Bradford Books

I bought this book on a recommendation from another trader. I paid a lot less than the $175 they are asking now, but I still thought it was very expensive. I read through half of the book and thought it was interesting. On one of those days I had the book open on my desk and realized that one of the patterns from the book was forming! I waited till the right moment and took the trade on 2 year treasuries. Exited the trade about a minute later with a $225 profit. That paid for the book on a single trade.

I realize I could have also lost $225 on that trade, then the cost of the book would have been around $350. I was now happy with the purchase of the book. I looked for more trades, but did not find any that week. Then the book got pushed aside and forgotten about. I found the book again last week because I heard someone mentioning it. I pulled it out and reread it.

I think the book has something to offer. Is it too expensive? That is hard to say. For me it became free after one trade. Was I just lucky? I don't think so because I can scroll through charts and see a lot of the set-ups in hindsight. So the trades are there, its just a matter of being there to pull the trigger as they happen.

I hope to get more out of the book from this second reading. One thing I have noticed is that many times I read a book and get something. Then upon rereading it I pick up many thoughts that I did not see or understand during the first reading. Maybe I wasn't ready at the time, but having many dozens of books under my belt and lots more life experience in between the first and second readings, I was able to digest more.

I found this book to be very insightful in spotting possible setups on a chart. The downfall is that it's very expensive. I got mine via digital delivery on Ebay for $49. The techniques must be followed exactly in order for you to profit from them. And remember to use stops...only a fool trades without using stops.

This is an advanced book, and it does no hand holding. It is a trading niche book. It is not about day trading, nor momentum trading, but a unique subset of short term trading called "swing trading". If you do not know the difference, this book is not for you. It is not earth shattering. But, it is written by traders who have done it for a living for decades. Thus, it is worth knowing how they think, and how they have earned a living. And, yes, you mostly only make a few hundred bucks at a time, if you are good. Not riches, but "a living".

The price is high, but this is a small niche market. They will sell few copies. Linda Raschke has done this technique of swing trading and earned a living at it for decades. I would not expect her to take time off to write about it for chump change. If it were a mass market, a lower price would be in order, but this book is good for very few people.

I give it four stars only because of the terse format. BUT, they are traders not literary artists. I cannot fault them for not writing War and Peace.

If you are an experienced trader, and expect nothing more than a few hundred bucks when a trade goes well, and protection from loss when it does not, this book will either confirm what you know, which is helpful, or add a trick or two that you did not know, which is more helpful. Traders are successful who earn a living, a few hundred dollars at a time, several times a day, day after boring day. It is not a book for others at all, and not a book to start with. If you magically expect more money than this, buy another book. And, nothing in short term trading is really new over time. This is not a breakthrough book of new and novel ideas. The first idea, "Turtle Soup" came from the Turtles which have been around many decades. It is nice to read that this pattern has not yet worn itself out, and is still used. I am happy to have it in my library. I am happy to know that old tricks still work for old dogs.

I cant this book is $175 !!! for the material inside is plain junk, i have read ALLOT of books from gann to elliot to andews and this has to be the worst book i have ever read the methods taught are very indicator based and will not work in the long run the wolf wave method is basicly elliot wave rehased, there are better books to learn the elliot wave best book in my opinion robert miner's book, as for momentum is concerned larry williams. and for breakouts edward's and magee. I have been trading for 10 years but i constantly buy books just to see if i can atleast get one golden nugget out of them, this book however has no good insight into anything i did not get one good idea out of this book. As for some of the reviews on here if you click see all my reviews this is the only book they have reviewed ....hmmm but if you are serious about trading the books i reccomended above are very insightfull atleast they were for me, miners book is old but is full of new ideas and less based on indicators and has very easy to follow rules for elliot, i guess what they say is right old is gold. good luck

you can always spot s loser by one of (or both) of two reactions:

1- They want to get into a business to make money but think $200 is too much!!

