Simplistic Scare Scenarios from a non-scientist
354901
The author strung toether 3 contemporary myths creating an adult horror story. The 3 myths are: global warming; peak oil; and 9/11.

To understand why global warming isn't real read the scientific appendix to Michael Crichton M.D.'s "State of Fear".

To understand why peak oil isn't real read "The Deep Hot Biosphere" and ask yourself how much $ oil companies have made by touting the spectre of peak oil.

To understand how 9/11 was a domestic intelligence operation and not islamic terrorism look at "[...]" on the internet (or dozens of other sites). Are you any safer now that we have a Homeland Security State or just more powerless?

As in Watergate the question to ask is Qui Bono- who profits?
1380009
This is the first R L Stine book I've ever read.  And its not actually scary.  The cover art might lead you to believe it, with the "three faces of me" in the purple ghostly writing.  But its not scary, its more of a "what if" kind of story.  "what if" you could make a copy of yourself.

The author goes through some very basic, obvious scenarios of how having a copy of yourself could backfire.  Its almost comical.

None of Ira's copies are mischievous or evil at heart, they have the same personality he does.  If the book were scary, thats how it would have been accomplished - if Ira's copies were devilish.  But they aren't.

My kids were interested in what happened during the story, and how it would end.  It was a good book from that perspective.

The writing was a bit stilted:  how many kids are named "Ira" these days?  And in other ways the dialogue sounded like an adult definitely wrote it to sound like a kid.  I'm not sure kids would pick up on that, but I did.

If you are looking for an interesting what if book, then I can recommend it.  If you want to be scared, then, keep looking.
4587257
The book Microbe was okay.  I'm really not sure whether this is science-fiction or more like fantasy.  It was never clear to me why there should have been a cover-up about the events in the 1940s.  Assuming those events had to be covered up, I don't understand why the so-called conspiracy because the American president was not part of the conspiracy?  The ending reminded me of the 1960s- 1970s horror movies, it was too simple.  Still this book is reasonable and can be read in one or two nights.  I'm not sure that I will read anything else by this author.
2819345
David Stove apparently considers the rationality of induction so obvious as to require no argument, so one wonders why he devoted an entire book to justifying it.  Certainly the book looks like it was written by someone who didn't really think he needed an argument; it contains plenty of polemic against anyone who might have worried about induction, but such arguments as Stove gives are absurdly poor.  His appeal to probability theory is only successful because he makes things much too easy for himself; what he proves is much too weak to establish the rationality of induction.  However, since he buries the argument in unnecessary mathematical symbols, its weaknesses may easily evade a reader prone to be intimidated by mathematics.  Stove would have been much better served to simply stick to the obviousness line, and not get involved with the philosophical arguments for which he clearly has no talent.
1720098
Ron Rhodes attempts to find Biblical reasoning behind alien abductions, UFO sightings and other attractions to the paranormal. I must state
upfront that I don't believe in UFO's or life on other planets. In spite of this, I am nonetheless fascinated with controversial phenomena such as UFO sightings and alien contact. While I don't deny that people who have had these experiences felt something that they perceived to be very real, I don't believe that what they experienced had anything to do with aliens, UFO's or abductions.

The author and I come from the same skeptical background. We are also both Christians, yet I won't go so far as Rhodes does in his Biblical interpretations of alien encounters. Although he is using the Bible as his source, I found his scriptural backup for UFO sightings and alien abductions to be as weak as water. In his explanation for what causes UFO sightings, he makes the point throughout the book, warning readers about extraterrestrials:

"Christians beware! Deceptive spirits are at work!"; and:

"Don't be fooled by deceiving spirits!".

So it's evil spirits who are making all those lights in the sky, is it? I don't buy into extraterrestrial travellers visiting planet Earth either, yet I don't think the answer to all these sightings is that they are manifestations of Satan's demon angels trying to hook humans into believing in them.

