Philosophy Books

Great book by Michael Shermer and a foreward by Stephen Jay Could.
I love the section on History and Pseudohistory-Holocaust- Debunking the deniers
Great book to retool our "Skepticism Radar".
Question....everything!

I got this book (an autographed copy, no less) after a debate between the author and a Christian apologist. The debate was very polite (possibly too polite; I think they were worried about how the students watching would behave if either side decisively won) and I don't think any minds were changed. Mr. Shermer spent most of his argument explaining why Theists believe what they believe, and why atheists don't. I remember wondering why he didn't simply argue against the beliefs themselves (many of which are beliefs about the world that can be proven one way or the other, such as whether God answers prayers like the Bible says he does). After reading this book, I understand it! Whether the beliefs are true is not the main deciding factor for most people; this book does an excellent job of explaining the way people's minds justify various beliefs.

Well written easy to understand book about the psychology of how people (even smart people) can fall into common logical fallacies and come to wrong conclusions if they aren't careful.

Must read.

debunkers are losers

whats the difference between debunkers and Christian fundamentalist..there isn't one there!

there both cults!

there is an esoteric side to life that the scientist don't know much about..I have had experience with ESP,OBE and helped make 2 documentary's on UFO phenomena.The reason people believe in strange things is because TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION!

I have no time for sceptic debunkers

OBTW it's possible to get 3 pairs dice correct in a row! Because I have done it (without conscious effort) "small inner voice"..it comes to when NOT thinking about it.

all I can say to debunkers..is get real..it's DIRECT EXPERIENCE!..positive people know the truth!

I feel sorry for debunkers..

Because they are pleasure addicts who have no evidence that the Bible is bad and in hypocrisy, attack it.

Just look at the stupid title. So whatever is "weird" and "odd" must be wrong huh? That's a childish school bully's insult: look at that guy over there, he's a weird because he doesn't dress, talk like us or agree with whatever we think is cool, so he must be inferior and let's keep insulting him.

The authors reject this over 1900 years old common sense advice:

"Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment." - Jesus

"There is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof leads to death." - Proverbs

They reject it, hence why their book, even the title, is stupid.

What's weird is believing that unimaginably complex amount of ordered life-sustaining and replicating information, a super beautiful universe with life-friendly areas; living replicating, emotional, multi-sensory, biological robots which enjoy singing, dancing, learning, and doing good and evil were created by an exploding bomb from dozens of billions of years ago with no explanation as to why it exploded which no one saw explode in the first place, and which the evidence shows did not ever happen.

Nor is there any evidence to explain why many living kinds of animals that are supposed to evolve over time (according to evolutionists) have not evolved after millions of years, but only lost some features such as the ability to defend against a certain kind of disease or digest some sort of food (like how non-animal humans have been losing the ability to digest milk or bread well). Nor is there evidence to explain why there are very high-tech ancient man-made tools in millions of years old strata when evolutionists claim man wasn't evolved enough at that time to make them or how an exploding MATERIAL bomb can create SPIRITUAL things like GOODNESS, EVIL, INFORMATION, and THOUGHTS. To believe the impossible over the evident and probable is what is "weird".

An interesting discussion regarding the egocentric modern world. Abram makes reference to a myriad of unconsciously driven facets of human existence, now either ignored or forgotten. Although he limits his argument to the issue of language, his overall thesis is certainly something to consider and apply.

I have been trying to figure out how to write about this book for years; all I can say, really, is that if you lvoe the Earth, and are trying to figure out how we got into this horrible ecological mess AND you want to read some of the finest writing EVER on this, buy this book.

This man writes poetically, lyrically and with profundity. Where is the NEXT BOOK!!!!

I could go on and on about this book. I could quote it for hours. But it seems that people have already done that, which makes me very happy. This book CHANGED MY LIFE. I had to read it when I was about 19 in my philosophy of science, nature, and man class... and I have never been the same. I still meet my 77-year-old philosophy professor for lunch, and there's not a meeting that goes by in which we do not talk about this book. Fantastic. Soulful. Incredible.

This is one of the rarest, most utterly original books there is, and indeed could ever be. It is written by someone whose soul is that of a magician and poet and whose art is so triumphant with sheer spirit that every sentence is radical and radicalizing. It is a book whose comprehension of the human condition is generous, natural and enormous. It describes the necessity of nature not just for human being but for human thinking; this is a cry for the protection of the human mind.

It has deeply influenced my own thinking, from the moment I read it, and has remained one of the best books I've ever read.

"A butterfly glides by, golden wings navigating delicate air currents with a few momentary flutters before they settle on a white flower...Fragrant whiffs from the new blossoms in the overgrown orchard by the creek stir...My sensing body now vividly awake to the world." ~ pg. 223

"The Spell of the Sensuous" is a fairly complex read that takes you on a journey through a myriad of experiences as related to the natural world. Through this journey we gain a deeper understanding of what it means to be human in a sensuous world. Language, lore and cultural heritage is also a focus.

David Abram subtly draws a stark contrast between how tribal cultures have viewed the earth and how modern man seems far removed from nature's protective beauty. Whether he is speaking about Native Americans or the Ancient Greeks he explores their culture from the viewpoint of how they relate to the land and air.

"The emergence or adoption of a formal writing system significantly solidifies the ephemeral perceptual boundary already established by a common tongue; now the spoken language has a visible counterpart that floats, fixed and immobile, between the human body and the sensuous world." ~ pg. 256

While at first this may seem like a casual discussion of how cultures pass along their traditions, you may soon realize that this is much more a serious investigation into how people either preserve or destroy the living breathing environment. A discussion of how cultures moved from oral traditions to the written word is fascinating. You can see how even today some cultures show a remarkable respect for their environments while others seem to have lost their connection to the earth.

At times highly intellectual and at other times pure, spiritual and poetic, David Abram's writing weaves through your soul to bring you to a higher awareness of the land in which you live and the importance of preserving your natural heritage.

~The Rebecca Review

This is a good book to start studying the Business Ethics. Kind of convoluted to learn about the business ethics theories. The cases presented are very well described and right to the point based on the topics covered.

Shipment was timely and well packaged. Thank you! Will buy again

In Ethics and the Conduct of Business, Boatright presents a well thought out and comprehensive study of Business and Ethics. Tracing the historical foundations of business ethics and deeply examining the moral, legal, and economic prespectives proves to be a worthwhile reading experience. Sometimes and bit dry but easily understood with worthy case examples, I would reccomend this book to any interested party.

Have used this text (2nd and now 3rd editions)to teach business ethics classes at the graduate and undergraduate levels for several years. It is well written and popular with students. Case studies represent the spectrum of ethics issues found in business today. The foundational ethics theory is clearly articulated, appropriate and sufficient.

A LIFE SAVER!!!! While our current epistemology is founded on classical philosophy...who can read and understand it?!?!?! Donald Palmer's book "Does the Center Hold" is a wonderful addition to any college course's dry text book. The question is why a teacher wouldn't use it as the main text is a mystery to me!!!

While philosophy is a difficult subject to master and I am convinced becoming secure in philosopher's and their differences is more than a 3 credit course can offer, this book will help a beginning student through the hair pulling stages of, "WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT????" Take my word for it....Why? Because I have survived philosophy with the help of this book AND I still have my beautiful pageant hair!!!

BUY IT!!!

I purchased this book for my Philosophy class and I must say it is a very easy text to understand. The illustrations help dirve points that would normally be overlooked. I enjoyed this book a lot.

I was skeptical about this book after buying it at a used book store, yes they still exist. Handwritten font, pictures and an incredibly wide range of topics and an author I wasn't very familiar with. Once I started into it I basically inhaled it. This has to be the best introduction to philosophy you could wish for. Compared to Scruton's or Warburton's respectable books for example this book is really a unique piece of work. The drawings are incredibly humorous and the expertly distilled presentations and conclusions are light enough somehow that you can read huge swaths of this book in a sitting.

I recommend you reread the book a few months later and on the 2nd reading spend more time on the quoted text and less on the authors conclusions. This is totally appropriate for bright and curious high school age kids or their older comrades.

After this book personally I would then move on to Warbuton and Scruton and then on to Russell.

This book is an excellent introduction to philosophy. The author makes complex philosophical problems relatively clear without sacrificing their inherent complexity, and he organizes philosophers and philosophies according to their response to various philosophical problems. His writing is fair and honest and he does not appear to have an axe to grind. The illustrations are both humorous and really helpful. It is through books like this that anyone can gain insight into the importance of philosophy and its ramifications in daily life.

This topical introduction has hundreds of humorous illustrations drawn by the author. Writing in an engaging conversational style, he presents the issues typically covered in introductory courses, but with unusual clarity. I used the first edition several times as the core text for my Introduction to Philosophy class with great success.

Those who have read the first edition will miss the wonderful handwritten script. It has been replaced by a font called Tekton that is, unfortunately, somewhat tiring to read.

"Faced with a new mutation in an organism, or a fundamental changeFITNESS-- in its living conditions, the biologist is frequently in no position whatever to predict its future prospects. He has to wait and see. For instance, the hairy mammoth seems to have been an admirable animal, intelligent and well-accoutered. Now that it is extinct, we try to understand why it failed. I doubt that any biologist thinks he could have predicted that failure. Fitness and survival are by nature estimates of past performance." George Wald, Nobel Prize winner.

This book has two main general ideas: One is that reductionism, although an extremely successful philosophy of science, does not suffice to explain reality. The other is that the ceaseless creativity of the universe, that part that escapes reductionism, should be revered as "the sacred". Kauffman calls this "God" in an effort of "rapprochement" between agnostics and religious people, since he envisages a future global civilization.
The first idea is developed mainly in the context of evolution in the chapter titled "The Nonreducibility of Biology to Physics", although some physicists, such as Laughlin, are also mentioned, temperature being a classical example of emergent physical phenomena. Kauffman claims that evolution cannot be predicted and, as we see in the citation above, he is not alone. He makes similar claims for the economy, human mind, human history, our legal system, etc.
The second idea is not that new either and Kauffman himself admits that his idea of God is similar to Spinoza's.
Kauffman tries to search for some general laws for emergent phenomena and he hints some of them, including some mathematics of graph theory and random Boolean networks and the use of some concepts such as "minimal molecular autonomous agent". He says, for example: "This raises the fascinating but unproven possibility that , due to natural selection, life achieves a maximization of the product of total work done multiplied by the diversity of work done by being dynamically critical. Then cells would be maximally efficient in carrying out the widest variety of tasks with the maximum total work accomplished, given energy resources available".
The author also suggests that the origin of life might have been systems of autocatalytic molecules and thinks that "self-organization, order for free, is as much a part of evolution and natural selection as historically frozen accidents".
The most controversial chapter, as Kauffman readily admits, is the one about the quantum brain in which he takes the idea of Penrose, which has not had many followers so far. Kauffman believes that the human mind is not algorithmic. Euler's creation of topology by solving the Könisberg's bridges problem is an example, according to Kauffman, of the non algorithmic operation of the human brain. He ads that computations are devoid of meaning, they are purely syntactic. This flies in the face of the strong artificial intelligence theory of consciousness. Kauffman says that meaning derives from agency. Although a controversial idea, a quantum brain, however, would help to solve such hard problems as free will since quantum mechanics is an acausal theory.
The author believes that the conscious mind is a persistently poised quantum coherent-decoherent system, forever propagating quantum coherent behavior, yet forever also decohering to classical behavior. Recent studies seem to prove that chlorophyll maintains a quantum coherent state for a very long time compared to chemical-bond-vibration frequencies. So may be this hypothesis of the quantum brain is not so far fetched.
The last chapters are dedicated to ethics and to an effort to reach out to religious people and Kauffman is aware that convergence of agnostics and religious people can take generations and that we may never fully agree.