2- They expect what they read to agree with their bias

Anyone who wants to make money but thinks a book is expensive at $170 has the wrong personality for trading. If you are like that, you have no business trading because you are too greedy and a coward.

Secondely, when you are making a comment about someone, it is really important to REALLY be sure that what you are saying is acccurate. The implication that Linda does not make money trading is just ridiculous. The woman is a bloody Market Wizard, for God's sake! She is also a pretty crap promoter of her services.

The book is excellent. The question is: does it contain methods that can make you money? Of course it does. You guys are clearly sleep walking because you are concentrating on believing that every method in the book will make you money all the time under any circumstances. Quit believing that and pick the ones that work under different market conditions.If you can't, it is your fault, not the book's.

If you watch Linda trading, you will see her using those setups under the right conditions. The fact is, if you cannot make money trading the setups in the book, you are either new and have to learn the basics first, or you are not cut out for this business.

This family tree continues the story of Emma Hart. In this novel, we learn what happens to four of her descendants.

Book in condition stated, great packaging, shipping times as stated. Will purchase from seller again.

Nice storyline, I enjoy keeping up with the family goings on. Pleasant read.

This is the continuing saga of the Emma Hart. Although she has long since passed away her empire still lives on through her grandchildren and great grandchildren. I have read all book in the series and have been rivited by each one. Unexpected Blessings is about the lives of 4 of Emma's decendents. They are ambitious, fascinating & powerful women. All a credit to Emma. Barbara Taylor Bradford tells their stories like no one else could.

I only have a few books by her, but I really like her writing. The book is in very good condition.

Writers who produce numerous books seem to have the same story line in all their books. Need new twists.

Would someone PLEASE make another trilogy about this wonderfully diverse family. Ms. Bradford makes one feel as if they are part of the entire clan; happiness, concerns and all. Finally, a book to capture my full attention.

This was by far my least favorite of Barbara Taylor Bradford's books. Maybe it would have been less torturous as a paperback, so I could have skipped pages of meaningless repetition, but as an Audio Cd it was excruciatingly lacking in excitement or plot. The positive side of that is that usually I have difficulty leaving the car and audio Cd when I get to work when I'm at a great spot in the story, but since there were no good spots, it was very easy to walk away from. I give it two stars only because it continued the saga and therefore is of some interest to people hooked on the series, otherwise, it wouldn't be worth one.

I loved A Woman of Substance, but reading this book, I felt like the author was phoning it in. No real plot development -- the bad guy is mean and sinister, does nothing that affects anybody, and then apparently dies. Big deal. And the characters lacked dimension -- the good guys were lovely and honorable and admirable, and the bad guys were laughably sinister and evil, like cartoon characters. Read BTB's earlier stuff and don't waste your time with this one.

Nice storyline, I enjoy keeping up with the family goings on. Pleasant read

The field formerly known as Sociobiology has reinvented itself under the name Evolutionary Psychology, though with more of a focus on internal psychological mechanisms. The premise remains the same: current human behaviors or tendencies can be explained as adaptive mechanisms implanted in us by our evolutionary past. The field has gained tremendous attention in the popular media; you can hardly read an issue of Science Times without seeing an example of it. We are barraged with new hypotheses, such as the claim that our preference for green lawns is due to the fact that we evolved on the African savanna (perhaps our love of TiVo is because it allows us to hunt wildebeests during prime time?). But as David Buller demonstrates in his brilliant book, the emperor still has no clothes. Though Buller is a philosopher, he presents an internal critique of the field, that is a demonstration that EvoPsych is wrong on biological and evolutionary grounds. Buller is especially strong in his critique of the assumption of the "modularity" of mind (that the mind is a collection of separate modules for different function), a virtual article of faith in EvoPsych. This book is simply a must-read for those interested in this topic or in evolution and human nature. For some reason, some people feel threatened by the fact that it is a philosopher rather than a biologist criticizing EvoPsych. But this is an example of the ad hominem logical fallacy; the question is not what academic department Buller belongs to, but whether his arguments are valid. Whatever your opinions on EvoPsych, you cannot ignore this extremely important book.

