read more like a college textbook than a collection of essays.
That being said, it's only a small part of this book that falls into this overwhelmed by data problem. Most of the book is terribly readable, and enjoyable. If you art interested in finding out about Skepticism, this may be a good starting place. If you're interested in scientific philosophy this is also a very good book. If you are running for the door the minute anyone throws a chart, or a graph in front of you, perhaps you should pass this one up in favor of more personal and prosaic fare.
August 5, 2011
This is an excellent group of essays. As a psychologist and science historian, as well as founder and editor of Skeptic, Shermer thinks!
This book groups his thoughts into four sections: Science and the Virtue of Not Knowing; Science and the Meaning of Body, Mind and Spirit; Science and the (Re)Writing of History; and Science and the Cult of Visionaries
He begins with an amusing recount of how he played psychic for a day, using tarot, palms, astrology and mediumship to see how well he could fake the product. And apparently, he did quite well. Other essays in the group look at the movement to rebrand atheists as "Brights", why we should always be skeptical of what we always thought to be true, and the importance of skepticism ans a way of life (and a way of thinking).
He discusses anthropology and one particular instance of infighting and how even science gets spin-doctored. An interesting essay looks at streaks and sports psychology and reveals some amazing results: streaks are no more unusual than statistical possibilities. He explains quite candidly the battle of his mother against cancer and the failed efforts of science to defeat it.
An amazing analysis of the Bounty mutiny (Captain Bligh and Fletcher Christian) shows his take on the causes from both a scientific analysis (comparing flogging stats across the Navies at the time) and a psychological and evolutionary perspective. He looks at the hows and whys of history, why the QWERTY came about and why it still exists today in its incredibly inefficient arrangement. He looks at counterfactuals and the What Ifs of some histories.
My favorite essay treats with Intelligent Design and the ten most common arguments creationists throw out. One essay is devoted to lists and how arbitrary they are. He does offer his own list of the 100, 12 and single most influential event in the history of science and technology. And I agree with his #1 - Theo Origin of Species.
Finally, he talks about Gene Rodenberry and blurring the boundaries between science fiction and science, the ego of Gene and twisting of the most famous Star Trek episode from the author's (Harlan Ellison) original screenplay (The City on the Edge of Forever). And wraps with a tribute of sorts to Stephen Jay Gould.
All in all, a good and thought-provoking read. I'm looking for the rest of Michael Shermer's books now!
This book groups his thoughts into four sections: Science and the Virtue of Not Knowing; Science and the Meaning of Body, Mind and Spirit; Science and the (Re)Writing of History; and Science and the Cult of Visionaries
He begins with an amusing recount of how he played psychic for a day, using tarot, palms, astrology and mediumship to see how well he could fake the product. And apparently, he did quite well. Other essays in the group look at the movement to rebrand atheists as "Brights", why we should always be skeptical of what we always thought to be true, and the importance of skepticism ans a way of life (and a way of thinking).
He discusses anthropology and one particular instance of infighting and how even science gets spin-doctored. An interesting essay looks at streaks and sports psychology and reveals some amazing results: streaks are no more unusual than statistical possibilities. He explains quite candidly the battle of his mother against cancer and the failed efforts of science to defeat it.
An amazing analysis of the Bounty mutiny (Captain Bligh and Fletcher Christian) shows his take on the causes from both a scientific analysis (comparing flogging stats across the Navies at the time) and a psychological and evolutionary perspective. He looks at the hows and whys of history, why the QWERTY came about and why it still exists today in its incredibly inefficient arrangement. He looks at counterfactuals and the What Ifs of some histories.
My favorite essay treats with Intelligent Design and the ten most common arguments creationists throw out. One essay is devoted to lists and how arbitrary they are. He does offer his own list of the 100, 12 and single most influential event in the history of science and technology. And I agree with his #1 - Theo Origin of Species.
