How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age

I find it interesting that one reader chastised this book for its "pro-science" viewpoint, without ever bothering to explain WHY "pro-science" is BAD? I'm also curious as to whether that reader actually READ the book; if so he'd note that Schick and Vaughn are very careful to give balanced treatment to all paranormal claims. They make certain to point out, for instance, that "this doesn't mean ESP doesn't exist, of course..." merely that a particular claim doesn't validate our belief in it. Throughout the book, Schick and Vaughn are very gentle in their handling of paranormal claims. And yet the reviewer claims that Schick and Vaughn "don't take [them] seriously" or ridicule claims they don't like. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In addition, the poster tried to draw a distinction between ontological and epistemic relativism, without noting that when considering a philosophy like realism (the view that there is a real, measurable, consensual reality -- a prerequisite for being a skeptic) the ontological relativism IS the epistemic relativism. Being IS the basis of our belief system -- if there's no "out there" out there, realism is a baseless philosophy. Schick and Vaughn do a VERY good job of dissecting and laying to rest the relativistic and solipsistic claims that are so popular today (IE, "there's no such thing as reality" or "whatever's true for you..."). And again, they are relatively gentle (for a less gentle treatment of the fad of social constructivism, see some of Sokal's books, for example).

All in all this is an EXCELLENT, clear, well-rounded, and balanced look at critical thinking in an age of bizarre claims.


A really fine introduction to critical thinking   September 11, 1999
 54 out of 58 found this review helpful

I first read this at 18 and wrote the following review about this book I'm still rather fond of:

This is a fine piece of writing, and a very complete introduction to critical thinking -- a skill which is more desperately needed (yet also more desperately lacking) now than in any other time. I wish that every college-student, professor, and, in fact, all thinking individuals would read this book. Critical thinking is one of the most crucial skills for any thinking person, yet is most often ignored or left out of the educational system.

The ideas presented in this book are clear, concise, well thought-out, and well-researched. In addition, the writing style keeps the reader interested, with relevant quotes, articles, and true stories, to provide examples of the concepts covered in the book.

If you are a lover of wisdom, learning, and/or knowledge; are open to the idea of questioning, or are looking for a clear and logical foundation upon which to base your life's philosophy, this book is an excellent tool in your pursuits. Critical thinking is not a prepackaged belief system; it is a system for analyzing claims and making rational, reasonable, and logic decisions about your philosophy, your ethical code, and your belief-system. In that capacity, this book serves as a wonderful introduction and resource.

Do not miss reading this book!


Too sloppy to be of professional interest...   May 18, 2005
 43 out of 61 found this review helpful

If this book is meant as an intro to critical thinking for someone going into philosophy, it's a complete disaster. The reason is simple: it's entirely too sloppy. This is evident from the very first chapter, and I'll restrict my examples to this one section. First, the authors misuse standard terms in philosophy like 'valid' and 'essential'. Second, they consistently make category mistakes (e.g. they suggest that 'ideas' can be 'right'). Third, they make patently false claims (e.g. "Belief alone--without good whys--can't help us get one inch closer to the truth" (page 3) This is silly, of course they can--they need only be true!).

Finally, and most embarrasingly, they make poor inferences--in fact invalid ones. The book is loaded with *non sequiturs*. For example, they suggest that if any of a given series of propositions is true (though they sloppily call them 'ideas'), then "knowing anything about anything is impossible" (5). This doesn't follow from a number of the propositions in the list, one of which is the claim that "There's no such thing as objective reality," and another of which is "There are spiritual, mystical, or inner ways of knowing that are superior to our ordinary ways of knowing." Why the affirmation of either of these propositions entails the claim that knowing anything about anything is impossible is beyond me. Later in the chapter they tackle the proposition that there is no such thing as objective truth. They wrongly infer that this means that "reality is whatever each of us believes it to be" and that if this is true then "there could be no such thing as knowledge" (page 5) two claims that an intro to philosophy student should be able to see don't follow from the mere assertion that truth is not objective.

Frankly, I'm tired of fixing the text when I present it to students. If you are interested in becoming a more careful thinker, and especially if you're interested in becoming a better epistemologist and philosopher, don't waste your time with this volume. The only reason it warrants two stars is that there is some material that's of interest to a lay person who will not have the need to have a philosophical understanding of concepts like validity, soundness, categories, etc.


good advice-I wish they followed it   October 31, 2001
 31 out of 44 found this review helpful

This book explains how to analyize things rationally, without being swayed by emotional considerations. In that regard its very good. They explain how to judge the value of evidence in a logical way.

In many places in the book, however, they dont appear to follow their own advice. The book is full of exemplary analyses of 'strange' topics such as near-death expeiences, UFOs, ESP and so on. In many of these analyses, they appeal to the readers sense that these things are 'riduculous' or 'silly'. Instead of arguing these points on-their-merits, the authors disregard their own good advice. For example, in a section devoted to near-death experiences, the authors describe the possible reality of these events as 'incomprehensible'. The authors then use this as a reason to dismiss NDE. Well, perhaps NDES are 'incomprehensible' simply for a lack of imagination. Also, the authors should be reminded that quantum mechanics (the most accurate physical theory ever created) is 'incomprehensible'-after 70 years physicists still cant figure out if its real or what. Also, Occams razor (a principle discussed and advocated in the book) suggests that taking NDEs on face-value is reasonable since it is much less complicated than the Rube-Goldberg explanations used to dismiss NDEs.

A second failure of the book is its double-standard toward alternative medicine and orthomolecular medicine (e.g. using vitamins to treat disease) generally. In discussing some alternative medicine, the authors rightly make references to the financial conflicts of interest of those involved in selling dubious products. Why is this same analysis NOT applied to the pharmaceutical companies and allopathic doctors that bash alternative medicine? The authors apparently dont understand that giant pharmaceutical firms play just as dirty, and have a gigantic financial interest in undermining research into competing alternative therapies.

So, While I appreciate the authors recommendations for analysis, I think they either fail to properly apply their own advice, or are unaware of (or ignore) facts pertaining to the unconventional topics they discuss.


Excellent primer to how scientists think   March 18, 2000
 28 out of 28 found this review helpful

I first read the previous edition of this book when I was in high school. A friend of mine had gotten a job working for James "the Amazing" Randi, and somehow the professional complimentary copy got passed on from Randi to him to another friend to me. I read it over and over until it was practically falling apart, and I have recommended it to many people over the years, because it had such a major and positive influence on my own thinking.

I am currently about halfway done with my Ph.D. in chemistry. I credit this book for giving me an appreciation for the beauty of the scientific process, as well as helping to convince me that I wanted to be a part of it myself. It is true that the book necessarily simplifies the scientific process for the sake of not overburdening the reader with technical jargon and information overload. It should definitely be considered as an INTRODUCTION to critical thinking, as opposed to an all-inclusive and exhaustive text. However, I can't recommend this book highly enough to anyone who wants to understand the beauty and ideal of how science works at its glorious best.