Bought this thinking anything from Bradford books and MIT must be good. Instead it's a boring, stupid, incompetent, antiscientific and antirational piece of closet creationist trash. Heads should roll at Bradford for this atrocity! If you must then start by reading the last chapter first as he conceals a frank statement of his antirationality til the end. I made detailed notes on it as I thought is was a serious work of science and was going to do a long page by page refutation but why bother! The above praise from Science and Nature reviewiers shows they did not read it. The positive comments from the jacket by Sterelny, Wilson, Sober and Caporael above are due to the fact that they all share Buller's retro antirational blank slate views that human nature is due to our culture. The first part of the book is dull repeats of basic biology cribbed from intro texts and unrelieved by photos or drawings. Along the way there are some incredibly bizarre takes on the use of language and scientific method. Then you find an attempt to refute some well known studies of stepchild abuse. He may have a minor point here that they have some statistical flaws. Worth a short article in a prof. journal but hardly a book. As you get to the end he lets his antiscience and antirationality out in the open, telling us that regardless of whether our behaviour is innate we should not investigate it! The fact that our brain is no different from our other organs and its functions a product of genes and evolution continues to be resisted or just ignored not only by academics but by the general public. Nevertheless the basics of our behaviour are as innate as our heartbeat and detailed evidence (for those who have trouble with the obvious) is all around us everywhere we look once your eyes are opened--just watch any people doing anything or turn on the tv (or see the huge and rapidly growing scientific literature). Novices can start with Pinker's "The Blank Slate" but there are now dozens of good popular and scientific books on evolutionary psychology and hundreds of articles in the literature of philosophy, psychology, economics etc. The aricles in Buss's The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology and some at the end of Gazzinaga's The Cognitive Neurosciences 3 are good starting points for the serious reader. Once you realize that psychology, philosophy, history,politics, art, music, anthropology, literature, economics, sociology, law, and science are all manifestations of our innate psychology(with the minor extensions we call culture and civilization), you can look anywhere to study our adapted mind.

I shall go directly into what I think is problematic in the book:
(1) The empirical survey carried on by Buller on the evidence for the claims treated in specific chapters (e.g., the Cinderella Effect hypothesis) is extremely scanty, at least relative to the available publications, experiments and studies. This point is made explicit by evo-psys reponses to Buller`s book (cf. Trends in Cognitive Science, with responses by David Buller, M. Daly, M. Wilson etc.)
(2) His analogies at particular points, with Game Theoretical concepts and results, seem as weak as out of context.
(3) The case from neural selectionism against massive modularity seems to be extremely muddy, obscure and at best, extremely indirect (although I think, for independent reasons that there`s something wrong with the justification for the Massive Modularity Hypothesis)
(4) Well, I read the book some time ago, but I remember that his comments towards how features of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptiveness are estimated from comparative data is much like straw man fighting. No one builds direct inferences from Bonobo behavior to the behavior of some ancestral hominid state; there are a number of complex statistical, heuristic and algorithmic techniques for this sort of estimation, data analysis and data crossing.And for that matter, we all know that the members of the genus Pan have followed their own evolutionary path since the "split" relative to the hominid line of descent. In second, and very much important, tentative sets of hypothesis concerning these selective pressures can be more or less well decided on by empirical evidence on current behavior and cognition, as mentioned in Toooby and Cosmides 1990 paper (selectivity, as we should expect, demanded the exclusion of the quotes pointing this out...).
(5) I was not convinced by his semantic contrivances on the impossibility of there being something like "human nature".

=)

The lowercase versus capitalized versions of the phrase is a key talking point of Buller's, as he carefully does NOT throw the baby out with the bathwater.