Finally, he talks about Gene Rodenberry and blurring the boundaries between science fiction and science, the ego of Gene and twisting of the most famous Star Trek episode from the author's (Harlan Ellison) original screenplay (The City on the Edge of Forever). And wraps with a tribute of sorts to Stephen Jay Gould.
All in all, a good and thought-provoking read. I'm looking for the rest of Michael Shermer's books now!
April 8, 2024
‘Science Friction’ is a collection of fourteen essays on science, the history of science, skepticism, atheism, and events prescient during the time they were collected - 2004.
Some of the essays are interesting and a wonderful read; others are incredibly boring. It often reads very dated as well. I didn’t care for the essay on Stephen Jay Gould - basically a statistical analysis of his academic publishing. I found the essays on the “anthropology wars”, “The Brights”, and Star Trek to be incredibly boring as well. The other essays range from solid to fantastic.
Half to enjoy, half to bore. I have to give the book a positive edge - I find Shermer to be a fantastic science communicator.
5.5/10
Some of the essays are interesting and a wonderful read; others are incredibly boring. It often reads very dated as well. I didn’t care for the essay on Stephen Jay Gould - basically a statistical analysis of his academic publishing. I found the essays on the “anthropology wars”, “The Brights”, and Star Trek to be incredibly boring as well. The other essays range from solid to fantastic.
Half to enjoy, half to bore. I have to give the book a positive edge - I find Shermer to be a fantastic science communicator.
5.5/10
September 26, 2011
Michael Shermer likes his statistics. Man, this book is full of lists and numbers and comparisons ad infinitum between lists and numbers (there is actually an entire chapter just discussing lists!).
I expected to like this much more than I did. Making it to the end was something of an endurance contest. For the most part, Shermer presents compelling arguments, but he engages in too much begging of questions (e.g., "we've evolved for monogamy") without even entertaining the possibility that there might be some dissent. And, hey, I just read another book ("Sex at Dawn"--highly recommended) that spends two hundred pages debunking that assertion.
He also devotes a great deal of time in apologetics for Stephen Jay Gould and Napoleon Chagon (the latter of whom is also discussed in "Sex at Dawn"), which simply did not interest me. Yeah, science is a petty political minefield like every other human endeavor--go figure--now get back to informing me about science...
My favorite parts were all at the beginning: Psychic for a day, the kerphlaple over "Brights", and the Darwinian implications of the Mutiny on the Bounty. So, basically I can recommend the first hundred or so pages... After that, you're on your own.
I expected to like this much more than I did. Making it to the end was something of an endurance contest. For the most part, Shermer presents compelling arguments, but he engages in too much begging of questions (e.g., "we've evolved for monogamy") without even entertaining the possibility that there might be some dissent. And, hey, I just read another book ("Sex at Dawn"--highly recommended) that spends two hundred pages debunking that assertion.
He also devotes a great deal of time in apologetics for Stephen Jay Gould and Napoleon Chagon (the latter of whom is also discussed in "Sex at Dawn"), which simply did not interest me. Yeah, science is a petty political minefield like every other human endeavor--go figure--now get back to informing me about science...
My favorite parts were all at the beginning: Psychic for a day, the kerphlaple over "Brights", and the Darwinian implications of the Mutiny on the Bounty. So, basically I can recommend the first hundred or so pages... After that, you're on your own.
July 26, 2016
I love Michael Shermer's work in general; his debates, his articles in Skeptic Magazine and in Scientific American, his books, etc. However, this book was a let down.
Shermer appears to have been very self indulgent in writing it - spending pages upon pages lost in nostalgia about his own life. This becomes tedious after a while. I did not wish to read a biography.
Another negative point is the fact that very little new material seems to have gone into this book at the time it was written. It is comprised, in significant part, of lengthy excerpts taken word for word from his other works. If you are familiar with Michael Shermer's oeuvre you will find yourself with a recurring sense of deja vu while reading this.
Finally, and most damning of all I think, is the fact that the book doesn't get down and dirty with the science it concerns itself with - something that Shermer manages quite ably usually - and this really left me feeling short changed.
