What better proof than proof
357824
Tim Severin tackles his biggest task yet in taking on the Brendan voyage. What better way to settle conjecture on whether a tiny sail boat made of timber frame and animal hide could sail from Ireland to America than to build it and do it. Remarkable tale of human faith, ingenuity and worldly confidence.
4684907
Without a doubt, the best self-help Math book I've ever purchased on AMAZON!
Actual techniques for working proofs are presented and they are fairly easy to understand.
The author provides some good foundational basics for understanding how proofs work
and the best approaches to use for arriving at conclusions! I would recommend this
book to any aspiring Mathematicians who want to learn to do proofs!
1879386
What evidence is there for multiple undetectable universes with different sets of laws?  Anybody can say anything when evidence need not be provided.
1051322
You can always tell when you've won an argument because the loser starts resorting to lies, distortions and deflections instead of dealing directly with the facts. That's what the detractors of Why Evolution is a Fraud by Tom Sutcliff have done because they cannot DIRECTLY refute the facts presented in the book, such as the massive difference between adaptation and evolution.

Sutcliff devotes an entire chapter to this topic and very clearly shows the differences. In addition, his journalistic delivery makes the book engaging and easy to read, regardless of your science background.

One of the best things about Why Evolution is a Fraud is that it breaks the old science versus faith stalemate. This tired, asymmetrical argument has been used by evolutionists for years because they cannot defend their weak theory with facts. They resort to attacking people of faith instead of supporting their theory with evidence.

Of course evolutionists, as Sutcliff points out, don't have the benefit of evidence and that's why they so viciously attack those who doubt evolution. The chapter titled 'Delusion and Distortion' tackles this issue head on. Another issue that Sutcliff exposes is the ugly secret of racism that is an undeniable part of evolution's early expansion. Citing Richard Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler, Sutcliff concisely shows how early evolutionists considered those who were not white and northern European as evolutionary throwbacks.
4313974
Just more wonderful evidence for God! Not quite finished, but loving it. Something from nothing? I don't think so!
691112
Seife, in _Proofiness_, plays on the idea coined by Stephen Colbert, "Truthiness".  This is the concept where something is true if you feel it to be true.  The Colbert reference doesn't appear explicitly in the manuscript, but the concept of truthiness is laid bare in the book and extended: proofiness is taking numbers and showing how your gut feeling is true in a theoretically objective stance with numbers.  We are all familiar with numbers, but many people have a surprisingly low numeracy (literacy but with numbers) so numbers look true but you have to know how they work to really understand what the numbers are saying. 0

An example Seife uses is polling numbers, specifically in political contests.  We are familiar with the stated margin of error.  The smaller the error, we intuit that the more true the poll is.  In reality, the MOE is just a measure of the sample size; the smaller the sample, the larger the statistical margin of error (and vice versa in a negatively correlated manner).  What the Margin of Error doesn't measure is any structural issues in the poll, such as leading questions.  To get to the truth, you have to dig deeper.  There are many other examples, many of them thought provoking and not entirely obvious.

The best thing about the book is that it explores its ideas in a clear and concise manner.  Seife is a writer first and not a mathematician/statistician/economist who gets lost in the ideas and forgets to clearly explicate things.  This factor can be good for a lay reader, and I imagine that it will up its appeal for a general audience.  If you have a more mathematical background, you might find yourself wanting more explication and charts and graphs and equations, but that would aleinate many potential readers.
1528475
I think I have learned more mathematics by watching the movie Proof than I have learned in the past four years of an undergraduate mathematics major.  For instance, I was unaware that proofs were things that demonstrated theorems. After watching the movie the first time through, I felt compelled to do a frame by frame analysis of all mathematical results published in this movie.  I cannot deign to be able to vouch for the validity of all results, for they are too far advanced.  However, if they prove what I think they prove, then it's a very important proof!

I won't waste anymore of your time by expounding on the virtues of this movie-- they are clear.  It is a movie that reinforces the reality of mathematics:  that it is dominated by people of questionable mental stability.  Even the most stable mathematicians in this movie are a bit, shall we say, eccentric.  Go watch this accurate portrayal of reality and see the profundity of its mathematical results, if you can.
4469174
Better than H&R Block program. I will continue to use TurboTax in the future. Who like to do taxes so comments do not always apply to usage.
315218
How is this water prove?  Not mine. Only if rain very very light,  any heave rain u better dry out your car after because it's sux, not water prove at  all, don't waist your money
2726308
Here's your proof in the form of a 1971 U.S. Proof Set.
3636478
This book is better than the translation of Proverbs.  Holy smokes!  This one could be canon!  I, myself, was a visitor on Nassim's Facebook that got the more severe treatment associable with Procrustes.
4071534
I really liked the book because the proof comes before the theory. Fuzzy has generated billions so how can one give the book anything but 5 stars?