He sees a legitimate place for "ev psych" as a scientific discipline that has offered some, **modest to moderate** insight into human nature and may offer more, more serious, and, yes, more controversial insights in the future.

However, "Ev Psych," a field arguably as much "secular metaphysics" (my phrase) as science, is a whole different kettle of fish. Buller says so, and shows why, starting with just-so stories.

Butler also uses rhetorical questions to good effect. For example, how do Ev Psychers square the alleged high modularity of the brain with its known plasticity? How can we really extrapolate from today's societies to those of 40,000 years ago, let alone 400,000, and claims with perfect confidence we know in what order human changes happened, let alone whether they were caused by genetic evolution rather than cultural evolution, doubly let alone what genes were selected for and why.

Better, here's a rhetorical anecdote of evidence. Interestingly, abuse by single-parent genetic fathers is even higher than by stepfathers. This of course has no EP explanation and is a shot across the bow to EP's explanation of the abuse "scenario."

Ultimately, what's behind these just-so stories, etc., are philosophical preconceptions, my "secular metaphysics," and Butler is on good ground here.

And, speaking of philosophical preconceptions, I disagree with another reviewer that philosophy has nothing to teach science. Wittgenstein and Popper did earlier, and philosophy of science still does today.

It's stances like that which can lead to lay perceptions of science as a priesthood and reinforce ideas of "scientism."

By ignoring relevant evidence that contradicts his position, Buller's book constitutes intellectual fraud. This is especially pernicious as it presents itself as an authoritative and balanced assessment to an audience that is unequipped to know better.

Many attempted criticisms of EP amount to the suggestion that the researchers are incompetent as evolutionary biologists. If that were true, it is an accusation that should be taken seriously. However, it often turns out that such criticisms are made on the basis of the critic's ignorance, or outright dishonesty.

EP researchers write: "Because we were limited to 700 words, we could only address the fact that Buller has ignored 15 years worth of evidence showing that his favored alternative hypothesis is false."

Since I can't include an html, google "Center for Evolutionary Psychology" and "David Buller" to find responses from researchers who are actually familiar with the relevant evidence.

In the poignant words of evolutionary psychologist John Tooby:

"The prospect that centuries of religious, intellectual, and cultural reference points will melt into an unrecognizable new landscape of scientific knowledge understandably provokes unease, visceral resistance, and even alarm in those who sense the magnitude of the coming changes. These feelings are even sharper for evolutionary psychologists, because our work forces us to live within the strange realities of this barely explored new world. This sense of impending dislocation creates an appetite for seemingly authoritative dismissals of the primary claims of evolutionary psychology, which leading intellectual journals accordingly feed. The appeal of these crafted dismissals is that they give permission to intellectuals to think the convenient: that they do not have to deal with this new world, or revise or surrender any of their beliefs or intellectual allegiances because--what a relief--it is a spurious revolution. Time to sleep.

"Yet critics typically fail to take the one step that is indispensable to making their criticism authoritative or even germane: they do not actually read the primary literature or know its content, and so doom themselves to arguing with their own confusions, trafficking in myth, rumor, mischaracterization, and irrelevancy."

I ordered the first week of classes in the middle of the week, and had the book by the beginning of the next week. Brand new and in excellent condition. Thank you!

I'm a senior at UofKentucky and bought this book for a Finance class. Like most business classes I've had, the book is way overpriced for a "new edition" that is basically the same as old editions.
On another note, I've been in the class over a month now and so far every thing we've talked about(which is pretty much straight out of the book) in the finance class has been virtually the same as the accounting class I took(balance sheets, income statements, time value of money, etc).
I am over-all disappointed with the finance class and it's corresponding book, but just maybe a lot of overly priced books will pay off in the end with college graduation on my resume.

I received the book in a very timely fashion, and it was in EXCELLENT condition. Definitely recommend.

I received the book a week after I ordered it. The condition of the book was supposed to be good, but this book was practically new. The cover you could not even tell it had been worn until you put it next to someone else's brand new book. None of the pages were harmed, just some written words in the margins.

I have to agree with many of the other reviewers on this book; I did not find the book to be well written or easy to understand. Maybe if I had had some financial management courses prior to this one I would have been able to see through some of the gaps in the explainations and examples.

As someone who reads these reviews, I will do what I look for and keep it short. I have read Pennock's book (I wonder if some of the other reviewers actually have). I have found it to be an enjoyable read and full of useful information. It gives a very thoughtful over view of the current Creationist argument. It explains the background of the proponents of intelligent design and their methods of arguing. It then systematically shows where the flaws in their reasons lie. Pennock doesn't berate the creationists but does show that their reasoning, although perhaps seemingly persuasive in the courtroom of public opinion, really is not supported scientifically.

This book is bound to give every science fundie a boner. I got to watch Pennock at work last year in Pasadena at the Pacific Division APA conference where he "responded" to an ID paper presented there. His response was structured in accordance to the same principles by which this book was - he handed out a photocopy of a list of statements made by his "opponent" in the past which had nothing to do with the present paper but which effectively smeared him - "guilt by association." He then read a pre-prepared list of points against traditional ID which had, seriously, nothing to do with the paper to which he was supposed to be replying. This is classic Duane Gish only with the perspective reversed. The IDer kept trying to steer Pennock on topic but Pennock, the professional speaker, was far too slippery for that sort of order. My favorite moment was when Pennock refferred to Margaret Masterman's mid-sixties objection to Kuhn's use of "paradigm" by placing both his hands in front of his face and wiggling his fingers to indicate Kuhn's "big jumble of a mess." Pennock was actually laughed at out loud.

I'm no ID or Creationist fan, but the sort of treatment they get from folk of Pennock's ilk kind of makes me embarrassed. This book is no exception - the reviewers here who have pointed out the publication bias are right on the mark. And it remains to be seen if Pennock will have any more luck in tying IDers to good 'ol Creationists than, say, Robert Schadewald has had tying good 'ol Creationists to Flat Earthers.

The book does deserve more than one star though because it at least pretends to include some contemporary thinkers in the "debate." If you have a bug up your arse toward those nutty IDers, AND you have a remedial exposure to contemporary philosophy of science, then this book is an excellent resource and is bound to give you a few zingers to throw at the fellow on the other barstool.

This rather large book consists of a series of essays detailing the perspective of Intelligent Design Theory from the Christian point of view and a series of contrasting essays from Darwinian orthodoxy opposing this theory. One unfortunate aspect of this book, which consists otherwise of some rather interesting essays, is that the essays are selected in such a manner so as to make the ID perspective look ridiculous at every point. Thus, after every issue is dealt with from the perspective of ID two subsequent essays appear which are supposed to refute the ID perspective from the Darwinian. In practice, this amounts to little more than overkill which makes one wonder, what is the point of having a debate if you are going to stack the cards beforehand. Also, many of these so- called "objective" scientists and philosophers seem to be engaging in little more than name calling and credential comparing. One example of this is the essay of the popularizer Richard Dawkins who appears to be interested very little in the actual content of an essay by Philip Johnson and more interested in the fact that this individual happens to be a lawyer, cashing in on the near universal animosity felt towards lawyers among the populist masses. This isn't to say that Johnson's essay is particularly good or rings true, but the fact that Dawkins cannot control his juvenile tendencies here is really a good indication of the knee jerk reactionism of the Darwinian Left. Of course, the issue of Intelligent Design is a complicated one, one that is not fully worked out here. In addition, the compiler Pennock seems to be under the impression that "creationism" is strictly a Protestant phenomenon. This may be the case for "liberal Catholicism" however many traditionalists within the Catholic church have offered an alternative interpretation of Creation. In fact, the writings of Jesuit priest and evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin were placed on the Index and can hardly be taken to constitute orthodoxy within the church. Also the "process theologies" proposed by certain clergymen within this volume can hardly be taken for Christian orthodoxy either. The issues involving Darwinism include a conspicuous absence of intermediate evolutionary forms within the fossil record, a problem concerning the probabilities involved (being miniscule, making it difficult to reconcile Darwinism with reality, at least in one interpretation), and other issues dealing with absent data regarding (supposed) speciation. Intelligent Design Theory differs from classical Creationism in that it is not "young Earth" and that it does not take the actual Genesis account overliterally, merely arguing for an intelligent designer. Also, it should be noted that Creationism proper need not be solely Christian; for example, there exist Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist "creationists" who challenge the Darwinist hegemony. Thus, the issues involved are rather complex and really it requires a careful reading to fully understand. Certainly they cannot be passed over in the manner they are in the naïve Darwinism taught for example in public schools. Even within the scientific community of evolutionary biologists different evolutionary theories exist - contrast the (standard) Darwinist theory of Mayr with the punctuated equilibrium proposal of Gould. These issues in fact may touch on the very nature of the scientific endeavor, and the contrast that exists between materialism (today called "physicalism", given the interchangeability of matter-energy) and theistic realism. This book is decent in that it presents many essays from a wide variety of points of view even though one must sort through the compiler's own bias in his presentation of them. It is to be recommended to both the scientist and philosopher as well as the theologian and layman.