I found the most interesting chapters in Alien Obsession to be "Are UFOs Mentioned in the Bible?" and "The Strange Case of Whitley Strieber". In the late eighties I read Strieber's first two books about his alleged alien abductions and visitations, Communion and Transformation. His first book, Communion, scared the living daylights out of me. I had never read a book that made me scared to move about in my own house. Strieber had repeated psychologically traumatic experiences, that, in my opinion, were not extraterrestrial in their cause. Rhodes sums up Strieber's experiences this way:

"I don't believe for a minute that Strieber came into contact with bona fide aliens from outer space. Rather, he came into contact with demonic spirits who were posing as aliens."

This is stated so brazenly that it is laughable. The whole tone of this book, in its Biblical analyses and in the author's warnings to vulnerable potential Christian alien abductees, comes across as though it was written by --and I am sorry that a fellow Christian such as myself has to say this-- a religious wacko. How else to explain the author's tips to Christians who may find themselves abducted by demonics spirits posing as aliens? Rhodes gives the reader tips on how to get these demonic aliens to let you go. What? Has he used his own advice on himself to vouch that it works? Not a fun read, and I found myself shaking my head with scoffing laughter many times as I turned its 252 pages.
3748290
As an extremely fearful flier, I always try to carry a book along which has an interesting story but is easy to read, because I find it impossible to fully concentrate on reading while holding up the airplane. My daughter-in-law recommended Dean Koontz for this purpose, whose books she characterized as "mind candy."

Unfortunately, I think I must have chosen one of Koontz's worst offerings. I know he is extremely popular, and I cannot help but believe that most of his novels are better than this one. I should have been warned by the fact that it was originally published under a pseudonym. Even as "mind candy," it was less than successful.

The plot concerns a genius physicist who wakes up in a hospital with no memories of her past life. Gradually, most memories return, including the remembrance of a fraternity hazing incident from her college days which left her boyfriend dead and her as the testifying witness against four fraternity brothers. She remembers that at least two of the men are dead, and yet she begins seeing all four at the hospital, disguised as patients and orderlies, still looking to be in their early twenties although many years have passed. Are they hallucinations from a brain injury? Is she going crazy? Are they actually ghosts, as they claim to be? Is the whole situation a giant conspiracy with everyone in the hospital involved? To complicate matters, she falls in love with her doctor almost immediately.

This supernatural mystery was never actually scarey, and the solution (which is explained by a character in a very lame method of revelation) is so unlikely as to be laughable, and reveals many, many plot holes.

If I ever read Koontz again, I will seek out a recommendation for a specific title. Surely he has produced better.
4408677
These modern conspiracy theories are nothing more than the latest manifestation of magical thinking.  Humanity has enslaved itself to superstitious nonsense since it crawled down from the trees. The brain stitches together accidents and coincidences into convincing patterns to support its notions of unseen demons of the spirit world.  Just so, the modern conspirators are equally hidden and mysterious, and invariably interconnected by a byzantine network of coincidences and apparent chains of cause and effect.  This is likely due to our origin as scared monkeys trembling at the unseen leopard, imagining threats at every turn.  Don't be scared monkeys!  The author has spun his tale so thick he's lost in his own web.  Where is the author's skepticism of his own skepticism?  As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  Where is the evidence?  No doubt, it was destroyed with 100% efficiency by the unidentifiable conspirators.  Where are the whistle blowers?  Every one is cowed by threats of death, no doubt.  I believe there may also be elements of racism involved in this.  These conspiracy theorists can't believe that Arabs could possibly execute such a complex plot without the assistance of the white man, or worse yet, being mere dupes of the white man.