The author is extremely qualified to answer questions pertaining to philosophy (he has multiple degrees and is a Professor).

Buy this book and read it three times and really get it. It nails "reality" perhaps better than 99% of other books out there.
507780
This is an excellent book, probably the best available on the subject available. Its thesis is cogent and the evidence supporting it is well documented. It exceeded my expectations.

Thanks
2939701
For the skeptic that needs proof. Read and find your proof. He does a thorough investigation posing the most difficult questions, and not skimming over the details. Believer or not, I think everyone should read this book. Your life depends on it.
1034068
Great design!  Easy to order and proof.  Loved the final product.
3801672
"Evidence?!? You mean I'm supposed to prove my case!?!" Are you a labor arbitration advocate? If so, have you ever had the gnawing feeling that just maybe your case isn't worth the paper the playing cards you've used to construct it are made of? Well then, "Evidence in Arbitration" is the book you need to read - and by the way, it doesn't matter if you are an employer's representative or a union rep.

Authors Marvin Hill and Anthony Sinicropi are both professors of industrial relations, (Mr Hill, at Northern Illinois University and Mr Sinicropi at the University of Iowa), and practicing labor arbitrators, (both are members of the National Academy of Arbitrators and Mr Sinicropi is a past president and member of that august group's Board of Governors). Together they have written at least four books on various labor arbitration subjects, all of them published by BNA Books in its Arbitration Series.

Mssrs Hill and Sinicropi write in a straight forward, almost conversational style, and as Mr Hill observes in the forward to the second edition of "Evidence in Arbitration," "... at Sinicropi's insistence we have left out the parts that people would skip." And he's right - if you advocate labor arbitration cases there's very little in "Evidence...," that you will want to skip:

1) Types of evedence;
2) Relevance, materialality, and objections;
3) Presumptions, judicial notice, and the best evidence rule;
4) Quantum and burden of proof;
5) Employees' past records;
6) Witnesses;
7) Credibility of testimony;
8) Hearsay evidence and other exclusionary rules;
9) Medical evidence;
10) Alcohol- and drug-related evidence;
11) Polygraph evidence;
12) Individual rights issues;
13) Evidence from adversaries or third persons;
14) New evidence;
15) Parole evidence;
16) Rules of contract construction;
17) Collateral proceedings; and,
18) Prior arbitration awards.

There it is. An entire law school level tutorial on evidence. In one volume. Such a deal!
4027141
I enjoyed this book very much - it is fresh in expression and introducing complex ideas - even humourous at times! And yet for all that there is a sense of some lack of achievement also, although this may not be a failing of Mr Wilson.
As a mathematics student - and I have studied quite a lot of mathematics - it seems to me that proofs came in three kinds. There are the mind opening 'obvious' ones that are so stand-alone that once you read them there is nothing to learn. The blinkers have been lifted from the eyes and the world is a different place. Then there are the proofs that take such a lot of work to assimilate and for a long time you just don't see it. Perhaps you never really do, but you do come to accept it because the mathematics community is convinced. Then there are the proofs that even the mathematics community struggle with. The four-colour problem's proof is one of these. Consequently there is left a nagging doubt, which I gather is quite widespread amongst people far wiser and knowledgeable than me - than Mr Wilson also I suspect.
The curious thing is that a conjecture like the four-colour mapping, or Fermat's last theorem, or the conjecture that all even numbers can be made up of the sum of two prime numbers, is so powerful AND there are no counter examples available to challenge the conjecture. So why can they not be proved by some elegant insight such as Fermat claimed for his last theorem but never showed the world before his immanent death in a duel? Why can the four-colour problem only be proved by such inelegant computer-assisted means as this book describes? Perhaps Mr Wilson's greatest achievement is in exposing the doubts and dissatisfactions of the current proof of the four-colour problem despite the appearance that it may well be adequate (this goes for the proof of Fermat's last theorem too).