Like my fellow neurologist Dr. Lasker (whom I remember from days of yore when I was a resident at UCSD--hi Bruce!) I find much to admire but some things to criticize in this book. Some of Kauffman's main ideas are as follows:

1) At each level of organization (physical/chemical/biological), new laws emerge which are inherently unpredictable from first principles of physics. The analogy here is from Godel's famous theorem that in any system of mathematics there are true statements that can not be derived from the initial axioms. If such a statement is taken as a new axiom, more true but unprovable statements result. The new emergent laws are like such true mathematical statements. Thus reductionism is doomed to failure.
2)One of these emergent laws is that complex systems tend to self-organize, and that in particular living systems organize themselves such that they reside on the boundary between order and chaos. Kaufmann extends this analysis from an individual cell to other complex areas including economics and even legal and ethical systems.
3) There is no "Creator God" but only the endless creativity embodied in the universe where complex systems emerge spontaneously along with their new principles of organization. The laws of physics are never contravened; there are no miracles--yet the systems are not predictable from first principles.
4) This natural endless creativity itself can be called "God" and can be the basis for a new global system of ethics and religion.

I like these ideas, and along the way Kauffman provides some really interesting examples, like his speculations on how life may have first evolved from systems of catalytic peptides and RNA oligomers, and how the subsequent use by organisms of "preadaptations" in evolution are inherently unpredictable from physics.
What I didn't like were his speculations on the quantum nature of consciousness (which he admits are scientifically the weakest point of his book, though it is the longest chapter). The whole argument--that consciousness depends on decoherence of a poised, enormously complex quantum wave generated essentially by the entire brain--falls down from the simple observation that small, very specific brain lesions (in the brainstem reticular activating system)abolish consciousness. It seems to me that attempts to explain this clinical fact would result in absurd Ptolemic-like epicycles. I agree with his footnote that this chapter could be skipped by the reader with no harm done to his basic ideas.
I also agree that the book could use a heavier editing hand--Kauffman tends to repeat himself often, for example with how all the unpredictable ways a screwdriver could be used (to pry open a lid, jam a door etc.) could not possibly be predicted by first principles of physics, which he employs in detail several times.
But overall I think it's a great and important book that everybody should read and ponder.

Stuart Kauffman gave two lectures to our medical school class (U. of Pennsylvania) twenty or so years ago and I have been following his journey every since. I was struck, at the time, at his willingness to wonder at the complexity of ontogeny and admit how much was not understood. An excellent book by all standards, but as one reviewer said, to be fully critical one would need to be an expert in physics, biology, computers and philosophy.

One question, however. Practicing medicine, it seems that hypotheses must be falsifiable. On page 147, chapter Breaking the Galilean Spell, Kauffman says, "It is an amusing fact that scientists who eschew philosophy invariably espouse a philosophy of science that is long outdated. Most scientists today will somberly argue that hypotheses must be falsifiable. But science and real life are more complex." He goes on to describe the philosophy of W. V. O. Quine "the holism in science thesis." "I am not a Popperian," says Kauffman. OK, but didn't Popper support coming up with a hypothesis, and then trying to prove it wrong?(the scientific method?) Any clarification on this point would be helpful.

Also, this would be a great book for a science book club. Not only do we confront how much we don't know, as in the medical school lectures, but how much we ultimately can we know. "We must live our lives forward, into that which is only partially knowable." (P. 282)

I heard this author interviewed on the radio and ordered the book from the library. Three pages in I knew I had to own the book so I could underline and write in the margins. It's a book to dialog with.

In a conversation I had with Stuart Kauffman on Star Island, NH in 2006 I told him that I had found his latest book--At Home in the Universe at that time--a difficult read. He responded that that made him sad because he had tried his best to keep it simple. I assured him that that was my problem and not his.

He obviously has done a better job in his latest book, Reinventing the Sacred, in writing for the non-expert audience. While portions of the book were difficult for me, eg, the chapter on the "Quantum Brain", the book overall is much more comprehensible to me personally. I'm sure that others with a deeper background in complexity theory and science will find the book very understandable.

The author shows courage in presenting a new (to me) scientific paradigm--emergence--and in offering what are, in his own words, highly controversial suggestions and potential methods of investigating these suggestions. Graduate students and post-docs should find a wealth of ideas for future research in this book.

As a religious naturalist I appreciate the author's writing of "naturalizing the sacred" and suggesting that he is only the latest of many thinkers who would like to hold on to the god symbol because of its power accumulated over the centuries and across cultures. Kauffman's erudition and graciousness come through in his writing, especially in the latter parts of the book as he pleads for a better understanding of our "evolving ethics" that hopefully will lead to a desperately needed "global ethic". Because we cannot foresee the future--a key feature of emergence--we must nevertheless "live our lives forward, with courage and faith." I think I will.

This book was a compelling read for me since: it is very new at this time; it investigates the origin of consciousness; and it seemed to have less scientific or religious fervor behind it. Plus the author has won a Pulitzer and seems to be a well respected professor teaching this topic. Having read it, I find Hofstadter to be a master at using analogy to elicit deep insight into every topic he presents. And he writes from his heart. You will learn much about the man behind the words. Which shows he is fully accountable for any bias or personal perspectives he may have. Although he clearly expresses his hope that you will share in his perceptions. I surely do.

Is the mind a separate entity from the body? If not, then where does it come from? These questions are not immediately apparent but ultimately they are the questions he has written this book to address. The entire first half is spent introducing the reader to some background information that is presented in seemingly random fashion. But expressed in an entertaining, beautifully descriptive and informative way.

There are many examples he uses to show the occurance of loops in everyday life. He starts with simple ones, like the toilet flush valve loop. Then more identifiable ones like looking into parallel mirrors which create what seems to be a corridor of forever repeating images. Or a microphone's feedback squeal when placed too close to the speaker. My favorite was his experiments with a camcorder pointed at the monitor. The crux of this background knowledge is his presentation of the work of Gödel - the only part of the book I found difficult to fathom. But this example shows how even mathematics creates loops, and has the incredible consequence of rendering logic inconclusive.