This book looks very thorough - how could more than 800 pages of text by 25 authors be anything but thorough? It also looks very balanced: although it consists principally of attacks on ID, it does publish several articles by ID theorists and their admirers. Although Pennock does not give "equal time" to the ID movement, he acknowledges this openly in his introduction.

But why is the book entitled Intelligent Design Creationism, a term never used by either the ID proponents or the creationists? Why is this term repeated throughout the book, as if it was commonly accepted? I would suggest that the word is used to inspire prejudice, because it already stands condemned. Creationism has been designated unconstitutional and unscientific by US Supreme Court. Pennock claims that ID is just a new form of creationism with a name change and an image update. In one sense, he's correct, as all ID proponents believe in creation. However, William Dembski has clearly explained the very significant differences between creationism and ID (the latter does not support a young Earth or 6-day creation, and argues exclusively from science, never from the Bible). Even Pennock himself says he wanted to publish an article by Henry Morris, the father of creation science, expressing disapproval of ID.

Pennock's criticism of Phillip Johnson does a remarkable job of making Johnson's clear and convincing arguments sound confused and muddled. Most of his criticism is based on what he imagines Johnson is trying to say rather than what he actually says. He repeatedly misquotes and distorts Johnson's words; for example, he makes the absurd accusation that Johnson wants scientists to incorporate religious conclusions into their experiments. He quotes Johnson's statement that "It may well be, however, that there are certain questions... that cannot be answered by the methods available to our science. These may include not only broad philosophical issues such as whether the universe has a purpose, but also questions we have become accustomed to think of as empirical, such as how life began or how complex biological systems were put together," then comments: "The sly implication here is that the "sacred books" and "mystical states of mind" may be appropriate ways to answer empirical as well as teleological questions." How can such a complete distortion of Johnson's words, be a "sly implication"?

Over and over, Pennock berates Johnson and his colleagues for making claims without evidence. He also suggests that they have some sort of secret agenda and that they are only revealing a tiny part of it; ironically, he can offer no evidence for this claim. He dismisses the entire design argument with the simplistic assertion that "Darwin showed how simple natural processes could explain such adaptations." Again, he provides no evidence, no page reference to justify this extraordinary over-simplification.

The farcical nature of the book is best shown when Pennock includes a single 16-page article by Michael Behe to represent ID's entire scientific claims. The book claims to be about ID and science, yet only 2% of its length is devoted to this all-important issue.