As an exercise in creative writing, it's quite entertaining, but a product of reason it is not.  How easily we might slip back into the dark ages.
2332971
After reading Gridlock, I was embarrassed for the former United States Senator from North Dakota.  The small part of the book that was about the threats to and implications of those threats to the U.S. electrical grid was so insubstantial, unsurprising and uninteresting that the only remaining reason to read this book as a thriller.  But with writers like Grisham, Clancy, MacDonald (Travis McGee) or even Patterson why bother? This "thriller" is built on a mountain of laugh out loud cliches and coincidences.
Why do we care about the electrical power grid? Because we depend upon it for light, heat, communication, transportation, refrigeration, health care and much, much more.  Without the grid, which is extremely vulnerable to both cyber and physical attacks, we would become a third world country overnight.  Millions would die.  Law and order would break down.  But you'll have a hard time finding this out, or at least caring, if you read Gridlock.
501624
Charles Pellegrino's "Ghosts of the Titanic" is geared for the casual reader in the sciences.  For those interested in modern shipwreck exploration, physics and microbiology, this book will provide entertainment.  Pellegrino's style is accessible as he weaves history, science and personal anecdote in an easygoing manner.  The central part of the book; having to do with the breakup, sinking, and landing on the ocean floor of the Titanic, is clearly presented.

However; this book is not for the serious student of history.  With extensive biographical data available, as well as the publication of both inquiries into the loss of the Titanic, there is really no excuse for the mistakes in this book.  A few examples include: 1. Mixing up Mrs. Ada Clarke with Mrs. Virginia Clark. 2. Asserting that Eugene Abbott was nine, when he was fourteen. 3. Implying that Charles Joughin was Irish, when he was from Liverpool. 4. Stating that Alfred Nourney was from New Jersey; he was from Cologne, Germany. 5. Placing Kathy Gilnagh in collapsible D when evidence suggests she was rescued in boat 16. Apparently confusing Steward Brown with Steward Jack Stewart.  I could go on ... and on... and on...!

Some of the mistakes are just silly, as when Pellegrino continuously refers to Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff Gordon as "The Gordons" or credits Lady Duff Gordon as the inventor of pockets for women's clothing. Other mistakes are more serious, as when Pellegrino apparently invents dialogue -- certainly he provides no sources!  Or worse, when he weaves a tissue of speculation, half truths and apparent invention to imply a conspiracy of silence surrounding an officer's suicide, or another conspiracy surrounding the boiler room fire.

In the face of all these mistakes (and Pellegrino goes so far as to credit himself with coining the term "immunogenetics" in the 1980's; however, it was first used in 1936 and I found it in my 1976 Mirriam-Webster.) one can forgive the reader for wondering just how much of Charles Pellegrino's science is accurate.
1280584
As a professional geologist, I have some special expertise in karst limestone formations. I also have decades worth of paranormal research under by belt so I think I can rightfully critique this volume. Ill be blunt, this book is shallow, pretentious nonsense. The geological explanations are so muddled, and nonsensical - jaw-droppingly bad. Yohe is not a scientist but is pretending to play one. If the best you can cite are popular websites or How Stuff Works as your references, you should not be writing books for anyone.

Paranormalists LOVE the idea of the stone tape theory because it sounds sciencey and they can buffalo those readers who don't have enough science background to be able to tell how ridiculous it sounds.  Always be concerned about self-published books that claim to be bridging science and the paranormal. Turn and RUN away from any that invoke quantum theories of entanglement. It's all hand waving and bamboozling with big words and amateur speculation.

This is a book of pseudoscience. Neither limestone nor any other type of rock (ghost hunters playing scientists like to invoke granite and other quartz-containing rock) has ever been shown to any degree to absorb emotional energy and then play it back later. Not only is there no viable mechanism for recording or for playback, there is no evidence that this even is a reasonable observation. A scientific theory is one that has been supported by evidence and can be used to predict observations. The "stone tape" theory is not a theory - it's a handy speculative fictional device.