This background information provides a perspective of thought that serves to show that the mind actually creates itself! He proposes that the mind does not exist until it becomes self aware. Before that, we are just unconscious beings on the level of base animals. His ideas about the levels of mindfullness of animals and even insects is also quite interesting to me, since it is something that most of us have considered but rarely speak about. His compassion has prompted him to become a vegetarian, yet interestingly, he has absolutely no respect for mosquitos!

But then he goes on to explain how our consciousness evolves as it experiences itself, and the selfs of others. Adding another wrinkle to his theory to shows that there is cross-talk between 'souls' and that seeing others is key to seeing ourselves. He brings up quite a few other interesting topics and perspectives that explain his reasoning, all of which he presents with great skill.

As you read this, without the tremendous insight of Hofstader, I don't expect you to take my word for it. And of course, I wouldn't have either, before reading this book. But perhaps, if you read it, you will learn something about yourself that right now, seems absolutely impossible.

This book does a good job of explaining some very complex theories in a way the an average person can understand and get something out of. It's not quite on the level of Godel Escher Bach complexity wise, nor is it intended to be. In fact Hofstader says one of the reasons he wrote this book is that a lot of people who enjoyed GEB did not get the fundamental message of it.

Godel Escher Bach is a hard slog for the average person. I picked GEB up and put it down several times before reading this book. Reading and understanding I Am a Strange Loop has given me the motivation I need to complete GEB. Now I'm nearly finished with GEB, and I have a much better understanding of what is being illustrated.

The book can be a little tedious in spots, but it is necessary to get the message across. Of course, the message is complex enought that I cannot explain it in a short review. It does require reading the entire book, and it can change how you think.

The reason I rate this book 5 stars is because it makes the very important underpinnings of GEB much more accessible to a wider range of people. This is a very hard thing to do, but the author did a wonderful job of it.

...but I must say I'm moving through this book much faster than the last I read (The Shipping News), which suggests that it's more compelling somehow. In truth, however, I think I may be favorably inclined because I so-much enjoyed reading Hofstader's classics as a teen. This book is not bad, but somehow a bit melancholy. It could probably also be a bit tighter -- a little shorter. I'll try to remember to update this review once I finished the book. Happy reading.

I am 2/3 through the book and enjoying it immensely. It is consistently Douglas Hofstadter. It is the same style as GEB, and as I find out, the same style he has had since age 16. (There is an introduction consisting of a mind/thought paper Douglas wrote as a teenager.)

Do you know what consciousness is? It is a mirage. Just a giant symbol in your brain, like one big complicated word that points to itself. Douglas Hofstadter first had this insight when he was 16 years old and has been trying ever since to get into words that hang together. As other reviewers have pointed out, he probably hasn't succeeded. There are several problems I see with this ideas in the book, which is otherwise a sensitive autobiographical work. The first is how the central topic of Godel's theorem connects to consciousness. The theorem, which shows how self-reference can reveal an interesting fact about arithmetic from the "top down," doesn't by any number of analogies explain how consciousness has arisen from matter. Hofstadter very briefly says that DNA uses the same "Godel Trick" in its self-replication process, but then he stops short and returns to the nether world of metaphors and life experiences. I do feel that I gained a better conceptual understanding of the notion of "I," but here Godel's theorem was of no help.

The second problem I had with this book is the writing. He simply leaves out too much scientific information for the reader to feel confident in the many analogies he offers. By knowing a bit of evolution, formal logic, and Daniel Dennett's related positions, I could make much more sense of the book than what Hofstadter was giving me. Hofstadter may not be a "greedy reductionist" in fact, but he sure is in his writing.

The final problem I had with this books is the scope. At the end of the book, the author rushes to tidy up several problems of interest to the field of philosophy, from the old problem of free will to the recent fad of zombies. This seems stretched and out of place. He then extends himself to political topics such as capital punishment, war, and his grand finale, compassion, which I found completely gratuitous. He seems to think that once one adopts his view of consciousness, ethical values and political stances should fall out almost trivially. They don't. Unfortunately, these are probably the issues closest to Hofstadter's heart, and it pains me to see him gamble on such high chances of disagreement before the book is set down. I much rather see these in different books, say a popular science book and an autobiography. A popular science book needs to relate and convince, while an autobiography need only relate. By reaching so far as to claim, for example, that musical taste (e.g. Bach or Tupac) may be a measure of how conscious someone is, Hofstadter truly boxes himself into his own world.

James W. Douglass has done a remarkable job of making it clear why and by whom John Kennedy was murdered. Mr. Douglass uses 96 pages of reference to document his account of events. Recent documents released by the U.S. Archives as well as documents released from the archives of the former Soviet Union are disclosed to us in a well written and easy to follow narrative which is gripping. It is important for every American to know how our secret government operates that not even a popular president was able to overcome.

Once begun, I could not put this book down.

I recommend this book be read by every American and be on the reading lists in all of this nation's high schools.

This is an outstanding work by James Douglass, and as one who has a library filled with books on this subject this is perhaps the best. It is well researched, extremely well written and a page turner. I will not delve too much into the contents for other reviewers have done so in very thorough manner.

I will close by saying the following....when I finnished this book I had a chill. We all know what was and is, what we don't know and never will is what might have been. I long for the day when the truth is fully divulged, those responsible for the "Unspeakable" are unmasked (it will suprise some)and Lee Harvey Oswald is fully exonerated for a crime he did not commit.

James does a fabulous job with loads of newly released information to make it very clear that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't just a patsy, but could have been a hero a few weeks earlier. If anyone doubts the CIA's hand on this, they haven't been paying attention.

JFK and the Unspeakable is a gem of a book. Due to the obfuscation of the events of that sad day in November 1963 by our own government, we may never be able to put absolute names and faces to the forces that caused the death of our 35th President. But the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. James Douglass does a mighty fine job of painting the landscape and filling in the details of this dark period in a masterly fashion. When our own government stonewalls investigation into the killing of a president, keeping records sealed for half a century and then releasing them drip by redacted drip, is there any wonder that 75% of the population finds its intentions highly suspect? Douglass very clearly defines the motives that have shrouded this assassination discussion for so many years. And with the motive, method and opportunity of the clandestine forces to eliminate a sitting president so blatantly in place, it is a marvel of duplicity that they have painted "conspiracy theorists" into such a curious cul-de-sac. But finely written books such as Mr. Douglass's slowly prod this most obvious of viewpoints back into the mainstream of American conscience.

The disquieting question that arises after reading this book is - Where was America while this was happening? Why are we so somnolent when forces in our own government make a mockery of democracy and American ideals by killing popular peace-leaning leaders [JKF, RFK and MLK] and bringing us into war after phony war against the better judgement of reasonable people?

Where is America when the chips are down?

This reviewer raptly read Mark Lane's Rush To Judgement, Jim Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins: My Investigation and Prosecution of the Murder of President Kennedy, and Jim Mars' Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy when they were first published. This reviewer became jaded at the fictions published by the Warren Commission and the House Select Commission on Assassinations, and like America sings in Sister GoldenHair "I got so damn depressed" that I quit reading this stuff.

Since then, even more proof has piled up against the lies our "leaders" told us. JFK was 'turning towards Peace" and the "unspeakable" evil forces aligned against him and peace didn't like it. James W. Douglas has done an excellent, Must-Read compilation of that truth, especially important now that a similair scenario could be, like Carly crooned, "Comin Around Again" with a new president ("Yes we Can!" "Change we can believe in!") bucking an evermore entrenched Military-Industrial Complex - HalliBurton et. al. - that would prefer that we stay in Iraq for the next 100 years or so.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
George Santayana 1863-1952

Buy this book for you and all your intelligent friends and relatives and read it, so that we all can be on the same proverbial "Group W' bench with Arlo Alice's Restaurant: The Massacree Revisited (30th Anniversary Edition).

/TundraVision, "Hope springs eternal," Amazon Reviewer

You Darwinists must feel kind of scary with are new candidate for Vice President being a "Creationist!!!!! Yes the Governor of Alaska is a pro-Life, Creationist. Could this be an "ID"!!!! plot to take over the White House. Heaven forbid, whoops wrong word, Darwin forbid. No that doesn't make sense. I got it. The God DelusionDawkins forbid. No, he's just a delusion, not even an American. I really got it this time. Why don't you guys write her a letter of enlightenment. Before you know it, it's going to get worse. Where do all these people come from that dare have the "audacity" to think for themselves
" Comments by a Guilty Bystander"

The title's "Battle for America's Soul", and the concluding (p.221) "in finding the strength to embrace what evolution tells us about the nature of reality, we will find reward beyond measure. For it is such faith that will ultimately redeem our scientific souls", is very peculiar. The author obviously borrows the concepts of faith, redemption, and soul from religion, although alleged religious claims are the target of "the Battle".

Religious claims encompass the soul, and he strangely appropriates it in his title and conclusion for the object of salvation by evolution, the very theory that proclaims organisms, including humans, as products of physical forces alone and void of any immaterial substance like soul. Likewise, asking for "faith" in evolution is inconsistent with evolution's "actually being true" (same p.221) which controverts the title's "ONLY A THEORY".

The author of course uses religious expressions figuratively, not as commonly understood, attempting to persuade the reader that "The story evolutionary science can tell is grander and more sweeping than any just-so narrative concocted by the pretenders of intelligent design" (p.220). Notice the denigrating language for opponents, and the author indeed casts them in as degrading a light as anyone I know of. He offers various analogies, in one case (p.4) between actions by the Kansas Board of Education in 2000 and fights in Kansas in the 1850s among proslavery and antislavery forces, suggesting that "antievolutionists" (a term he uses persistently for the more accurate "anti-Darwinists") are somehow comparable to slaveholders. Much more; he says (p.168), "proponents of ID ["intelligent design", defending design in organisms, contrasted with Darwinian purposelessness]...seek the undoing of four centuries of Western science". To my knowledge, the opposition is specifically to Darwin's claim of undirected rather than directed forming of organisms, "intelligent design" mostly comprising scientists, who don't want to destroy science but to improve it. Which story is then "concocted" by its "pretenders", as quoted at the top of this paragraph?

Darwin himself, quoted in Darwin's Gift: to Science and Religion, p.31, cites "The old argument of design" and contends: "We can no longer argue that [organisms] must have been made by an intelligent being". The thought that organisms are formed with purpose seems indeed matter of course, and it is natural selection, simulating artificial selection by its "pretenders", that appears "concocted". I tried in these reviews, as well as in On Proof for Existence of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries, to point out that organisms in fact are universally known to act purposely, toward survival, which actual purpose is forgotten in debating the possibility of purpose in organisms' structure. How Darwinians can confuse this evidence with the mechanistic contrivance of natural selection is illustrated by a passage in the book reviewed.

In discussing a parasite causing malaria, the author states: "Evolution has also produced new forms of resistance to [the parasite] within the human population, just as any biologist would predict" (p.66). Predict from what? Such resistance in humans is not developed through purposeless natural selection, requiring countless generations, but through the purposive immune system in individuals. This sort of flawed reasoning occurs throughout the book, not to mention Darwinism.

The author also relies on opinions hardly scientific, like those of judges and journalists, and in general tries to convince the reader and perhaps himself how ridiculous or laughable is the idea of design in organisms, he reflecting the recent barrage of opinions that the design is not quite intelligent. He mocks the designer as maybe creating a new species "in a sudden puff of smoke" and as "not very skillful, since just about everything he creates goes extinct relatively soon..." (pp.50-51). How an all-powerful designer creates a species seems up to him, however. Maybe he does so at the organism's germinal stage, to better suit the inquirer's demands. We still don't know if the egg or the chicken came first. And that every species goes extinct is not so shocking in view of the inevitable death of every individual, which is of more concern to the individual than the eventual extinction of its species. But this too, or any perceived imperfection, is up to the designer, not to the no less imperfect human observer.

Whether the book's author, alongside others, likes it or not, the purpose of preservation is a principal attribute of all living things, whatever the power behind it is wished to be called, and it seems the schemes of this power, incorporating all of nature, are "grander and more sweeping"--to repeat the book's above phrase--than Darwinism's piecemeal accumulation of accidents.

Jerry Coyne the eminent Professor of biology at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution and steadfast critic of ID wrote a review of a book by David P. Mindell called the Evolving World: Evolution in Every Day Life that was published in Nature 8/31/2006, Vol. 442, p983-984. Here is a quote from that article, "...if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvements in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like.' Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all."

I found it also interesting to note that Coyne goes on to state that of the two commercial uses for evolution that he's aware of, one includes the use of directed evolution to produce commercial products such as enzymes to protect crops and plants from herbicides. And we all know that another way of describing directed evolution is with the term Intelligent Design. Yes indeed when it comes to the advances (especially with molecular evolution) that have been attained over the past century it is the application of intelligent design in concert with the development of new methodologies and instrumentation that have guided researchers to their goals.

One would never know that from reading Miller's book. Coyne takes a pragmatic approach with respect to the distinction between micro and macroevolution, noting the irrelevancy of the latter in the pursuance of scientific experimentation. Coyne is cognizant of the fact that whenever examples are cited detailing research instrumental to evolution, they all involve microevolution. Miller on the other hand makes no such distinction. When Miller cites in his book that evolution is the "glue that binds the biological sciences together" he is adamant in his assertion that macroevolution is just as scientifically germane as microevolution, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is the empirical case for macroevolution remains on a shaky foundation, and as Coyne alludes to in his article macroevolution makes no noteworthy contributions when it comes to experimental biology. I doubt that any scientist, even Professor Miller, would conduct any experiments differently if they were under the impression that macroevolution were unequivocally baseless.

Theodisius Dobzhansky's maxim that "nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution," only makes sense when applied to microevolution. As we have seen time and again this is where Darwinism works reasonably well and not only that, most advocates of ID accept microevolution.

Miller acknowledges that NDE has a long uphill battle and is on the defensive. Even though he admits on page 35 that scientists do not know how the flagellum evolved; he reiterates the same worn out stale arguments he used at the Dover Trial to try to refute ID. Hasn't he figured it out that his arguments have been rebutted successfully; they haven't worked in 3 years since that trial, they are not going to work now in this book. He knows he has been losing ground yet he still pursues a failed policy. It doesn't make sense.

That leads me to believe that the purpose of Miller's book is solely for its use as a rallying cry to inflame the passions of the Neo Darwinists in continuing their assault against the Intelligent Design movement. As far as those who are new to the controversy, anyone who objectively reads this book will come away with more questions than answers. Therefore, someone has to fire up votaries of the NDE and for a number of reasons he is the logical choice. He does not let them down. Miller's incendiary rhetoric is best illustrated on page 201, "The partisans of ID are lobbing intellectual napalm into the scientific community, and so great is their enthusiasm for their tactical objectives that they remain oblivious to the fact that nothing will remain but ashes and dust if their attack is successful." What a bunch of metaphoric bombast!

His paranoia is really manifested in Chapter 7 when in citing a change in the definition of science by the Kansas School Board and using skewed rhetoric, Miller was afraid that astrology, paganism, and wiccan healing will fall into the realm of science. What Miller fails to tell you is that by describing science as an open-ended search for more adequate or reliable explanations of the natural world using empirical methods, it implies nothing about the supernatural. Also, Miller advocates teaching all aspects of evolution while discouraging a critical analysis of it. That is not only wrong, it defies common sense and it is antithetical to the goals of education. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with advancing a religious bias as he so paranoiacally suspects.

In short this book can be summed up in one sentence: a desperate attempt at saving and perpetuating macroevolution from the juggernaut of Intelligent Design. It's not going to work. It hasn't worked since the atrocious decision at the Dover Trial and it's not going to work now.

The author, Ken Miller, was one of the expert witnesses for the evolution side in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, and Michael Behe was the main expert for the ID-iots. After reading this book, it's clear why the evolutionists won and why the presiding judge described what the ID-iots had done as "breathtaking inanity."

Scientific theories must be testable, and as Miller points out, ID is not testable in any meaningful way, so ID is not science at all.

ID-iots do propose some testable hypotheses, of course, however those hypotheses are not specifically about ID itself, rather they are about the so-called "limits of evolution." No one seriously disputes that evolution is a scientific theory, so it's not surprising that hypotheses about evolution -- and its alleged limits -- are in fact testable. Unfortunately, as Miller points out, testing the ID-iots' anti-evolution hypotheses shows that those hypotheses are wrong. For example:

1. Behe claims that the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade is irreducibly complex (IC), and therefore needs all of its parts to work. In reality, however, some vertebrates are missing some parts of the cascade, and yet their blood still clots just fine. Even worse for the ID-iots, there is also evidence indicating that key parts of the blood-clotting cascade may actually have evolved from protein domains that: 1) had nothing to do with blood-clotting, and 2) didn't even originate in vertebrates. (pp. 62-66) Ouch!

2. Behe claims that IC systems can't evolve step-by-step, because intermediate stages have no function at all, and therefore cannot be preserved by natural selection. In reality, however, most, if not all of the IC systems that Behe himself proposed, including the bacterial flagellum, have subsets of parts (i.e., intermediate stages) that do have functions. The function of intermediate stages may be, and frequently is, different from the function of the full system; but a function is a function, and if it's beneficial to the organism, then natural selection can preserve it, making it a target for further adaptive modifications. The bacterial flagellum doesn't look at all like a machine designed from scratch and constructed with all new parts, rather it looks just like evolutionists would expect: a conglomeration of spare parts scavenged from here and there, held together with duct tape and baling wire. (pp. 53-62)

3. Behe's famous 10^40 claim in "Edge of Evolution," about the enormous odds against any evolutionary pathway requiring the evolution of two or more protein binding sites is based on a glaring (deliberate?) misrepresentation of the evidence. (pp. 66-69)

4. Dembski claims that intuition tells us that if law can't produce complex specified information (CSI), and if chance can't produce CSI, then a combination of law and chance can't produce CSI either. (p. 39) As Miller points out, however, intuition is not a very reliable standard. After all, intuition is what told humans for millennia that Earth was flat and stationary. (p. 84) Furthermore, computer programs that mimic evolution's mutation-selection process -- which essentially is a combination of law and chance -- routinely produce CSI. (pp. 74-78)

5. Even worse for the ID-iots, Dembski's claim that new genes cannot be produced by natural processes is shattered by evidence that Mother Nature has indeed produced new genes, quite a few times, and fairly recently. And Mother Nature's accomplishment has been replicated under laboratory conditions, thus enabling scientists to actually observe evolution while it was taking place. (pp. 79-82)

Chapter Four deals with fascinating evidence from the field of genomics, using DNA evidence to establish the genealogical links between widely separated species, just as modern courts use DNA evidence to establish genealogical links between parents and their children. DNA evidence is considered conclusive in the courts. There's no reason why it shouldn't be considered conclusive in evolutionary biology.

Chapter Five includes a discussion of embryological evidence that also provides strong support for evolution.

Most of the last half of the book focused on the publicity and political campaigns that ID-iots rely on to promote ID. (If ID-iots spent any time actually doing science, maybe they wouldn't need to rely so heavily on publicity campaigns. Just a thought.)

This is an excellent book, very accessible, even for laymen.

This is a surprisingly engaging effort by Mr. Miller. Reading Only a Theory is akin to watching a captivating movie filled with intriguing special effects, robust characters , and a suspenseful plot ... with twists, turns, and Olympic hurdles!

For years I have been grappling with the question: Which came first, the chicken or the proverbial egg? You can not imagine my delight when I discovered Only a Theory ... a book about Intelligent Design (ID) Theory versus Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and the ultimate question for scientific and religious scholars: How did my Persian cat and the rest of mankind get here?

My original game plan in writing reviews was to adhere to this philosophy: Stay far, far away from politics, sports, and religion (they are too controversial and someone always loses). In spite of my past convictions, I find myself writing a review on a book that manages to make sport of politics, and religion. A trifecta! However, everyone from students to scholars ... will enjoy this marvelous treat from Kenneth Miller.

If you like imaginative courtroom drama, Perry Mason can't hold a candle to the final closing arguments (the book is based upon this trial). It takes place in the quaint town of Dover, Pennsylvania. Biology Professor, Kenneth Miller, (Brown University) was one of the expert witnesses at the trial. He had the jury, judge, and me ... intrigued by his take-no-prisoners testimony.

My favorite section is when testimonies from both sides explore the bio chemical systems (of which the body produces thousands). These machine-like marvels of nature control thousands of functions in perfect symmetry, harmony, and precision. They are called "bacterial flagellum". (I remember the name because they remind me of my ex wife, but I digress). If you liked Movies featuring The Terminator (starring Arnold Schwarzenegger) and The Transformers (starring Shia LaBeouf), you will be enthralled by these beauties.

In the end both sides won some points (in my opinion). There are still gaps in both theories in which proponents say: Trust me. Only a Theory should be a valuable addition to any library. You will love it. Trust me!
Reviewed by Reggie Johnson, President, Success-Tapes.Com

This is a great book for the most part. Although I agree with many of his points, I disagree in the part where he proposes a reform that requires mandatory community service. In the book he mostly says that people do well when they aren't made to do something, and yes community service is great but it shouldn't be forced on people, and people should have the option to decide if that is what they want to do. That's what freedom is all about.

He's right about school. My experience in school felt like a prison, where my teachers didn't take me seriously, they sometimes liked humiliating me and my classmates, and honestly to this day, I have zero respect for teachers. I can't look back on a teacher that I actually liked. Many of them just made me follow dumb rules that had nothing to do with learning but about respecting authority.

Even as a college student, I feel that college is just another scam, its not about learning but about getting that degree so you can get a good job. Getting As and Bs isn't a sign of intelligence, but a sign that you did the work the way that your teacher wanted you to. I think true learning occurs when you are accountable to yourself for your own education.

i got my product in a timely manner and it was in great condition. Thanks!!

I wish I'd read this while I was in school; I'd have seen then that there was something wrong with the system, not me. This book is thought-provoking and a must-read for parents of kids of all ages.

John Taylor Gatto taught in New York City public schools for 30 years. He is now a writer and a lecturer. He was named New York City Teacher of the Year and New York State Teacher of the Year.

"The Seven Lesson School Teacher" is the first chapter of his book. It is the speech he gave after he was named New York State teacher of the year in 1991.

I've summarized the first chapter (which I taught to my high school sophomores and juniors).

Mr. Gatto said that he teaches 7 things. They are as follows:

1)confusion - lessons are out of context & out of sequence; random instruction; standardized tests; too many subjects; assemblies; fire drills; staff development days; age segregation; no depth in subjects; most teachers are not experts

2)class position - kids assigned numbers; stay in classes; stay in classrooms; envy and fear of the better classes; contempt for the lower classes

3)indifference - forced enthusiasm; bell rings, students must stop doing stuff (in class or change classes)

4)emotional dependency - individuality is discouraged; students lack rights; teachers & administrators manipulate and control the students

5)intellectual dependency - lesson chosen by teachers, administration or school board; students told to wait before working; wait for the expert to tell you what to do; helpless people are good for the economy (food service, law, medicine, teaching, tv, entertainment)

6)provisional self-esteem - confident people are problems; you are to be evaluated & judged; most grades have very little work in them; self-evaluation is rarely done; people must rely on experts to see their value

7)one can't hide - control and surveillance; no private spaces or private time; little time between classes; people trained to tell on each other; homework keeps them busy and away from other learning

"Schools are an essential support system for social engineering that condemns most to be subordinate stones in a pyramid that narrows as it ascends to a terminal of control" pg. 13 (this reminds me of Huxley's Brave New World)

Mr. Gatto makes a few other points in his speech as well. I've listed them in bullet format for you.

- Schools were created partly as a result of two "Red Scares" in 1848 and 1919. People in power were afraid of the industrial poor and wanted to reign in the culture of the new immigrants (Celtics, Slavs and Latins).
- Look at the seven lessons: they are "all prime training for permanent underclasses, people deprived forever of finding the center of their own special genius." (16)
- These lessons and the problems in our schools have now seized the middle class as well
- Critical thinking is not taught
- Solutions: family schools, farm schools, small entrepreneurial schools, religious schools, craft schools
- Lessons not taught: self-reliance, self-motivation, perseverance, courage, dignity, love
- TV, sports/clubs, and jobs take up all the free time outside of school - learning and the feeling of community are stifled

Gatto makes a compelling and strong argument for precisely what the problem is with our educational system - in essence, that it is designed to make good consumers who follow the rules and don't challenge authority, and who can be trusted with doing repetitive tasks and quietly occupying their designated socio-economic niche without much complaint. Given that he has over 30 years of experience in the public school system, he almost assuredly knows what he's talking about.

Unfortunately, the last few chapters in the book dip severely in quality, as Gatto presents his "solution" to the problem: complete privatization of the school system. His assumption that it would be better is never fully explored; it's simply stated, with some great comments about how wonderful homeschooling is. But in a completely free market system education, like everything else, becomes a product, and unfortunately it's one that parents can't fully explore before they've already "purchased" it. That is, after all, the entire premise underlying this book - that there is a "hidden curriculum" in public schools (Gatto never mentions that it's also in many private schools, though that's obviously the case) which parents usually aren't aware of until the damage has been done. How, then, are parents going to make an intelligent choice between the options available to them in a fully privatized school setting? Gatto never makes that clear.

Furthermore, if indeed it is corporate and governmental interests which push this hidden curriculum, then how could complete privatization help? They are, after all, the groups with the money, and in the free market those interests would almost assuredly be able to offer a near-complete monopoly on the market. Parents, after all, will only ever have limited choices on how to educate their child - homeschooling, various local private schools (unless they're willing to board their eight year old somewhere), or public schools; all privatization will ensure is that public schooling is no longer even an option and instead parents will be entirely dependent on what the local private schools have to offer or the possibility of homeschooling.

The obvious solution to this educational dilemma would be for the government and private organizations to encourage more parents to pursue homeschooling, or to promote "alternate" educational systems such as Waldorf and Montessori schools which don't have the same problems Gatto notes. Unfortunately, Gatto doesn't bring up those possibilities. For him, "privatization" is presented as a panacea which will miraculously solve the problem.

By all means, read the book. It's a scathing report on the way "traditional" education destroys children's interest in learning and ability to think independently, and well worth the read. Skip the last chapters, though - in them, Gatto depends on his readership having had their own critical thinking ability destroyed.

Tao Te Ching..meaning Book of The Way, or book of the Word. One of the best books ever written. Certainly , the book that has had the most profound positive influence on my life.

If you are like me, you may be wondering should I get this particular version, and how does it compare with other versions like the Stephen Mitchell, Wayne Dyer and Jonathan Star versions, or even the Ursula Le Guin version.

No matter how great a writer you think Jane English is, she did not write the Tao, yet her rendition is consistent with the best versions I have read. The distinguishing trait of English's version is the photos and graphics, and this version is coffee table size.

My personal favorite version is the Stephen Mitchell version. The Tao is wise, paradoxical, counterinituitive, puzzling, fascinating, mysterious, inspiring, amazing and true. These concepts bypass ego based thinking, and the idea of doing things by not striving is allowing a higher more authentic way of thinking to inform your being and your action.

The Jane English version also has a regular size 25th Anniversary version which is the version I own.

One of the Jonathan Star versions has Chinese symbols at the back, with multiple meanings of each symbol. This is a great idea, which allows you to come up with your own version of the Tao, and would really open up your thinking on the Tao.

If you are like me, then as you read you discover the wisdom
like a raw jewel which you shape into a glittering diamond. That is the brilliance of the book.

The Tao is always present within you.
You can use it any way you want.


81 chapters, all less than one page. Like any great mystery, the Tao is there to be experienced and not necessarily understood. Here is a selection from verse 81 to illustrate the difference between different versions.

True words aren't eloquent;
Eloquent words aren't true;
Wise men don't need to prove their point;
Men who need to prove their point aren't wise.

A different version might substitute the word beautiful for eloquent.

You can feel comfortable buying the Jane English version, or any of these other versions.

The Ursula Le Guin version, I liked her take on verse 1, but I did not find it as useful on other verses, and felt if did not really capture the Tao as well as these other versions. You might feel differently. I would definitely recommend multiple verses of her version before you consider buying.

I also recommend The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran, which is another classic book of wisdom, and The Dhammapada featuring the succinct teachings of the Buddha. For more Taoist writing, I recommend the Way of Chuang Tzu, by Thomas Merton. You will discover many parallels with the Tao, and he is also an incredible story teller.

If you were to find this review helpful, please click yes.

it is a beautiful book, no doubt, and with the chinese charactes at the side, good point.
But nobody has yet intent to not only translate in beautiful words what Lao Tzu said, but to understand what is under that words. Tao is not poetry, Tao is like nature, misterious but strongly present at the same time.
I've been studied Tao for many years, and it is dificult to find a book that goes beyond the beauty of the photographs and the apparent poetry of the Lao Tzu words.

So, a beautiful book, empty of the real Tao.

The tao teaches the virtue and power of being empty with no desire. It's just an ancient crowd control formula.

"Clay is fashioned into vessels; but it is on their empty hollowness, that
their use depends." Use to who? To those who would use you, of course.

"Always without desire we must be found"

Think about it. How many truly great non-mythical people that you're aware of fit that profile? Feynman? Beethoven? D H Lawrence? Cezanne? Michelangelo? the Williams sisters?

I love this edition. Good size, clear print, well laid out, and very good translations. The black & white photography also adds great depth to the book.

Highly recommended.

This book is centuries old and the third most published publication.
It is a wonderful, spiritual guide for life to be read slowly and the meaning of each section contemplated teaching one how to write their own book of life.