Worth reading but thin on verifiable facts or irrefutable logic
358119
Allow me to be straight and to the point:  I am glad I read Mr. Gallagher's book, and I believe the man is of good heart and pure in his intent but I was not convinced that low prices are maintained by the anecdotal violence he discusses (briefly).

I found the philosophical aspects of his raised issues more meaningful and thought provoking than I found his economical arguments to be convincing.  I agree that we all should do a better job of considering the use of the incredible wealth we've been bestowed with (as most Americans are rich in material wealth and a stable society due to being born in the right place at the right time more so than through their own endeavors).  We surely could do more for our fellow man than we do.  And I don't mean sending checks to faceless, nameless people in countries we can't even identify on a map.  Mr. Gallagher has it right that more hands-on, face-to-face compassion is better for the giver and the recipient....not to mention our country.

But, I found the opinions (often stated as unsupported facts) regarding the economics of "low costing" to be overly simple and logically flawed.  I agree very much that physical and direct mental threats and violence are immoral and unacceptable as techniques for lowering labor costs or as means to threaten or usurp people's just freedoms and rights.  And I do agree that each person who purchases items made by other people has an obligation to make a reasonable effort to understand how such items are produced and procured....and to steer clear of items that are immoral or offensive to human rights.  But such determinations must largely fall to the buyer or the agents THEY respect...not overly-legislative do-gooders (who often are tyrants in disguise). This book presents some examples of such unjust treatment of workers and describes several situations where worker safety is wholly sacrificed in the name of "productivity."  Yet, these in themselves fail to make the economic case that globalized trade and the (semi-)free market are the cause of the problems.  In fact, many have made the claim....and in much more convincing ways (e.g.  Frederic Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, Ayn Rand).....that trade and the flow of information are better seen as solutions to these types of crimes against workers than as their cause.

In summary, pick up a copy from the library and read it for an impetus to consider what YOU are doing with the wealth you have in the face of so much human suffering around the world.  But make sure you don't let the guilt cloud your reasoning and fall for the shallow economic arguments without following it this book up with a more logically sound counterpoint (e.g.&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Economics-in-One-Lesson-The-Shortest-and-Surest-Way-to-Understand-Basic-Economics/dp/0517548232/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics</a>&nbsp;,<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Freakonomics-A-Rogue-Economist-Explores-the-Hidden-Side-of-Everything-P-S/dp/0060731338/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.)</a>)
4789202
As other reviews have mentioned, Penrose attempts to demonstrate the impossibility of strong AI's thesis.  In the end,  Penrose presents two core arguments: (1) a well-reasoned, deductive, and logical proof based on Godel's incompleteness theorem, and (2) a complete conjecture about quantum gravity that has little to no supporting evidence.

  Thus, please save yourself the time and just read chapters 1-4 and 9-10.  The 225 pages that are chapters 5-8 give the background for Penrose's second argument.  These pages are mostly filled with erudite, technical physics.  The first four chapters, on the other hand, give an enlightening review of artificial intelligence and outline the mathematics needed to follow his first core argument.

  Personally, I find both arguments unconvincing.  Not being a mathematician, I won't embarass myself by trying to show why Godel's incompleteness thereom is not entirely appropriate for a discussion on artificial intelligence.  As for the second argument, neither you nor I need worry; it is entirely useless.
1748923
Phil Zuckerman's book convincingly shows that societies do not need god or religious beliefs to be successful and happy. It is a good read but there is one aspect that really frustrated me: it is unnecessarily unscientific which clearly defeats its purpose.

Zuckerman does list facts over facts over pages and pages (which is good) as in "Denmark ranks second and Sweden ranks third in the world [in gender equality]. "Other relatively irreligious nations in the top 20 include Norway (ranked number 1), the Netherlands, Belgium, New Zealand, and Britain." And so on. Great. But what does "relatively irreligious" mean? Why doesn't he just provide a table with the top 20 or 50 or 100 nations and SHOW the NUMBERS (here, for instance, measured as political participation), so that every reader can see the actual facts and judge for him/herself? There is not a single table in this book. Since Zuckerman cites all the sources for his information he certainly has the numbers. Why not show them? He could save a lot of text and be clearer at the same time by just adding a couple of tables.

More importantly, selecting bits and pieces from statistics like this does not provide a coherent picture, especially when they are watered down by relativism. Even crappy diagrams as in Greg Paul's 2005 analysis ([...]) are more informative than just listing selected numbers out of a bigger context.

This would be a great AND readable book with truly scientific value if Zuckerman provided the actual figures and some analysis summarized as diagrams. It could be still very readable if he explained what the numbers mean (as he does!) so that even the non-science-minded reader could enjoy it. However, since the role of religion in society is an issue loaded with emotion, facts are key, so presenting them selectively is simply defeats its purpose and supports his critics.
541875
State of Fear delivers an exciting suspense novel, but when it comes to providing a scientific refutation of the global warming theory, it provides more of a veneer of a scientific argument rather than one with a strong foundation. Consider the following. Many scientific facts are presented, and these would seem to discredit the theory. For example charts of temperature readings at several locations are presented showing cooling trends rather than warming patterns. However, these locations number less than fifty. Since global warming is a net effect, a true, representative sample of events occurring on the surface of the globe would require millions of locations. His method of sampling locations is never mentioned nor are the many obvious and not so obvious factors that might affect temperature at these locations. In an appendix he references the eugenics movement in his citisism of environmentalists, and this analogy seems like quite a stretch. Given that the course of events on the planet and within scientific circles since his book was written do not support his point of view, perhaps he would like to reconsider.
2310788
The viewpoint of this book is obvious from its subtitle: The Births of Jesus & Other Sons of God.  Miller compares the biblical infancy narratives with similar stories that were extant in the time of Jesus, and concludes that the virgin birth didn't happen.  Of course, anyone who can view the narratives with even a bit of detachment will come to the same conclusion.  Miller also concludes that the prophecies in Matthew aren't prophecies at all.  Although these conclusions are not novel or surprising (and Miller doesn't claim that they are), the discussion is interesting and often lively.  However, I can only give this book three stars, for several reasons:

1) The book is poorly organized.  The chapter topics jump around, and the chapter that reads like the main summary of the book (chapter 16) isn't the last one.

2) The book is a scholarly lightweight compared to Raymond Brown's "The Birth of the Messiah."

3) In the book's Introduction, Miller states that the reader will have no doubt about where he stands on a given issue.  Although he usually doesn't mince words (an admirable trait, in my opinion), he nevertheless states (p. 257) that "one can take the virgin birth seriously, and believe in it with integrity, no matter what one thinks about Jesus' biological origins."  In this part of the book he uses the words "believe" and "true" in a subjective way --- as Bertrand Russell wrote about William James, his "... doctrine is an attempt to build a superstructure of belief on a foundation of skepticism ..."  If Miller had been content to say, "The virgin birth isn't true, but it symbolizes something important," I might disagree with his assertion but I wouldn't argue with the way he expressed it.  But for some reason he feels compelled to imply that because the myth of the virgin birth symbolizes something important to him, it is "true".  I suspect he would adopt a more mundane definition of "true" if the issue at stake were whether he had received his paycheck for the month.
1650255
Like a lot of authors in this genre that supposedly reveals our true human history, he relies a lot upon assertions rather than evidence.  He will ask questions, then proceed as though by the asking he has established them as facts.  There were times when he stated outright that something is "fact", when in fact it was mistaken -- maybe just something he heard from an author of the same ilk.

Anyway, this could have been a much more effective (and shorter) book if he had stuck to harmonics without having to tie every little thing about the Roslyn Chapel to a hundred different myths and legends.

As the proof is in the pudding however, he should be out their helping to design harmonic spaces for raising consciousness instead of chasing his tail.
857402
Matt Ridley makes a mostly convincing case that the world is getting better. And he definitely makes some interesting arguments, for example pointing out how carbon-based fuels has eliminated druggery labor, perhaps even slavery. Though that point, like a bunch of them is suspect. And he ignores difficult questions when it suits him. For instance he pooh-poohs global warming, and doesn't look seriously as some disaster scenarios that are realistic and believed by very credible scientists. I wish he would have written the The Rational (Mostly) Optimist. In other words, he would have had more credibility if he wasn't so ideologically wedded to his thesis: all good ahead. True, he does add some caveats here and there, but they feel just like that and there is as noted some dishonesty and loose handling of facts. Still, if aware of that, a worthwhile read.
2356880
I read this book, along with other books by the same author, several years ago and at the time I was quite convinced that McDowell's arguments were valid. (This short book is essentially  an overview of some of the simpler arguments found in McDowells other volumes.) It is only fair to say, however, that if one has time for a little research in conjunction with reading this book, it will be apparent to them that the arguments are far from having any solid evidential foundation, as I later found out.

Most easily refuted is the infamous "proof" for the divinity of Jesus. It goes that Jesus was "Lord, Liar or Lunatic." (We must apparently choose one of these possibilities according to McDowell in order to get to our verdict.) It is apparent immediately that this "proof" does not encompass the full realm of possibilities if one puts forth any thought toward the subject. What if the stories of Jesus where embellished by future generations of writers? This embellishment happens so frequently in the evolution of mythologies that it is a wonder how McDowell neglected to include it as a possibility. It is also possible, however unlikely it may be, that the man Jesus never existed. Therefore, we have the choice between at least five possibilities, not just the three that McDowell puts forth.

Any person on a quest for truth needs to start with a set of facts from an epistemologically responsible source and compare them to the biased "research" in question in order to dismiss false premises. A little thinking with a small amount of unbiased research will most likely leave the reader with the opposite conclusion of what the book implies. For instance, Tom Clancy books correspond nicely to structures around today, such as the pentagon and White House etc. Although the novels describe buildings that exist in reality, is no reason to believe the storyline is true. Archeological evidence for the Bible is therefore not valid for proving its truth; it only means that the writers knew of the existence of buildings and cities of their time.
3518738
This book is well written and easy to understand, but like all the other Dummies and Idiot's Guides I've read, it follows the party line of "political correctness," (others follow modernism and post-modernist attitudes). I suppose they would never be published of they didn't. I am going to show a few errors in this book. On page 119, the author says that the Roswell crash of 1947 occurred a month after Kenneth Arnold saw the UFOs in Washington. But on page 123 he says the crash occurred a week after. This is a glaring contradiction. On page 123 the author makes the claim that most UFO researchers believe the Roswell UFO crash is a colossal hoax. That is patently false. I am certainly no expert, but I've never heard a UFO researcher make the claim it is a hoax. On page 126 the author says that no serious UFO researcher believes Bob Lazar's claims anymore. I don't believe that is true. I can't help but think that the author is a disinformationist, and I strongly disagree with his "politically correct" views about 9/11. I also think some statements are unclear. For example, the following sentence is not clear to me, and doesn't make sense: "Many societies are connected to a religious faith if only through belief in that faith shared by their membership."  Despite some of his views and unclear statements, I like the book.
4101413
This book is the second of 3 attempting to uncover the truth of 911. It adds to the overwhelming circumstantial and scientific evidence that 911 was orchestrated by individuals other than Osama Bin Laden. The problem is the thesis it advances is that the Zionist government of Israel-Palestine and the Mossad are the culprits.  The author gets the US government and the ruling class it represents off the hook by positing that the Mossad had so thoroughly infiltrated the US state apparatus that the Zionists were basically running the US. I don't doubt that the Mossad as well as the Pakistani ISI and the Saudi's all helped the neocons, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld government, and top brass in the FBI and CIA orchestrate 911. However to suggest that the Mossad was running the show puts the cart before the horse and has the tail wagging the dog.
Also, if you are interested in learning the truth about 911, you don't have to spend hours reading about the mnage a trois romance among an airline flight attendant, a US president, and a collie!
4204028
I found the book a compelling read for its anecdotes and anthology of quackery, but ultimately it was too shallow in its examination of the science. For example, a major part of the book discusses multivitamns. I was very intrigued by the various political machinations required to de-regulate the vitamin (and supplement) industry, which is written very well. It certainly made me more aware of how it operates (even though I already don't believe in or take any supplements). However, multivitamins are routinely described in the book as "deadly", which is a gross oversimplification.

As a cancer researcher, I was naturally excited to read about Burzynski and other cancer cure quacks. But ultimately, the description of how the alternative therapies were disproven were just too light, often summarized by mentioning that a few negative studies were published in top journals. Even from a layman's point of view, I found myself wanting to know at least a bit more detail: number of patients, length of study, how confident the conclusion was, and so on.

So, all in all a fine read to get ideas on topics and names, but take the conclusions with a grain of salt - even if like me you don't believe in "alternative" therapies.
4530870
I am fascinated by the neurological shortcuts that have evolved and which I believe make us poorly suited to the modern world we have created. Consequently, I was excited to read this book. However, even though it is well-written and easy to follow, I found the arguments a little too facile to hold on to. For instance, the overarching theme is that we all have built-in flaws, and that awareness of them will help us devise programs to overcome them. At no point in the book, though, is it convincingly shown that awareness can have a broad, lasting, positive effect. In fact, some of the examples (optimal interviewing technique, for instance) show the exact opposite. Additionally, I found the stylistic "outlines" at the beginning of each chapter somewhere on the continuum between distracting and annoying. Some of the anecdotes used to explain the different "sways" - a term that I still think would have been better expressed as "bias" - are interesting on their own; the section on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" displaying cultural differences in cognitive bias was fascinating. Overall, though, the book felt like a series of blog posts with no believable lasting conclusion. Nevertheless, for those who like the Malcolm Gladwell style of subject explication, this is an accessible book. For anyone looking for a deep discussion of cognitive bias, go elsewhere. (I realize as a write this that I may have fallen into one type of "sway" by giving it only three stars, since I clearly had expectations that were not met but which perhaps were unrealistic. Consequently, I may only have noted parts of the book that failed me rather than recognizing evidence in support of the opposite conclusion. I learned about that potential bias in Psychology 101, though, and did not need this book's reminder.)
4431557
OK, I admit I am really into this type of ancient historical hypothesis. I love seeing real evidence that challenges mainstream science. I am someone that is willing to believe in different historical data than we are used too. heck, for that matter I will be willing to believe in Bigfoot, aliens or the Loch Ness monster -- but I need some proof, not just stories or legends.

Alot of interesting theories are presented in this book. While some follow-up the theory with evidence (such as DNA tests, photos, etc), many just don't do anything to prove the case other than speculation and stories handed down. In fact some of the presented material has nothing to show other than speculation based on what someone said was told to them. And even then it is often based on something that was said or found by someone long dead and unable to verify.

I would have preferred that the presented material be broken down by region (it jumped from North America to South America and all around throughout the book) then show the reader the hard facts, DNA tests and photos. Then if you want use conjecture and legend to help back-up your actual proof.

Also there are some editing issues with the Kindle edition that made reading some passages difficult.

Overall an interesting read, but some boring information with little proof thrown in which dragged down the factual parts.
4261330
I have mixed feelings about this book. It asks many of the right questions and suggests ways to think about the issues. Therein lies the most value in the book. Philosophically, the arguments presented feel strong, but there's a lack of real rigor to them: ill-defined terms and ambiguous graphs that look like quantified results but are actually just guesses at what shape the graph might have. A good example is the discussion of capability vs. risk on p. 247. The vertical axis is labeled AI Risk Level, but the value is actually interpreted as its inverse, "safety investment", and the numbers on both axes are arbitrary with no data to back them up. The book is full of this kind of "science-like" analysis that amounts to little more than, "here's what I think." Given the lack of supporting data, the book's overall pessimistic tone makes it seem manipulative in order to support an alarmist agenda.
4014012
While certainly an enjoyble read and very well researched,John Evangelist Walsh's book 'Midnight Dreary' does not present an utterly convincing case as to the cause of Edgar Allan Poe's death.
 I really did enjoy reading this book and it does present a nice picture of Poe's final days. The real problem is that Walsh's theory is really to dependant on a certain amount of speculation,and as another reviewer noted Walsh seems to bend the facts to make it fit his theory rather then the other way round,like assuming Poe's visit to John Sartain was in fact in October instead of July of 1849 as Sartain said. Well its obvious a certain amount of speculation is needed to come up with any idea as to how Poe died as there are simply not enough established facts as to what occured during those 5 days that Poe was missing and the events surrounding it to say for certain what occured then. That being said the speculation in this book does go a bit over board and is based it seems on mainly cicrumstancial evidence. As for Walsh suggesting certain people in those times where in fact mistaken or lied about the dates that things happened,well thats just unacceptable.

 If you want a decent account of Poe's final days and another theory as to how the man died this book is worth reading however if what you seek is a book to put forth a truly convincing theory on Poe's death this book will be a bit of a disapointment
4147754
Overall the book is informative but with speculative views of the authors. Daniel Peterson Phd. BYU bears out that the author promotes views to his perspective with selective accounts that collaborate these facts. Lydon W Cook should have been more unbiased and approach the material as presented and not seen through his interpretations only. Example such as ; :"According to an account of a sermon"....and "the Prophet is reported to have said"....
are used as "doctrine" and accepted as "Beliefs" when in fact there is no warrant or justification for such as an account other than heresay or speculative. In the Book "The Holy Ghost" Page 9 by Joseph Fielding McConkie & Robert Millet the quotes from Lyndon Cook are addressed as though received as doctrine and any information received otherwise would be "unproductive". Careful consideration by Scholars and readers alike should be aware of such material albeit noteworthy, that should be taken in the context of its original format and application rather than by absolute truth.
Joseph Atwater
539650
This book is a collection of twisted logic, straw man arguments and trite platitudes that just seem to circle the drain. However, it will be a great affirmation to any who already; (wilfully or otherwise) eschew logic, reasoning and critical thinking. For those who can spot fallacies and equivocations it is a fun read, until the count goes into 3 figures. More logic bombs per page than Alice in Wonderland.