Talk:Michael Shermer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Schizophrenia
Why is he listed in the "people with schizophrenia" category when their isn't any mention of his having the disorder in the article? Treybien 17:35 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
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.
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 commented out the line, as per Jason's comment. Can anyone fix this inconsistency (and please supply a source, while you're at it, if possible). Guettarda 03:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
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. (Hippogriff)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Jack Sarfatti apparently is again violating his permaban
On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:18 PM, ****** 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 ****** 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
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.121.151.244 (talk • contribs).
- The IP address 68.121.151.244 (talk · contribs · block log) corresponds to the snfc21.pacbell.net anon (SBC Internet in the Bay area). This domain has been frequently used in the past by user JackSarfatti (talk · contribs · block log), IRL Jack Sarfatti, who was permabanned 14 December 2005 by Jimbo himself for repeatedly making legal threats against numerous users (including myself), among various other offenses.
- Sarfatti is known to mailbomb and otherwise harrass persons he doesn't like, including Jimbo Wales, and from his previous edits and other evidence he is known to dislike Shermer as well. Posting Shermer's email address is of course an invitation to spammers to spam Shermer; I have removed the email address from this talk page.
- In another edit, this anon committed a violation of WP:NLT (see last line). Sarfatti has previously threatened and harassed User:Calton).
- Sarfatti should not be editing the Wikipedia at all, and this activity has been reported. ---CH 19:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List
I find the list of published columns a bit tacky the way it is currently. Is there a reason for formatting it this way? I'll use a normal list. - Anas Talk? 14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
