Misplaced Pages

Talk:Michael Shermer: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:46, 23 August 2006 edit155.212.140.28 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 03:35, 25 August 2006 edit undo68.121.151.244 (talk) Shermer's FundamentalismNext edit →
Line 26: Line 26:


:I don't understand the second change. Do you think that he is lying? Why? That's how the word "claims" sounds. (BTW, you seem to use "bias" as a synonym for "deviation from my own position", a very common usage of the term.) --] 12:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) :I don't understand the second change. Do you think that he is lying? Why? That's how the word "claims" sounds. (BTW, you seem to use "bias" as a synonym for "deviation from my own position", a very common usage of the term.) --] 12:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:18 PM, SkepticL1@aol.com wrote to Jack Sarfatti
under Subject heading: "Swine: Take me off your Kook list"

"How many times do I have to tell you asswipe?"

Revision as of 03:35, 25 August 2006

WikiProject iconBiography Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Here's a question: the paragraph here:

"When it comes to the question regarding the possibility of telepathy in Folie a deux through emotional contagion, Shermer has stated psychiatry is out of his field. This is inconsistent with an authoritive author recognized for writing books on how and why people things. He defines Folie a deux, a medically documented altered state, as an anomoly."

This seems to contain a great deal of opinion. Shermer is not a psychiatrist and his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" is not a book on pyschiatry, but rather an analysis of psychology as it blurs closely with the philosophy of skepticism. His authorship of the book marks him as an authority on skepticism, surely, but certainly not psychiatry, which is the subject of Folie a deux. I have removed the sentence beginning "This is inconsistent..." under that consideration. Please discuss.


I'm wondering how much more of Shermer's writings on cryonics there are than the brief account of the very commonly known problem of freezing cells included here. Anyone who looks at the cryonics article on Misplaced Pages can read the discussion on the possibility of non-destructive cryonics based on vitrification. If Shermer wanted to write a serious critique of cryonics then it certainly looks like he would have to have taken vitrification into account, and not just freezing. (Assuming, that is, that the research into vitrification was done before Shermer's 2001 article - as the Cryonics article states that this discovery was made at the "turn of the century". It's not clear to me if it was). But whether Shermer did discuss this or not is not clear from the brief quote here. What is quoted here does not seem to me to necessarily be representative of a serious criticism of cryonics, as it simply states a basic physical phenomenon without taking into account the fact that cryonicists have come up with scientifically plausible ways of overcoming this problem. (Hippogriff)

Shermer's Fundamentalism

I do remember him saying that at one time he was "evangelical" and a strong believer in religions. I beileve he says that at some time during Science Friction. Was he actually a "fundamentalist" as the word is usually used (as in, a young or old earth creationist who takes everything in the bible literally) or was he merely a devout Christian? Some further clarification is needed, and would be greately appreciated! :D --131.104.138.14 01:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)



Re: Shermer's Fundamentalism, 131.104.138.14 01:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I edited the main page to provide a more objective language to two phrases. My edits are in italics, here. The first is, "Shermer is the author of several books that attempt to explain the ubiquity of what in his opinion are irrational or unsubstantiated beliefs." The second, pertaining to your own concern, is, "Shermer, who claims he was once a fundamentalist Christian, is now..."

Due to the overt bias of Mr. Shermer, I think these more objective renditions are justified.

--70.115.222.81 06:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the second change. Do you think that he is lying? Why? That's how the word "claims" sounds. (BTW, you seem to use "bias" as a synonym for "deviation from my own position", a very common usage of the term.) --Hob Gadling 12:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:18 PM, SkepticL1@aol.com wrote to Jack Sarfatti under Subject heading: "Swine: Take me off your Kook list"

"How many times do I have to tell you asswipe?"

Categories: