Philosophy Books

In Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Moreland and Craig present a comprehensive introduction to philosophy from a Christian point of view. Both Craig and Moreland maintain that the study of philosophy can aid Christians in understanding the world and answering critical questions about God, evil, life, evil, humanity; more pointedly the authors stress that philosophy assists Christians in the disciplines of apologetics, polemics, and systematic theology.

J.P. Moreland is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology of Biola University in La Mirada, California. His Phd (Philosophy) is from the University of Southern California. William Lane Craig studied theology and Philosophy and obtained doctoral degrees in both disciplines. Craig is also a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology. Moreland and Craig are Christian apologists and prolific writers.

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview is divided in six parts. Each part, integradingly, is sustained by looking at various areas of philosophy and Christian Theology (i.e. epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, ethics, philosophy of religion and philosophical theology). Notably in most introductory text to philosophy, the discussion of philosophical theology is often omitted. Here Craig and Moreland take a different approach by incorporating theological discourse into the discipline of philosophy. On the other hand, in the Christian circle, we must say that there's a tendency to reject philosophy and philosophical discussion all together. For many see no legitimate use or relevance of philosophy in theological discussion. Such conclusion is basically flaw and unfortunate. Taking a different perspective on the matter, we must then ask the following questions: Why does philosophy matter? Or what can the Christian learn from philosophy or vice versa? More pertinently why should Christians study philosophy? Is philosophy useful for Christian evangelism? At this Craig and Moreland focus our attention to a statement made by the academic and statesman, Charles Malik. At the inaugural address at the dedication of the new Billy Graham Center on the Campus of Wheaton College, Malik, announcing his topic: "The Two Tasks of Evangelism," observes that the two tasks of evangelism is "saving soul and saving the mind" (1). That is, "converting people not only spiritually but intellectually as well--and the church, Malik observes, is lagging dangerously behind with respect to this second task" (ibid). Then we must make another query, appropriating to one of the paramount tasks of the Christian philosopher? Craig and Moreland sustain that "is to help turn the contemporary intellectual tide in such a way as to foster a sociocultural milieu in which Christian faith can be regarded as an intellectually credible option for thinking men and women." What is the most predicting result in making this suggestion? By consequence, the Christian worldview will be restored to a place of prominence and respect such as at the university, it will have a leavening effect throughout society, the authors suggest (ibid). Craig and Moreland also contend that if we as Christians can change the university setting, then, we would change our culture through those (professors and others) who shape culture (ibid).


Part I of the book discusses the importance of studying philosophy and its usefulness for Christian theology. It also evaluates the four arguments reacted against philosophy and explains the process by which various models of integration is possible. Five philosophical principles were suggested in the integrating program. Moreover, it is noteworthy to outline that "Philosophy can help to extend biblical teaching to areas not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, it can enhance the self-image of the believing community, and it can aid in the task of integrating theology with other disciplines in forming a Christian worldview," said the authors (26).

Part II explores the subject of Epistemology (i.e. the process of knowing, the question of knowledge, what is truth? How do we know what we know? Can we know anything for certain?). In this particular dialogue, knowledge and rationality are examined in light of various theoretical models considered by various schools of thought. Subsequently, two theory of knowledge are discussed: The Causal Theory and The Reliability Theory, and both were subject of substantial analysis. Next, Reason and Rationality are examined by exploring the three prominent notions of reason and rationality (i.e. rationality and truth, rationality and epistemic values, and degrees of rationality). In summary both authors argue forcefully that "the correspondence theory of truth seems to be an important part of a biblical understanding of truth." They contend, by contrary to the popular notion of relativism, that there's indeed absolute truth. Truth is not relativist as frequently advocated by postmodern theorists. In taking this stand, Craig and Moreland defined the three key entities relevant to the subject matter: the truth-bearer, the truth-maker and the correspondence relation and assess each proposition respectively.

In Part III. Craig and Moreland take a look at the topic of Metaphysics (traditionally means "after the physics," or the philosophical branch concerning with the study of "nature of being or reality and the ultimate categories or kinds of things that are real,' 173) -the notion of "essence" or "being." Metaphysics is one of the most important branches in philosophy. This particular session is given seven chapters into a detailed discussion of the topic; for the authors engaged with various theoretical concepts and methods and evaluated a wide range of literature written on the topic (from Plato-to the present). Chapter eight looks at Metaphysics both as a definition and taking various branches ascribed to it. Chapter nine and ten offers and overview of Ontology including discussion revolved around its cognates: existence, identity and reductionism, and property and substance. The remaining chapters (11, 12, 13, and 14) address such topics as Dualism, Free Will and Determinism, and Personal Identity and Life After Death (pp. 187-308).

Part IV observes Philosophy of Science, while Ethics is examined in Part V. Finally, the book concludes by taking close loot at Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology respectively (Part VI). This is perhaps the bulk of the book containing the most valuable information, hence include penetrating defense for a Christian worldview. It is the most thorough conversational engagement in the book--where the integration of theology and philosophy and other cognate disciples is clearly demonstrated. The topics tackled in Part VI include substantial dialogue on the existence of God (chapters 23 and 24), the coherence of theism (chapters 25 and 26), the problem of evil (chapter 27), creation, providence and miracle (chapter 28), the trinity (chapter 29), the incarnation (chapter 30), and finally Christian particularism concludes the book (31).

The existence of God is argued from the perspective of four substantial and sustained argumentation comprising the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the axiological argument and the ontological argument. Each presented apologetic outlook is evaluated and ultimately the authors demonstrate effectively points of strengths and shortcomings. Next, the Coherence of Theism and arguments against it is explored in chapters twenty-five and twenty-six respectively. Discussions revolved around what Christian theologians and philosophers traditionally coin "incommunicable" and "communicable" attributes of God. Emphasis is given toward the former, thus contains the topics of divine necessity, aseity, incorporeality, omnipresence, eternity, omniscience, simplicity, omnipotence, and divine goodness. Moreover, the problem of evil is treated in chapter 27; the most debatable topic in any disciplinary study, particularly in philosophy and theology. The topic is approached triangularly hoping that a plausible account could be offered. (And of course many will find this kind of approach adequately unsatisfactory). This includes the intellectual problem of evil (acknowledges the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenovelent God, and the evident existence of evil. In other words, a God who is both loving and all powerful exists and Evil exists concurrently), the external problem of evil (proposes that an omnipotent and omnibevolent God exists, and gratuitous evil exists), and the emotional problem of evil (pertains to the hurt and pain one has to face and undergo in the inside). At the end, Moreland and Craig observe "... some theists maintain that theism is not incompatible with gratuitous evil in the first place, that God, in order to achieve his ends, may have to permit evils which in themselves are gratuitous. Finally, Christian theism in its doctrine of Christ's vicarious suffering and death has the resources to meet the emotional problem occasioned by evil (552). So the emphasis is on God's providence by means of the cross of Christ that served functionally and actively as the remedy to the problem of evil in the world. One day evil and pain will be no more. For "...He [God] will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will be no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

Philosophical Foundation for a Christian Worldview is both theologically and philosophically engaging and stimulating, giving its preeminence to aid Christians seeing philosophy from a Christian perspective. The basic thesis of the book was successfully achieved. Moreover, the book is structured in such a way that prior knowledge in philosophy is not required to understand it . However, there are other introductory texts to philosophy that one might find also helpful such as Robert Paul Wolff's "About Philosophy" or even ED. L. Miller's "Questions That Matters: An Invitation to Philosophy" written from a more fundamental perspective. I used Miller's text in college. It is a good read. Nonetheless, what is outstanding and distinctive about "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview" is that Craig and Moreland take a rigorous/serious study at the subject matter and thus evaluated it from a Christian perspective? That is, studying philosophy from a faith based approach. It is rare today to find an introductory text taking such route. Craig and Moreland did it very well. The basic thesis of the book was successfully achieved. Philosophical Foundations for A Christian Worlview should be read by every thoughtful and engaging Christian, and not only by those whose interest is in philosophy. If I were to teach an introductory course on Christian philosophy or Philosophical theology I would definitely require this text. I highly recommend it.

Also posted on my blog: Christ, My Righteousness (http://lou9587.blogspot.com/)

I recommend this text for the hungry student who wants to understand the basics of philosophy from some Christian professors.

I recommend every Christian read this book...especially young, college bound Christians. It will help solidify your faith and prepare you for the liberal bias of academic life.

Philosophy is a wonderful and rich subject. No Christian should shy away from its beauty, nor be afraid of it. In this book, Dr. Moreland survey's many wonderful philosophical components such as: Argumentation, Logic, Knowledge, Rationality, Metaphysics...the list goes on. I cannot think of a better foundational body of work than this to stimulate Christian intellectual growth. It encourages you to study deeper, think for yourself, not be afraid of "Philosophy or Logic": as formerly taught by many mainline Church denominations...it even blows away the myth that Christianity is for the weak-minded fool who has been brainwashed and cannot reason for him/herself. Perhaps a better title for this book would be, "The Independence Day of the Christian Mind: Believers are Deep Thinkers Too!"

Just finished this book a couple of days ago. It is really an absolutely amazing read. Here are my comments:

1 - As others have said, it's not particularly easy to read; however, I don't think anyone should be intimidated by it. It's well done and clearly written. I don't think a background in philosophy is needed at all. What's needed is patience and a real desire to understand this material.

2 - You can't skip any sections of the book. The earlier sections, including Chapter Two about Logic, are referred to repeatedly through the rest of the text. So, be patient and be sure to understand what you read right from the beginning.

3 - The chapters on Ethics, The Existence of God, and Science, really stand out as brilliant essays. This is some of the best thinking I've ever read, from a Christian perspective, on these subjects.

Finally - Let me suggest that Reasonable Faith, by William Lane Craig, is much easier to digest, and much shorter. If you're scared of this, the larger, book I'd suggest reading that one. However, again, my honest opinion is that this, the more difficult book, is much better and completely worth the effort. Also, just about every concept covered in Reasonable Faith is also covered here and in much more depth.

This fine book by JP Moreland gets 4 stars simply because it is, paradoxically, a bit too excellent. Every topic is plumbed to a depth that all but the most serious student would find taxing. This is especially true in the sections on ethics and logic. For this reason, it is best thought of as a reference book or a text for a course of fairly rigorous study. I would not describe this book as "introductory" although it is possible for the uninitiated to read (albeit slowly).

The topics are well organized, and there is a wealth of relevant quotations from primary sources. Important terms are defined, and chapters are recapped at the end. The layout is inviting, and it is easy to skim through and find specific information that you want to know. The writing style is very readable, which is not often the case in philosophy texts. Arguments are strong and well-supported, as one might expect.

This is an important book, and may even be the definitive text on the subject. It should be required study for clergy and anyone who claims to be a Christian intellectual. It is not "armchair reading", although I did read it in my recliner. I think I would have been very intimidated if I had approached this book with zero background in the subject, even though I have multiple letters after my name. I would love to see a condensed version that would be a bit more accessable to students and the general Christian reader.

Very interesting read and served as a great contextualizer. Its coverage is broad, touching upon everything from the British traditions, Structuralism, Marxism, Post-modernism, to discourses on Power, Gender and Sexuality and psychoanalysis in film. Because it's a book ultimately about popular culture, this sort of background seems tolend a refreshingly informed perspective to the subject matter, and Storey does an apt job as well of moving between the analytical underpinnings and their particular applications.

The first chapter had almost set me completely off the book however, with a rather lumbering attempt at delineating the various definitions of "culture" and "ideology" in a way that seemed to preclude synthesis by assigning the particularly nuances of each major author to completely separate categories.

I also found Storey's prose slightly uneven in a way that's difficult to describe. A lot of the author's he mentions write with a dense, steady, even flow that can seize a person into a bit of a flow-state, exhaustively touching upon various authors, attacking a problem from numerous perspectives, and slapping you straight into active reading mode -- filling you all the while with a treasure trove of new ideas. Frederic Jameson is a good example of this. As I read Storey, however, I at times felt my right-brain bits either snoozing off a bit or being rudely riled awake by the abrupt cut-off of an idea or concept that I thought could really have used just a sentence or two more. Could it just have been a subtle difference in the rhythms of American and British English?

In any case, that was just my personal qualm. Worth reading as an intro text for the coverage alone!

When I was a grad student in anthropology, I needed to get up to speed in this field in a hurry. I bought the 1st edition of this book and read it quickly. I was very glad for the background in some basic field of cultural theory and popular culture.

While no means definitive, and probably debatable on a few points, this is a very effective way to quickly become familiar with the field. I recommend it to undergrads, grad students, and even to neophyte faculty in the field.

This book has regrettably the stamp of officialdom while on one hand propagating unreservedly one side of a real controversy about science, and on the other hand trying to pacify the wide religious community with a contrived dismissal of any conflict between it and the scientific contentions.

The actual controversy is mainly about part of Darwinian evolution, though the book paints opponents with the broad brush of creationist antievolution. It does make distinctions among opponents, but all are depicted as religion-based anti-scientists.

The concerned part of evolution is its mechanism. The book unquestioningly accepts it to be undirected: "the biological changes that provide the raw material for evolution are not directed toward predetermined, specific goals" (p.50). They are not? This is the fundamental mistake of Darwinian evolution, the allegation that the adaptation of organisms results from changes in them not directed toward any goals. The exact opposite is true. The activities in organisms are glaringly known to persistently be directed toward specific goals, namely self-preservation and corresponding adaptation.

Despite its shortness, the book abounds in other faulty platitudes heard from Darwinists, and I shall endeavor to list some.

The book purports to give "the reasons why only scientifically based explanations should be included in public school science courses" (p.xi) and "why nonscientific alternatives to evolution such as creationism (including intelligent design creationism) should not be part of the science curriculum" (p.xii). "Creationism" connotes various beliefs in a creator of the universe, but irrespective of these beliefs the issue is science. "Intelligent design (creationism)" in particular lays claim to science, and in view of the above major error of replacing goal-directedness with its opposite, the question is how good a science is Darwinism.

"Intelligent design" proponents are said to (p.40) "argue that certain biological structures are so complex that they could not have evolved through the process of undirected mutation and natural selection". Omitted is that it is the biological functions of those structures that are claimed to require the complexity. By the above, again, the undirected process is false already, with no other argument needed. The book nonetheless continues that biologists have shown how the systems "could have arisen through natural processes" and illustrates (p.41) how, e.g., the human eye could have evolved from those of other species. The argument is that evolution requires gradual mutation, with each stage serving some function. "Intelligent design" missed, however, another counterargument. It isn't enough to show that such as the eye could without a needed component have a function in another species. The whole organism must in that absence of the component be taken into account, since assumed to otherwise remain whole. And it is evident without further searches that the organism then fails to function as required.

Another issue concerning science is its method. The book lumps together all scientific findings as "theories". For instance, it likens Darwinian evolution to "the theory of gravitation" (p.11). Newton's remark that he feigns no hypotheses suggests the difference between the two methods. His conclusion of universal gravitation and its inverse-square law was not a hypothesis but a generalization based on repeated observations, in a long-recognized inference from the particular to the general, contrasted with inference from the general to the particular in logic. Instead, elevated recently is the method of hypothesizing (hence "theory") an explanation for observed occurrences, and if the hypothesis appears to lead to those occurrences, it is to some measure accepted. A rough comparison of the two methods is: in the first is repeatedly observed that A leads to B, and in the second is found that a hypothesized A leads to B.

The second is of course exemplified by Darwinian evolution, where its hypothesized random mutation and natural selection appear to lead to adaptation, and the hypothesis is accepted correspondingly. I should note again the inconclusiveness due to a fallacy. If A leads to B, it doesn't follow that B leads to A. The fallacy is absent in the generalization, where A is observed rather than hypothesized.

It is very unfortunate that the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies are even mentioned on this book as if the explanations contents of this book had been conclusive or validated scientifically. What an embarrassment to the science community of the United States. This book offers nothing new nor does it offer anything but the use of rehashed ambiguous language creatively to give the illusion of substance while void of a plausible process. As it is within a totalitarian system of government, no competing system of thought is debated or even considered because they fear the freedom that allows people to make up their own minds after being confronted with the hard scientific evidence. Save your money on this one.

This book took almost all of the headache out of trying to teach evolution to an ultra-Christian audience. I simply let parents and students read quotes from religious leaders and scientists alike who found no contradiction between religion and science, and the tension eased immediately. They all learned how relgion and science can coexist peacefully in their hearts and minds.

Downside: The binding busted the first time I opened the book. I had our librarian spiral-bind it for me.

How did life come to be on this planet? This question is discussed at length by "Science, Evolution, and Creationism". Looking to explain the fundamentals of evolution as well as the arguments of creationism, "Science, Evolution and Creationism" is a wide reaching look at all perspectives on the subject. Highly recommended for community library religion and science collections.

"Science, Evolution and Creationism", published jointly by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, does an admirable job in explaining succinctly why evolution is science and creationism isn't. In less than 70 pages, it summarizes the key evidence on behalf of biological evolution, and dismisses the claims of creationists, including Intelligent Design advocates, noting correctly that their dissent is religiously, not scientifically, based. It does not assume scientific knowledge of the reader, especially of biology, since important concepts like speciation are defined briefly outside of the main text. Those responsible for this well-illustrated book were part of a joint National Academy of Sciences - Institute of Medicine committee consisting of fifteen biologists, geologists, secondary school science teachers, a philosopher of science and an astrophysicist. Notable members of this committee included its chairman, University of California, Irvine evolutionary geneticist Francisco Ayala, University of Arizona ecologist Nancy Moran, evolutionary geneticist Michael Clegg (Ayala's colleague at the University of California, Irvine), Michigan State University philosopher of science Robert Pennock, University of Michigan professor of internal medicine and public health Gilbert S. Omenn, Washington University plant geneticist Barbara Schaal, Missouri Botanical Garden director and Washington University botanist Peter H. Raven, University of San Francisco biochemist - and former National Academy of Sciences president - Bruce Alberts, and Hayden Planetarium (American Museum of Natural History) director Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Comprised of four succinct chapters, "Science, Evolution and Creationism" wastes no time in defending the scientific validity of evolution, while also emphasizing that both science and religion are mutually compatible, still important, means of viewing our world. Chapter One "Evolution and the Nature of Science" summarizes the major evidence supporting biological evolution and the nature of science itself. It also includes a well-reasoned explanation why science doesn't need to be incompatible with religious belief, quoting statements from major American religious leaders and religiously devout scientists like Brown University cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller. Chapter Two "The Evidence for Biological Evolution" opens with a brief discussion on the origin of the universe and the age of the Earth. Then it summarizes the extensive evidence that exists in support of evolution, including not just biogeography, homology and paleontology, but also recent molecular data from research in molecular systematics and evolutionary developmental biology (Hox genes). Chapter Three "Creationist Prospectives" discusses the major varieties of creationism, giving special emphasis to Intelligent Design creationism and its key concepts like "Irreducible Complexity", while also offering terse, but well-reasoned, explanations as to why they are not scientific and why they should not be taught in science classrooms alongside valid science like biological evolution. Chapter Four "Conclusion" is a terse, one page explanation why we need to be taught valid science like evolutionary biology, and it is followed immediately by a Frequently Asked Questions section devoted to questions on evolution and whether "alternatives" to evolution like Intelligent Design creationism should be taught in science classrooms. A short, but excellent, bibliography is also provided as suggested additional reading, featuring books written by the likes of noted evolutionary biologists such as Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould, and religiously devout scientists such as biologists Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller.

Great compendium of (some of) the most important works in math. I would have added some authors but I think the selection is awesome. Clearly explained and original works are well referenced.

My son asked for this book for Christmas, so I bought it for him. Looking inside, I saw it was way over my head. But he, being a math and computer genius, loved it.

This is a beautiful book because it lists the life and work of 16 mathematicians whose work has inspired our civilization. For example Einstein is not included, but Riemann whose analysis of curved space is the foundation of the General Theory of Relativity is rhere. So also are Archimedes and Newton the pillars of mathematical physics.Kurt Godel in 1931 proved that there will always a truth that is outside a set of axioms.Some of the original papers are difficult but I have gained much from the logic of George Boole which also governs computer programmes.

To evaluate my comments, I think you should know who I am and why I bought this book: I'm a former technical editor and writer. As a girl, I was discouraged from studying math, because at the time (the Fifties and Sixties) they thought girls couldn't understand it.

Recently I've tried to fill in the gaps in my math and science education. I thought the idea of Hawkings choosing landmark math texts and commenting on them was fantastic. After spending three days trying to understand the Euclidian proof of the Pythagorean theorem, and concluding I was just too dumb, I turned the page and discovered that according to the commentary the proof was for an isosceles right triangle, while the illustration was not isosceles.

Other reviewers have commented on the egregious errors and typos. I'd like to add that the whole publication is a typographical horror. The publisher should be ashamed. The font size is miniscule. The illustrations are often misleading. Hawkings may have chosen the texts, but the publisher apparently selected the editions based not on quality of translation but whether the copyright had expired: most appear to be nineteenth-century and to include outdated commentaries. At first I thought the commentaries were by Hawkings, but they aren't, and this was not only a disappointment but also a source of my confusion at several points where I couldn't understand them.

I would be surprised if even ten percent of the book is authored by Hawkings. Given this, the ghastly page layout, inaccurate reprints of outdated texts, and amateurish copyediting, this book is overpriced.

IF YOU'RE MATHEMATICALLY LITERATE, you will likely find Hawkings' material a joy to read. Even I -- with my limited background -- am able to appreciate some of it. But the minute after I want to shout for joy when I understand something beautiful in the book, I want to throw it across the room for something like spelling Leonardo da Vinci "Lionardo" or typos like "Archimedes's asked." With glaringly obvious typos like those, I can only assume there are less obvious typos where it really counts, in the math. It's not that I think typos out-weigh the value of Hawkings' insights, by any means. It's that mathematicians have to be precise in their formulas and proofs if they want to convince anyone they're right. God is also in the details.

Addendum: The more I read, the more disappointed I am in this book. I'm beginning to question whether Hawkings wrote even the introductions to the excerpts. Many of them are nothing but poorly written biographies of the mathematicians anthologized. The intro to Newton asserts that Newton falsely claimed priority over Leibniz for devising calculus, for example, but the book doesn't include anything written by Leibniz. The book excerpts Euler, but only mentions the constant e in one sentence in the Euler intro. I'm going to look for a good history of mathematics and give up on this volume. And when I'm ready, I'll look for good translations of the original texts.

I just couldn't put this book down. I was so absorbed that I even missed my station and had to catch a train back. The biographies mixed with mathematical explanations and an outline of the significance of each work is brilliant. It gives one an insight into how context-dependent genius really is.

I knew that the book had flaws because I read these reviews a while ago. But so what! You wouldn't use this book for reference or as a text book. It's meant to be entertainment and entertaining it is. If you can understand the maths and the significance of the selected papers you can enjoy it without worrying too much about everything being crossed and dotted.

I knew the biographies of many, but not all, of these men. Of the ones I didn't know, my favorite is George Boole. The description of his unusual career and the amazingly clear and readable paper on symbolic logic are worth buying the book for. I almost choked up when I read how he died.

Anyway, in our age or irrationality and ignorance we need more books like this to show us that we can rise above it all.

From the moment I first saw this book I was intrigued. I have followed developments in high energy physics only occasionally since I graduated 10 years ago. After picking up Dr. Randall's book I started feeling that excitement for science that led me to physics in the first place.

Warped Passages is written in a very accessible style, with many analogies attempting to clarify complex and non-intuitive concepts. My favorite was an explanation of the strong nuclear force using events from the Trojan War. While a reader with no background in physics or mathematics will be able to follow the topics presented, exposure to these sciences exponentially increases the amount of information conveyed.

The chronological presentation of particle physics history provides a background that is difficult to get otherwise. The inclusion of anecdotes and quotes from the scientists involved with the history is one of the things that makes Warped Passages so readable. This book stands out in that it not only conveys an intuitive understanding of the material, but actually delves into detail about the science. The book is clearly timed well to help build awareness and excitement as the Large Hadron Collider approaches full operation. Readers will likely be much more interested in the events unfolding at the LHC after gaining a deeper understanding of what is being sought.

This book intents to cover lots of topics, and fails miserably. In the first part, the author poorly reviews the development of relativity and quantum mechanics. She fails to convey the rich and puzzling nature of these theories and, in addition, writes in such an appalling style that one is left wondering whether the text had the benefits of an editor at all. The narrative line is repetitive and convoluted. There are some stylistic pearls as "the German-born Max Born". Words are repeated once and again -- has anyone counted how many time the string "later on" occurs in the text? -- and the tone is patronizing of the reader. In the second part,the author describes her own research and related topics. Here the quality of the text improves. Advice: buy only the second part of the book!

Why couldn't she be an instructor of mine?????? I'm very interested in physics and whatnot and this book is awesome. I don't know what else to say. you'll like it!

Professor Randall of Harvard has written a truly monumental book for physics and for those interested in science. She has brilliantly bridged the knowledge gap between the scientist and the layperson. With this book, she dispels forever the ridiculous notion that women are somehow less equipped to do science at the highest level. As a theoretical physicist, her work is perhaps the most quoted in recent history - proof that her discoveries, which opens up fresh new thinking, are among the most significant in the history of science.

Warped Passages is a book that showcases Professor Randall's skills as a "model builder" in theoretical physics. Using the logic of model building, she deftly wove a tale of how past discoveries finally led to her out-of-the-box insight to use the fifth dimension to explain some of the more vexing modern day problems in physics. She demonstrated for us that with warped space, we may not even see a fifth dimension of infinite size.

The book is full of creative analogies to help us understand what the human mind is not equipped to grasp - extra dimensions. It is written simply, elegantly and clearly. Even if you find the more esoteric concepts difficult to understand at a deeper level as I do, she has included at the end of each chapter bullets of key concepts that anyone can understand. After reading the book, you will find yourself able to discuss at dinner parties the more important discoveries in physics such as general relativity, quantum mechanics and extra dimensions with the confidence of a trained physicist. You will also want to learn more about the latest advances in physics. Whether you have a Ph.D. in physics or are someone with a passing interest in science, you will find this book useful, interesting, informative and exhilarating. You will be infected by her obvious enthusiasm in physics and mathematics. Professor Randall has done a great service for the advancement of science and the recruit of students into physics. As a bonus, you will see glimpses of her humanity, humor and wit.

This is an exciting time in the history of physics. With this book, you will see why Professor Randall is the chief architect of what makes it exciting.

PROS: Deep analysis of high energy physics. Good job at explaining bizzare ideas/theories.

CONS: Although Randall makes many analogies to try to grasp tough concepts, I wish she would have made even more. Also, the book could use more and better illustrations to help the reader understand these extremely complicated ideas. The book loses one star for each of those shortcomings.

CONCLUSION: If you've read Stephen Hawking and found yourself wanting to know more, read this book. It's extremely difficult to subject to write about, especially for the layperson. She does a pretty good job.

Concise and well written, my only gripe with it is that my professor uses a slightly different version so the page numbers he always rattles off in class for homework don't match mine. I looked into this before I bought it but because it's not considered a different edition I had no choice and wanted to save $50. It was well worth it.

I am very pleased with the service & i hope for more progress in the future.

Ahmed Alaa

The previous reviewer was overly harsh. While this book is certainly not sufficient as a text for symbolic logic at a competitive four year university, it may be quite useful for, say, instructors at the community college or high school level. Along with Sinnott-Armstrong's Understanding Arguments, this is in fact one of the better books for such a course. Moreover, this volume has has more answers to the exercises that follow each section than the full version of Copi and Cohen's Introduction to Logic.

I wish I had time to write a full review, because folks should really know what they are buying when they buy this book. Or at least they should know what they are *not* buying. They are *not* buying a distilled version of the classic Copi and Cohen text.

This book has some really unfortunate errors in it. Some are just typos, others are mistakes, but by far the most offensive are the philosophical errors. The philosophical errors are found in material that has been added to or completely reworked from the original C&C text.

I'll just give a couple examples (then I'll go try to prepare for tomorrow's class in which I'll need to correct the errors in this book without completely undermining it and myself):

1. On page 59, it is claimed that arguments that beg the question are always valid, but they are also *unsound* "unless the premise is already known to be true". Of course this weird epistemic notion of soundness isn't the usual one, and isn't the one that appears earlier in the book. It doesn't matter for soundness if you *know* that the premises are true, what matters is if they *are* true. So arguments that beg the question can be sound even if we don't know the premise(s) to be true.

2. Exercise 5 on page 61 asks the student to identify the fallacy of presumption in the following: "This computer game has lots of fighting in it. You'll like it."

The solution in the back of the book for this exercise says, "Converse accident. The generalization that most people like fighting and adventure-packed computer games is a hidden premise here and is being applied illegitimately to a case it does not necessarily govern."

Forget the fact that the original sentence doesn't obviously commit *any* fallacy (this is actually a problem with many of the new examples in the text). The solution in the back of the book accuses it of converse accident, but the justification given for this accusation really would have it as *accident* not *converse accident*. (Accident is when "a generalization is applied to individual cases that it does not govern" [p. 61].)

Imagine how confused students get checking their answers in the back of the book.

3. On the bottom of page 82 and the top of page 83, two charts are given to help summarize information about the distribution of terms in categorical propositions. Of course the two charts don't agree. One has S distributed in "All S are P"; the other has it undistributed. My students drew the most natural conclusion from this: truth is relative to page number.

I could go on and give many other examples.

Errors are inevitable, but not this kind of error. Advice: Have your students pay the extra 15 or 20 bucks and get Copi and Cohen. The real Copi and Cohen.

This was a good book that gave good examples for each strategy and method used. It gave plenty of work to discuss with fellow classmates wich would be helpful to understand the material better.

Okuns's book provides a strong counseling model that practioners can follow. I found her exercises and examples particularly helpful and seemingly useful. However, her model is based on an affective,western;client-centered model. Many of the techniques suggested would be difficult to apply to clients of diverse populations. If you decide to buy this book, consider purchasing her other book, Understanding Diverse Families:What Practioners Need to Know.

Received it quickly and in great condition. Cheapest price for a brand new product I could find online.

My review refers only to the binding of this book. The text itself I rate highly, with a few quibbles. But after a few months of moderate usage, the poor backing has caused the book to break into four pieces, with the pages flying out like a looseleaf. This trash binding is meant for a Romance novel, not a scholarly work. Perhaps the marketing target is undergraduates who will toss it away after a semester. Cambridge, serious readers and translators deserve better.

I find this translation straightforward and transparent, in that one is not forced to disentangle the philosophical content from the personal idiosyncracies of the author and/or translator. I do not read German, so I am unable to compare with the original, but whether Kant intended it or not, he himself, as an individual with a particular voice, disappears from the work, leaving only the philosophy. This "effect," when the philosophy takes over and the individual disappears, I find very helpful, especially so in regard to a work this complex. Highly recommended, as is the Guyer Critique of Judgement. I have not read the C. of Practical Reason yet, but it is most likely of comparable quality. These are obviously my opinions, as are the statements of other reviewers.

I am an avid reader of philosophical books and without any doubt i consider Immanuel Kant as the greatest mind who has ever written on such abstract subjects.This work is a real copernican revolution,putting forth the structure of our cognitive systems and the way we perceive the world around us.At least it changed my own worldview,making me recognize that i am the creator of my thoughts and not a simple observer.For this reason i consider it one of the most important books i have ever read.

Because of the very negative reviews of the Guyer/Wood translation on this page, I have been conflicted in determining which edition of Kant's first critique I should purchase. I recently saw the Max Muller translation re-released by Penguin, and was tempted to purchase that based on the recommendation by one of the reviewers here. Before I made a decision, however, I still wanted to do more research; this work is obviously of immense importance in the history of thought, making it crucial to acquire the best edition possible.

After much futile searching, I was informed that my university harbors a scholar of Kant and Schopenhauer who carries, at some level, international recognition. In fact, he is the translator of Schopenhauer's THE WORLD AS WILL AND REPRESENTATION, published by Prentice/Longman, a translation I would encourage you to pick up. You can find his name if you search for it here at Amazon. To get to the point, I contacted him expressing my concern over which translation of Kant's critique would be best, and this is what he said:

"I have to confess that I have not paid any attention to the Muller translation, probably because it is never cited by scholars working on Kant. That doesn't mean it's not good, but I just can't comment on that.

I will say that, unless one is working at the deeper levels of Kant scholarship - where one would presume at least some familiarity with German and sensitivity to spots in the translation where there are at least likely to be possible questions of translation - it almost certainly won't make much of a difference which of the translations you use. They are all at least that good.

The three translations that are cited by Kant scholars are those of Norman Kemp Smith and Guyer/Wood, but also the translation by Werner S. Pluhar (published by Hackett Publishing Company). In my own view, balancing out the good and bad points, it would be very difficult to say which one should prefer as a translation. But the Guyer/Wood edition has the advantage of a wealth of supplementary information in footnotes and endnotes.

Possibly the best thing you can do, if you want to go as deeply as you can in the absence of some knowledge of German, would be to use the Guyer/Wood, and take advantage of the notes, plus one of the other translations (even Muller's). In other words, read each portion of the text in the two translations."

I hope this advice helps any of you who, like me, are confused on which translation to get. I've decided to go with Guyer/Wood and Muller simultaneously.

I read the long but fruitful review about the results of different translations of this text. So I went to my in-law who is German and she read a few paragraphs from the German. When I showed her the parallel text in English by Guyer and Wood, she was appalled at how inaccurate it was. She said the German was beautiful prose whereas the translation was aweful and didn't reflect the style of the German at all. She thought that the NK Smith was good English, but that it wasn't very accurate either. Unfortunately, I didn't get her opinion on the other translations.

The only reason I can think of for Cambridge using the utterly untalented efforts of Guyer and Wood is because of their privileged chairs in their respective University. Once again, power and privileged has done the public disservice in the academic world.