A pity.
But if you read this review, don't let it deter you from reading his other work which is usually sterling!
Shermer appears to have been very self indulgent in writing it - spending pages upon pages lost in nostalgia about his own life. This becomes tedious after a while. I did not wish to read a biography.
Another negative point is the fact that very little new material seems to have gone into this book at the time it was written. It is comprised, in significant part, of lengthy excerpts taken word for word from his other works. If you are familiar with Michael Shermer's oeuvre you will find yourself with a recurring sense of deja vu while reading this.
Finally, and most damning of all I think, is the fact that the book doesn't get down and dirty with the science it concerns itself with - something that Shermer manages quite ably usually - and this really left me feeling short changed.
A pity.
But if you read this review, don't let it deter you from reading his other work which is usually sterling!
May 13, 2013
Science Friction, written by prominent scientist and skeptic Michael Shermer is more of a collection of 14 essays about various subjects than a typical popular science book. The essay topics themselves are extremely varied dealing with religion, sports psychology, psychics, the science of history and many others so whether or not you enjoy this book is almost entirely dependent on whether or not you have an interest in the subject being discussed.
There is no doubting Shermer's writing ability and the amount of research he puts in and I enjoyed the majority of his essays. Unfortunately though there were a couple that didn't quite grab my attention and I found myself skipping over them.
By and large, Science Friction is a very well written and interesting book that's full of insights and interesting ideas but just be warned that you may not find every topic discussed to be as interesting as you would like.
There is no doubting Shermer's writing ability and the amount of research he puts in and I enjoyed the majority of his essays. Unfortunately though there were a couple that didn't quite grab my attention and I found myself skipping over them.
By and large, Science Friction is a very well written and interesting book that's full of insights and interesting ideas but just be warned that you may not find every topic discussed to be as interesting as you would like.
August 16, 2009
Shermer's books are usually quite good. This particular volume is a bit of a catchall, incorporating a number of his essays into a single book but failing to find a single theme. There is a lengthy exposition and analysis of the writings of Stephen Jay Gould, a study of the Mutiny on the Bounty, a discussion of the Yanomamo controversy, a defense of the term "brights", a quick look into a week spent pretending to be psychic, and an unfocused description of the way both contingency and inevitability drive history. As usual, Shermer is at his best when he is defending Darwinian evolution against Intelligent Design, but the rest of the essays, while fascinating in their own myopic way and well-written, are often too small in scope to inspire. I would start reading Shermer with another volume.
June 22, 2013
A collection of articles written for various magazines, Michael Shermer shows off a surprising range of topics in this single volume. Shermer's essay are meticulously researched, and he always has an interesting point to make, whether posing as a psychic, explaining scientific causes of historical drama, or refuting creationism.
Shermer's range is so great that there is something to satisfy the interests of almost any reader. Therein lies the one major problem with this book: every reader is bound to come across one or two essays they have no interest in. This is a matter of taste, however. What interests one reader is bound to bore another, and each essay is well-written enough that skimming through any boring parts will not be a chore.
Quality reading for any scientific reader, Science Friction is well worth the effort.
Shermer's range is so great that there is something to satisfy the interests of almost any reader. Therein lies the one major problem with this book: every reader is bound to come across one or two essays they have no interest in. This is a matter of taste, however. What interests one reader is bound to bore another, and each essay is well-written enough that skimming through any boring parts will not be a chore.
Quality reading for any scientific reader, Science Friction is well worth the effort.
February 5, 2012
I was disappointed because I thought this book was going to be more about challenging scientific taboos. I wasn't looking for something that validated fringe science. But I expected it to tackle the divisive controversies of science. Instead, this is a collection of essays that Shermer has written over the years, on topics as diverse as Creationism, the Mutiny on the Bounty, and his mother's struggle with cancer. I give the book five stars because it was still an excellent fucking book, it just wasn't what I was expecting. Just don't read it thinking that this is a paradigm-shifting, trailblazing, hot-button-pressing, rabble-rousing read, despite the controversy and agitation that the title and cover imply. Shermer is no Dawkins, thankfully, and this book is quite polite.
