A little motivational speech by Micheal Shermer (Why do people believe weird things?)

This is a little motivational speech by Michael Shermer in which he talks about Why do people believe weird things?Interesting little 'podcast'TED TalksEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(Why do people believe weird things?)" part to the topic title.

Before I click on your link, who is this person?

He's the author of several books, including "Why Darwin Matters" and "Why People Believe Weird Things"; the editor(-in-chief?) of Skeptic Magazine; and a prominent feature on several science/skeptic podcasts, including Skepticality (my fav.) He's a close friend of "The Amazing" James Randi, famed debunker of assorted nonsense and intellectual heir to Harry Houdini.All in all a top-class intellect and science writer.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Don't forget; he's also the author of Why we Believe.

He also writes a monthly column in Scientific American, and several years ago he had a TV program that debunked common myths (much more politely, thoroughly and openmindedly than Penn and Teller).Just discovered Skepticality last night - not bad!--Percy

Yes, but not as entertaining.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Here is a very readable interview with him, in which you get to know the man's background a little, and his moderate views on the creationism/evolution debate. At the end, there's a real eye-opener about religiosity and morality in the US.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

He's also the guy who got beat badly in a debate by Kent Hovind, of all people.

Who says he was beaten?

If you'll watch the video, its very apparent as to who won the debate. Debates are mostly about the presentation and the aura of superiority. Whether the information is factual or not is almost inconsequential depending on how well your presentation is. Shermer was ill-equipped when he went into the debate and was visibly flustered by Hovind's style. It appeared that Shermer, thinking of himself as an intellectual giant, thought he'd waltz in their and mop the floor with Hovind. That wasn't the case. Although I don't endorse Hovind, he is an excellent orator, which no doubt gives him an edge in his debates.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Gee, I never knew Shermer debated Hovind. Thanks for the link!--Percy

Here is Michael's discussion on his experience....http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-05-10.html

I am looking at that debate right now and the only aura I perceive is an aura of ignorance around Kent Hovind. This man says he taught science for fifteen years, but he's producing scientific howlers by the dozens.I'm going back to watching the debate.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Are you being facetious?

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

quote:

---

Debates are mostly about the presentation and the aura of superiority. Whether the information is factual or not is almost inconsequential depending on how well your presentation is.

---

Oh, so you mean Hovind won in the worthless, political, bullshit kind of winning.If this is what you think constitutes "winning" a debate, it's no wonder you suck so bad in debate here. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.