To affect scientific expertise when you have none is abhorrent to me. This book is just terrible. An awful waste of words. If you read it, you will end up more misinformed than informed.
1459706
Suspense = 0. Scare factor = 0. I've watched episodes of Goosebumps that were scarier than this book.  One reviewer stated it best, adding sex and some cuss words to an otherwise tame kid's book doesn't make it fit for adults.  This book might work great as a movie because it's all visual.  There is a decided lack of background or build-up to anything suspenseful. I've read amateur fiction on the Web that was scarier.  Maybe I'm jaded by too many Saw movies.
1026070
I picked up "The Great Depression Ahead" from the display of new Non-Fiction books at my local library. I've never read any of Harry S. Dent's books, and I thought that it wouldn't hurt to get another person's forecast of where we're headed financially from here. After all, if someone can make a strong case based on evidence that makes sense, why not keep an open mind until you evaluate his facts?

The books is easy to read. Unfortunately, the "facts" in the book are based on very weak (or non-existent) evidence. For example, one of his basic tenants is that events tend to happen in regular cycles, say every 30 years, 40 years, etc. I'm willing to accept that theory, but not based just on a graph that shows only the last two cycles. Show me at least 4 or 5 cycles if you want me to believe! This happens time and time again, and if I can't believe the initial "proofs" I certainly can't believe the predictions that he draws from them. In addition, the book is VERY repetitious- it repeats the same things over and over again. The whole thing could have been written in 1/3rd the number of pages.

You may or may not believe in things like the "peak oil" theory (which is NOT part of Dent's book), but at least those who propose ideas like that give you lots and lots of sources and references that can be independently checked and verified. "The Great Depression Ahead" asks you to take a great leap of faith and "trust" its assumptions when you look at the future through the glass darkly. Mr. Dent may or may not be right about his predictions, but in any case they're not based on facts. You might enjoy reading this book, but it belongs in the "Fiction" classification.
508346
"Digital Fortress" should more properly have been named "Implausible Sandcastle."  In skimming over the more recent Amazon reviews, it became clear that many people are buying into some of the underlying factoids in this book.  Coleridge wrote of "a willing suspension of disbelief."  Well, I am certainly willing to suspend my disbelief for the sake of an amusing thriller, but I am not willing to suspend it as much as this book requires.

At the heart of the story is a handy-dandy superdupercomputer.  Dan Brown, in a single brief passage, casually explains why this computer is so special.  Special?  Why, it is the Holy Grail of computer breakthroughs.  If such a computer existed, breaking codes would be one of its most trivial functions, about on a par with addressing envelopes with a current top-of-the-line supercomputer.  If such a machine existed, the world would be changing in as radical a way as the change from isolated mainframes to ubiquitous PCs.  Codebreaking?  Who cares?  Important things would be happening!

Even more implausible is the book's administrative and bureaucratic environment.  I flat out do not believe that a code breaking establishment with a $2 billion tinkertoy at the heart of the intelligence apparatus of the nation would, for all intents and purposes, routinely shut down and be left unmanned (or unpersoned, if you will) for the weekend.

Then there is the gentle art of code breaking and decipherment.  It is clear (from his erroneous description of Julius Caesar's ciphering techniques, from the peculiar notion that four-letter code groups specifically relate to Enigma machines, from the emphasis on brute force methods) that Dan doesn't know Jack about it.

Wrap all this in a plot in which every character consistently acts more idiotically than the next at every possible opportunity, and a killer who is so deadly that he might be taken for the second cousin of a upas tree except when he tries to bump off the hero (again and again and again)--and one might almost conclude that the author had intentionally written a shaggy dog story.

Dan Brown?  With a sense of humor?

Nah!
3341049
I'm outraged by the number of idiots who call themselves scientists, then write crap like this book disguised as a scholarly scientific work.  This in turn reaches masses of people whose scientific knowledge is lacking, and they believe the lies written therein based upon the authority the moron authors claims to have because they're "scientists." This is deplorable and immoral behavior to say the least; and these people call themselves Christians.  This helps contribute to the problem that now we have a multitude of people in America with false scientific views and an utter inability to think critically.  The results are sad and ominous.  Our country is falling behind even third world countries in science education.  Science is the foundation by which nations prosper.  The future of our country, as a result, is bleak.  In the future, when  we need great feats and ingenuity to overcome trying times, will the masses rely on prayer to solve our problems, or will they turn to the educated sector of society for some real and tangible help?  Will we have enough strong scientific minds to even make a difference?  Scary indeed!  Don't believe me? Watch the coming global warming catastrophe.  It's easy for the deniers to say, "It's alright, God won't let anything happen to us."  When it hits the fan, who will they turn to? More faith?  Clowns like this author propagate a dangerous state of Bronze Age idiocy to further their own agendas. This guy is basically a circus ringmaster disguised as a man of science. He's all pomp and smooth talk without substance. He's trying to sell his show, no matter the cost.  I just hope reason wins in the end.
3395675
This is an extremely short tract that weaves indiscriminately amongst legitimate (albeit math-free) science, Gilligan's-Island style improvisation (that's a toilet float atop the coil pictured on the cover), and mythical pop pseudoscience ("unlimited free energy," etc.).

A good Google search will be far more informative, and free, too.
4454919
The title of this book might be a bit misleading.  There is no actual science here.  By "science" Young seems to mean only his fondness for metaphors drawn from popular science (the tired old ones about waves and particles, or about the table being "really" only a mass of moving particles, etc.).  He warns us that he will use a "precise technical vocabulary" that might be difficult at first for the uninitiated, but what he means by that seems to be an awful lot of vague metaphors which avoid any precise meaning (e.g.: "The ultimate primordial self is the space itself, born in the cleft between expansion and contraction"; or, "You get a very clear perception...[of]...a stately undulatory movement, and within each undulation a more rapid vibratory movement").

His ultimate model of enlightenment is smoking pot and eating a brownie. Passive pleasant sensations are the goal, any attempt at thought or action is the cause of all suffering; Young's constant refrain throughout is that we must accept any conditions, and learn to experience them as pleasant, and "pure", sensations.  This passive state is what he means by enlightenment, and in the last chapter he suggest that we might all achieve this by some kind of more sophisticated lobotomy.  He even offers some examples of people with major brain injuries, which have rendered them incapable of self-directed action but who are indifferent to their surroundings, and suggests this offers hope that some kind of surgical enlightenment might some day be possible.

To be fair, he is explicit about the fact that what he is presenting was NOT taught by the Buddha, and that his techniques are twentieth-century inventions that most Buddhists objected to as being the opposite of the goal of Buddhism.  He still wants to attach it to Buddhism, though, so he claims that each new Buddha radically reinvents the teachings (he compare this to the transformation of Newtonian physics by Einstein).

Overall, a sad mess of new age thought poorly yoked to bad popular ideas of neuroscience.  The only thing more depressing than the popularity of this kind of new age nonsense is the fact that I read the whole book!
2553452
This is virtually a book-length "scare story" from the evening news. Flying is dangerous! Pilots are fatigued! Planes can have mechanical problems, poor maintenance, or go down due to pilot error! OMG! There's nothing new here for "students" of aviation accidents. Ice-clogged pitot tubes WILL mess with your instrumentation. Definitely a design flaw, but the A330 involved in the Air France #447 disaster over the Atlantic is one of the most popular aircraft in the world. Author Meade is guilty of hyping rare outliers in the otherwise superb safety statistics in aviation. (For the record: I have no affiliation whatsoever with the airline/travel/aircraft businesses, I'm just a regular guy with an interest in air accidents.)

If you're interested in the causes and effects of aviation disasters, there are far, far better choices. The same is true of some of the industry's unsavory practices, including doing everything "on the cheap". If, however, you want to read an extended "details on our news at 10" ratings-boosting scare report, here's your book.