May 29, 2015
This is a collection of mostly previously-published essays and is a little uneven, like most anthologies. I found at least one essay, "The Big 'Bright' Brouhaha" (about re-branding atheism), to be pretty irrelevant, and there are portions of this book that I have seen in Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things.
However, the third section, "Science and the (Re)Writing of History" is fascinating and challenging. Schermer's chaos theory of history is stunning, and his analysis of the causes of the Bounty mutiny from the perspective of evolutionary theory is testament to the theory's explanatory power.
Worth reading, but I suspect other of Shermer's books are better (such as Weird Things).
However, the third section, "Science and the (Re)Writing of History" is fascinating and challenging. Schermer's chaos theory of history is stunning, and his analysis of the causes of the Bounty mutiny from the perspective of evolutionary theory is testament to the theory's explanatory power.
Worth reading, but I suspect other of Shermer's books are better (such as Weird Things).
July 31, 2007
This book is not my cup of tea. I thought it would be, it seems like it would be, but it's not. The tone is pompous, smug and unbearable and more often than not I found myself reading through an article and asking myself, "Yeah? So what?" There is an occasional good point made, an occasional moment of insight, but on the whole the text is little more than masturbatory, hardly worth its weight in packing peanuts. A collection of essays and articles about skepticism, beliefs, science and Star Trek: not bad subject matter, but if I could read it all over again, I wouldn't. Science Friction is one to skip. I hear his other books are better...? Anybody?
December 27, 2011
In this collection of entertaining and thought-provoking essays, Science Friction, Michael Shermer turns a skeptical eye towards all sorts of science-related topics, including the so-called "anthropology wars"; Gene Roddenberry and Harlan Ellison's Star Trek tiff; the vicissitudes of evolution in contemporary life; the scholarly reputation of Stephen Jay Gould; and the current skeptic movement, among many fascinating subjects. A great read ... check it out.
On my blog, I recently wrote a post about the phrase science friction ... check that out too.
On my blog, I recently wrote a post about the phrase science friction ... check that out too.
December 23, 2009
I got this book from the library because I loved Michael's column in Scirentific America. The book is a collection of essays on varying topics, and sounded like a good read for an upcoming airplane trip.
I read the intro, but never made it back to the book before it had to be returned to the library. The topics sounded interesting, but its doubtful I will re-rent this book from the library. However, I do intend look up what other books by Shermer my library has available.
I read the intro, but never made it back to the book before it had to be returned to the library. The topics sounded interesting, but its doubtful I will re-rent this book from the library. However, I do intend look up what other books by Shermer my library has available.
February 7, 2008
The first half of this book was interesting. The author is really annoying and it's hard to take him seriously when he obviously takes himself SO SERIOUSLY. There are some good points in this book.
This author writes about how we use "scientific fact" to explain and understand things and how problematic that can be.
This author writes about how we use "scientific fact" to explain and understand things and how problematic that can be.
May 24, 2009
I enjoyed Why People Believe Weird Things, but this collection was dull in comparison. I felt like I was reading more about the author than the ideas, which was not what I was looking for.
November 13, 2007
Shermer writes a collection of interesting essays that cause one to think more critically. Aside from his going into exhausting and seemingly unnecessary detail at times, he does a good job confronting unscientific thought.
May 24, 2008
I haven't been able to finish this. I wanted to love it, but I found the first chapter to be a little boring and smug. I think there are some great ideas in here and someone else should have written about them.
January 28, 2009
Series of essays written by a leading "Skeptic." Some are interesting about philosophy of science, and some anti-non-science (like Intelligent Design). But some are just listing data that doesn't seem to go anywhere.
(Really 3.5)
(Really 3.5)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews