Not what it appears to be,  deceptive and full of faulty logic.
929389
Poor guy.  Not a logical thinker.  Just another indoctrinated individual who states the bible is factual and that is proven by history.  Enough said about this fact checker.  He is either not very bright or he really thinks that he will lure some unsuspecting nonbeliever into reading this book.  Once into the book the nonbeliever will see the " light".  Really?  Anyone who reads this book and falls for it is beyond help in the first place in my humble opinion.  But in my experience,  the dishonesty and deception is pretty typical of these folks who are missionaries to we heathens.  Their dishonesty is disheartening ( supposedly so religious and all), and their grossly faulty logic is discouraging.  One last point, the "author" ends with " he gave you free will."  But if you use it to disagree with god, he'll kill you.  Great, huh?  Moreover, there are many good books, full of logic, that refute the free will treatise.  Check them out.  Don't waste 99 cents on this one.  Donate it to a good cause.
2615858
This book demonstrates the accuracy of the public image of lawyers, that they are liars and hypocrites.  Too bad the premise of this book is based (once again) on a lie.  But, I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is, right?
If you buy this book, you're a stupid, mind-numbed robot, who'll get on your knees for the democRAT party.
Save your money.  Or, if you MUST buy something...  Buy a bible!
3497425
This book dispels any myths created by James Bacque and clearly exposes that his statistical interpretations of historical data are deliberately dishonest.  The historians of the "New Orleans Panel" that analyzed Bacque's book, his methods and the underlying facts concluded that his work was worse than worthless since it creates a false image of history and detracts from events that actually took place.
A few nuggets:
"Cowdrey stated that Bacque's methodology for determining just the "Other Losses" figures was also "slipshod", with Bacque filling gaps in the records where no "other losses" were recorded by "comput[ing] the number of deaths by applying the death rate given in Army statistics for another period to the known number of prisoners at hand."Cowdrey states that the "rate given in Army statistics" turned out to be a "rate invented by Bacque himself." Cowdrey states that, with regard to Bacque's attempt to analyze a U.S. Army hospital record document, Bacque not only missed an obvious typo throwing his calculations off by 10, but he also badly erred in the math used to tabulate purported death rates of 30%, which he attempts to use to support his claim that the "other losses" column in the weekly army reports reflects a body count.[63] Cowdrey concludes that "the mathematical blunders of Other Losses are elementary. One turns from them feeling only embarrassment for the author who naively grounds his thesis upon them."

"Bischoff said that while "most scholarly reviewers of Bacque's book have pointed out that Bacque fails to establish the proper historical context", "worse, the historical records that Bacque did use are amateurishly misrepresented and often misleading or wrong. Once Bacque's endnotes are checked, frequent misreadings of documents are easily discernible."

This book accomplished its goal, the only negative reviews at this point are from the tinfoil hat conspiracy section of society that only requires a storyline that involves a government cover up as opposed to actual verifiable fact.  Facts be damned, contradictory evidence ignored, true analysis not needed, just believe that the conspiracy is true.  After all, conspiracies don't require proof because the suppression of evidence is part of the story!
1913006
A cobbled collection of unsubstantiated claims, guesswork, opinion, wild and unproven theory bereft of any historical, archeological or linguistic proof. A house of cards that collapses with exposure to simple logic or research.
Associations made between Egypt, Sumer and Freemasons are very tenuous at best, more often simply ridiculous - supported only by the authors' curious interpretations, assumptions or simply guesses. Claims are not backed by proper documentation, authority or creditable references. What starts as a wild guess in one chapter becomes a "conclusion" by the end, then treated as "fact" thereafter.
This is a flight of fancy; the authors lack basic credentials or training in any of the fields they discuss. It is a fantasy that contains little more than sequential leaps of blind faith from one rickety supposition to another. The result is  stunning only in its ability to defy the gravity of evidence.
Leave this book on the same shelf as Von Daniken and other silly forays into the alleged unknown - only the most gullible will credit any of its claims. It isn't even entertaining enough to read as humour.
1810999
That chapters 13 and 14 are simply a regurgitation of the nonsense that the creationist Discovery Institute promotes should give one a clue as to what kind of "science" this book discusses. "Intelligent Design" has been discredited as no more than silly pseudo-science in a court of law of the United States, and it is actively rejected by 99.9% of academia, yet it is presented by this ignoramus, Tom Bethell, as if it were real science rather than the idiotic superstition it actually is. Judging from my reading of these two chapters, this book does not deal with reality at all. The title is a lie. Creation science/Intelligent design is religion, not science.
1971918
I knew before that journalists are taught some kind of very specific logic, so I wasn't surprised to see all of these manipulative conclusions without any evidence. The best way to describe his logic is to say "I'm gonna tell people this is bad, because I don't like it." Lack of education, evidence and logic, just his feelings. I couldn't stand his rant on Kazakhs and Bolivians. I doubt the author could stretch his mind beyond typical stereotypes and official propaganda. Just imagine someone writes "America is the country of obesity, breast cancer and diabetes, I don't think they can produce food for healthy people."

Yesterday I bought organic nuts from California. They were bad. Does it mean that Californians are greedy corrupted farmers? Or maybe a million different things have happened to these nuts? If I buy organic blueberries and they aren't as good as I want them to be, do I think these blueberries are not organic? No, I don't make conclusions based on my imagination. On the contrary, I think this blueberry wasn't coated with wax, that's why it got rotten. I'm not saying food from other countries is good because it doesn't taste good, no. But I still believe that the way the author feels about foreign countries shouldn't affect his so-called investigation.

So if I were to write a book about organic food I would do the following:
1. Read and understand what organic food is. Check official info, summarize the rules and describe it in normal English language.
2. Hire a chemist! And check walnuts from California and Kazakhstan.
3. Compare several brands of organic walnuts and non-organic.
4. Walnuts and beans are not enough. Try eggs, dairy, meat, tomatoes etc. Check the dirty dozen at least!
5. Investigate if I find something bad. Check if they were major scandals in the area.

This book contains none of these. Just some conclusions based on the authors imagination.
933005
This book at least had me do some research and come to the realization it is not only filled with nonsense, it's filled with lies.  I would say it is a waste of time, but thankfully, I've taken a much harder, honest look at Obama and see a great president.
4807568
The entire premise of this book claims that the current efforts to return to a more classical system of education are based upon faulty conclusions from one woman's personal experience (ie Dorothy Sayers and her essay the lost tools of learning).  She goes on to point out that Ms Sayers had neither a degree in child psychology, nor research to back up her ideas and then outlines her own ideas into what a classical education should really look like.  Yet she herself has come to these conclusions based on what?  A degree in child psychology? The copious amounts of research she claims are lacking from Sayers and subsequently everyone who has modeled their version of classical education homeschooling after her?  No, from what I can tell, her only qualifications for making these grand claims are in fact her 9 years experience as a CPA and her own experiences as a homeschooling mother which I can only assume helped her develop her ideas, convictions based on what she believes to be a calling from "God".

In addition, this book was lacking all the fundamentals of a well researched and though out work: an index, end notes or foot notesany scientific data.  Very annoying.
3667984
This is not three books as you might be led to believe , it is one.
It is also a fake , the printing is askew and the illustrations and pictures are all black and white
317597
This book contains a veritable catalogue of every fallacy known to the art and science of logic. As a treatise meant to persuade the reader, its reasoning and language is nothing short of ridiculous. He fails to establish any sort of common ground or reliability. Then he wallows in abusive Ad Hominum, discrediting pro-technology positions by insulting those who hold it. He introduces a dozen red herrings, wasting time justifying conclusions irrelevant to the issues at hand. The book erects an army of straw men as it attempts to justify its rejection of positions by creating then discrediting different and usually weaker positions. More than anything it is a gallery of appeals to emotion, attempting to rationalize its conclusions by appealing to the sentiment of the audience. (There is enough thickly sweet sentiment in every chapter to make Cicero proud.) I could go on, but I'm already leaving this review barren of specific examples in order to deliver as much warning as I can in as few words: this book is nothing more than an irrational emotional outburst against computers and the Internet. It contains no compelling argument, and will drown you in sentimental prose as eye-rolling as any grocery store romance novel. Do not expect Stoll to be your rational, level-headed guide to the dangers of technology. Do not expect thoughtfully compiled evidence, articulate and clever argument, and a reasonable conclusion. Should he have had anything to say, he abandoned it from the first sentence of his project to a weak, wandering essay on "feelings" alone.
1804236
It is a shame that political conservatism, which was once a sophisticated approach with much to offer, has degenerated into a matter of a few cynical liars manipulating herds of uneducated sheep in the direction they believe is best. "Socialism" is a Marxist economic philosophy that advocates government ownership of the means of production. There were genuinely socialist economies in the old Soviet Union, its satellites, and China. There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama wants to transform the U.S. into a socialist state, and there is abundant evidence that refutes this idiotic idea, including, for example, (1) The Bush administration's bailouts of private business were vastly bigger than Obama's, (2) There were serious calls to nationalize banks that were receiving huge amounts of taxpayer dollars, but Obama would not do this, and (3) The Obama administration's Treasury Department and Federal Reserve are run basically by ex-bankers from Wall Street, especially from Goldman Sachs; how in the world could anyone consider these people Socialists?

