Talk:Michael Shermer: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:09, 31 August 2006

Latest revision as of 08:12, 20 October 2024

(254 intermediate revisions by 98 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=y|class=C|vital=yes|listas=Shermer, Michael|

== ==

{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low}}

Here's a question: the paragraph here:

{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=High}}

}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

|archiveprefix=Talk:Michael Shermer/Archive

|format= %%i

|age=2160|<!--90 days-->

|maxarchsize=100000

|numberstart=2

|minkeepthreads=4

|header={{automatic archive navigator}}

}}

{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>[[Erythropoietin#Blood doping|r-EPO doping]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Blood doping) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/1029989703|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Blood doping","appear":{"revid":156076749,"parentid":154497172,"timestamp":"2007-09-06T16:16:52Z","removed_section_titles":[],"added_section_titles":["Anemia due to renal failure","Critically ill patients","Blood doping"]},"disappear":{"revid":1029989703,"parentid":1029989595,"timestamp":"2021-06-23T06:29:16Z","removed_section_titles":["Blood doping"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->

}}

== First wife and daughter ==

"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."

I don't have time to fully research it, but this article needs to mention Shermer's first wife Kim Ziel Shermer and their daughter Devin. [[User:Bhami|Bhami]] ([[User talk:Bhami|talk]]) [[User:Bhami|Bhami]] ([[User talk:Bhami|talk]]) 03:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

:The basic factual information has been added to the article using an existing source. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 17:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey! For some reason Wikipedia woon't let me edit right now, but could someone try making this change: in the second paragraph from the bottom, it states that "Shermer, with a Ph.D in psychology, has stated psychiatry is out of his field." As the article earlier correctly states, Shermer's PhD is iin the history of science, NOT psychology. Cheers! Jason

== ==

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 Wikipedia 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. ([[User:Hippogriff|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 --[[User:131.104.138.14|131.104.138.14]] 01:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

----

Re: Shermer's Fundamentalism, [[User:131.104.138.14|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.

--[[User:70.115.222.81|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.) --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] 12:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:18 PM, [e-mail] wrote to Jack Sarfatti

under Subject heading: "Swine: Take me off your Kook list"

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

Michael Shermer AKA [e-mail] essentially calls top physicist Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies a kook for endorsing scientific research into the paranormal.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-05-04.html#freeman