Gingerich, of course, does not. He knows the difference between liberalism, which does describe Obama's political philosophy, and Socialism. Unfortunately, Gingerich believes so strongly in his ideas that he thinks it is justified to lie in order to advance these ideas. The remarkable thing is that he considers his audience to be so grossly uneducated and ignorant. Anyone capable of looking the word socialist up in a dictionary will discover, immediately, that this entire book is a lie. But Gingerich thinks so little of his readers that he believes he can get away with this pitiful manipulation.

For shame.
3486018
This was listed as the best shock collar for small dogs with descriptions that sounded too good to be true, except for the fact that I believe there were hundreds of positive reviews.  The fact that reviews from non-related items were placed for this item is an appalling practice of deceit.  This company should refund all shipping charges that were paid believing the claims and alleged support.

The item is a cheap piece of plastic that is actually quite large and not designed for small dogs.  It claims that it is waterproof, but the design has a ridiculous dial that spins freely and clearly would be an entry point for water.  The fact that this spins freely would also result in your dog being shocked at potentially greater strength than intended.

It would appear that the only intent here is to swindle people out of the money they pay for shipping, because I can't believe anyone is truly satisfied with this product.
1641466
I don't read books that I think I will dislike. I had high hopes for Beyond Fundamentalism. But the inescapable conclusion for this one is that it is a piece of unmitigated intellectual dishonesty. Aslan has had three titles for this book, which preface what is confirmed within the book: that Aslan does not have any clear, coherent, consistent thesis (that he's willing to admit to the reader at least). One of the titles includes the subtitle "Confronting Radical Religions". He does this by regurgitating examples of religious violence and extremism that exists in every religion. Nothing original there. The only interesting part is that he spends the majority of the book attacking and ridiculing Jews, Christians, and secularists under the theme of the repression of Muslims. When he does write of Muslim violence, it is strictly and explicitly Sunni Muslim violence. Aslan mention the word 'Shi'a' a total of five times in his book, and every single one is describing the hatred Sunni 'Jihadists' feel for Shi'as. In a book about radical religions, Aslan mentions the word 'Iran' a total of eight times, not one of them actually criticizing any Iranian for radicalism. Did I mention that Aslan is both of Iranian descent and Shi'a? What are the odds that he would attack virtually every other tradition for their religious violence while deflecting and avoiding any and all instances of religious violence from within his own tradition (of which there are numerous examples)?

Aslan couches his rhetoric in liberal and intellectual language, yet he is no liberal and no intellectual (in the sense that he seeks the truth, which has nothing to do with intelligence). His mission is to justify and excuse atrocities done in the name of Islam with the argument "Well they did it too!" Such is an example of Hasib Hussain, one of the '7/7' London bombers that killed over 50 people in 2005. Aslan spends an entire chapter providing the reader with reasons to believe Hussain was confused and had no other choice, mainly due to Hussain's (and every young European Muslim's) "crisis of identity". Aslan does not mention that most teenagers suffer from crises of identity. He does not consider that, for example, gay, disabled, transgender teenagers all over the world suffer from a severe "crisis of identity". Yet they do not often blow up busses. This suggests to me that Aslan's justification's for Hussain's actions are off the mark. He did not write one word of condemnation of Hussain or his actions. Yet, in the same chapter, he blasts "neofascist' European politicians, "pseudointellectual" critics of Islam such as Aayan Hirsi Ali, a blatantly "Nazi" political party in Britain, and endorses religious violence as being good for social movements (although Jihadism takes it too far).

Aslan markets himself as the go-to modern, liberal, Muslim 'intellectual'. But Islam does not need his dishonest defense; he does more harm than good. The world is more than able to see that the majority of Muslims are a beautiful, generous, fascinating people without the dishonesty of Reza Aslan.
4472143
I bought this book thinking it was dealing with the subject of logic and reasoning. What I found after completing a third of the book was it is nothing but far right political ignorance.  I am still hopeful  that the right can get over this rhetoric of everybody that needs help from a government program is lazy irresponsible and undeserving. How the hell does the author know these individual circumstances well enough to conclude his opinion?  This is the type of ignorance you would expect to read in the comment section of Breitbart news not in a book about of all things logic and reason. This book of ignorance is neither logical or reasonable. It is merely a waste of money.
512792
Illogical.  Pretends that internet information that was never found can suddenly be found.  Impossible motivations and actions by key players.  A complete waste of time
367295
You would think a book that aims to teach you about logic would use logic in its design.  Unfortunately, this is just another piece of major publishing trash that is pushed on college students.  Even my professor complained about this book, but because cartoonishly evil McGraw Hill publishers paid my university a bunch of money, EVERY SINGLE discrete mathematics course requires this waste of carbon.  The teachers didn't even get a say in it.

The biggest problem is that this book reads more like a rushed review than teaching material.  It is infuriatingly obvious that it was slapped together, comprehension be damned.  It goes over the subjects in clunky blocks, without breaking down each concept piece by piece.  I kid you not, this is a direct excerpt from the book:

"...an island with two types of inhabitants, knights who always tell the truth, and their opposites, knaves, who always lie.  You encounter two people A and B.  What are A and B if A says "B is a knight" and B says "The two of us are opposite types?"

Solution:  Let p and q be the statements that A is a knight and B is a knight, respectively, so that ~p and ~q are the statements that A is a knave and B is a knave, respectively.
We first consider the possibility that A is a knight; this is the statement that p is true.  If A is a knight, then he is telling the truth when he says that B is a knight, so that q is true, and A and B are the same type.  However, is B is a knight, then B's statements that A and B are of opposite types, the statement (p /\ ~q) \/ (~p /\ q), would have to be truth, which it is not, because A and B are both knights, respectively.  Consequently, we can conclude that A is not a knight, that is, that p is false.
If A is a knave, then because everything a knave says if false, A's statement that B is a knight, that is, that q is true, is a lie.  That means that q is false and B is also a knave, then B's statement that A and B are opposite types is a lie, which is consistent with both A and B being knaves.  We can conclude that both A and B are knaves."

These rushing vomit run-on words are not accompanied by graphs of any kind.  Graphs are incredibly useful in helping students visualize abstract comments.  This excerpt was from chapter ONE.

The book is required, probably because the sons of female dogs paid your university a ton of money to make it required.  The university gets a cut from the ridiculous amount you pay for one brick of low-quality toilet paper.

Happy learning, guys!
716723
I think the fallacy of the premise of this book is illustrated by the lack of thought in all of the previous reviews of this "book" which is better described as a diatribe. The previous reviews are filled with propaganda memes and ideas approaching Nationalism cloaked in Patriotism. Littered with nonsense like "ignited the conflict that led to the most momentous political event of man's history" as if the founding of the US was somehow the most momentous political event in thousands of years of man's history (it is not even close), the other reviews of this book read like the book itself, an American version of Pravda. ONly in this imaginary world, the US, not the Soviet Union, is "out to save the world." Yet that is no more true than it was about the Soviet Union.  This is indoctrination for the indoctrinated. While it might seem as obvious to their "fellow travelers" as Xenu to a Scientologist, it is nonsense to the rational thinking person. The creation of the US was an event in History. While it is certainly an important event, it is quite probably not the most momentous political event of our age, much less our entire history. It takes quite the megalomaniac to declare such nonsense.

More than this, the author is a birther. A modern day flat-Earther. There can be no stronger indictment of the ludicrous of political thought in the 21st century than this. "I know better than the assembled Supreme Court, the 300+ million other Americans, the Legislature of the US. I am the savior who sees through the deception of this non-American." This borders on insanity. It is certainly moronic. I couldn't care less if he had 100 degrees, there can be no greater indictment of the US educational system than this.

The reviewers decry the "liberals" and "leftists" (propaganda memes) which would sweep across the US with tyranny oblivious to the fact that the framers of this vaunted HOLY document, the Constitution, were themselves Liberals. The Conservatives of the late 18th century wanted the US to remain part of Britain. The agents of change, liberals, were the writers of the Constitution. Many of them would be viewed as "leftists" today in the US. Benjamin Franklin would surely be decried as a socialist and Leftist had he lived today, yet he was perhaps the wisest of the Founding Fathers of the US.

History is filled with empires which had strong regional militias and feel to tyranny. It is the rule, not the exception. More than this, can anyone imagine Texas under George Bush or Rick Perry having access to Atomic weapons? Oklahoma with the power to wage war, or Mississippi? Can the reader imagine the instability of the union were the jan Brewers of Arizona given to power use drones? The US has already slid hard vis a vis its industrialized peers due to the rightward slide of its populace. We would rapidly become a third world country.

Somalia is an example of a country with strong regional militias. France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Austria et. al, are example of countries that do not. Which one would the reader rather emulate?