The article is followed by a criticism by Philip Kitcher of Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. Kitcher ignores most of Behe's arguments and resorts to sarcasm, ridicule and name-calling - the usual tactics of those who have nothing intelligent to say. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that Kitcher has read Behe's book: it appears, rather, that he has dipped into it at a few points to find things to complain about.

Those who have read Behe would be aware of the enormously detailed picture he gives of the operation of the cilium and (to a lesser extent) of the flagellum as examples of irreducible complexity. Ignoring the cilium completely, Kitcher says: "Here's a simple-minded version of the argument. Assume that the flagellum needs 137 proteins. Then Darwinians are required to produce a sequence of 138 organisms, the first having none of the proteins and each one having one more protein than its predecessor. Now, we're supposed to be moved by the plight of organisms numbers 2 to 137, each of which contains proteins that can't serve any function, and is therefore, presumably, a target of selection." This is a complete travesty of Behe's argument, which does not even mention the sequence of 137 proteins! Behe argued that the structure of the flagellum was not only enormously complex but incredibly precise, so that it could not function without every one of its parts perfectly designed and in place. In other words, Kitcher has made a thoroughly dishonest attempt to make the argument look simple-minded; he goes on to compound his dishonesty by insisting that Behe's argument is "just plain silly."

Not surprisingly, Behe is not given a chance to reply to this defamation.

There is a great deal more that could be said about a book this size, but most of it adds up to the same conclusion. There are, admittedly, some bright spots. Some of the articles are reasonable. In particular, there is one criticism of Johnson (by Nancey Murphy) which is not only intelligent and well-argued, but actually fair. It is almost as if this article was included to show that, despite what the rest of the book demonstrates, a real dialogue between Darwinism and ID may be possible.

I give this book three stars. In reality, it deserves only one ... or a full five ... depending on who you, the reader, are.

Why do I say this? First, a little discussion:

The book's title is a bit misleading; it should really be "Intelligent Design Creationism AND ITS CRITICS." Editor Robert Pennock has an agenda about as obvious as an orange flag in a St. Patrick's Day parade, namely, trying to organize a gang tackle on intelligent design theorists. I won't take this opportunity to opine on whether this is a laudable goal or not. It's just clear that Pennock is not merely moderating a discussion here, but has approached this project with the goal of stacking the debate deck in favor of Darwinism. This is clear from the amount of space Pennock gives to Darwinist critics, and the fact that the ID work he includes here is all a little dated, as noted by other reviewers. His convictions are also clear from his own contribution to this volume, a set of reviews in which he critiques the work of ID champion Philip Johnson. Pennock spends an unhelpful amount of space impuning Johnson's character, while his material response to Johnson's ideas is rather facile. What's not clear is whether Pennock actually recognizes the presence of his own agenda, or whether he honestly considers himself to be "objective" here.

But, still, this book does represent a discussion of sorts between several scholars on both sides of the ID divide. This is something that hasn't been done anywhere else, and that makes it a potentially positive contribution to the discussion, Pennock's own goals notwithstanding.

Now back to the original question of how many stars to give it: If you're a committed IDer, already familiar with Johnson, Behe, Dembski, etc., you probably need to read this book to learn what the most highly regarded ID opponents have to say about ID. So, if you are an IDer, this book gets five stars. But, if you are already a committed Darwinist, you need to understand that this book simply does not carry the debate on an equal footing. It does not allow the ID theorists to articulate their views in the best manner possible. Pennock's book will not teach you anything new, and will probably just reinforce some comfortable stereotypes for you. So, if you are a committed Darwinist, this book gets only one.

I found this book to be very useful. A lot of great pics also. I would recommend this book to anyone who is pregnant.

I kept this book handy through two pregnancies and have lent it to many friends. The pics are awesome! The text is imformative. This and the what to expect books are all an expectant mom need on her night table.

This book reminded me of a Hallmark card. It's filled with pastel color-pencil drawings of floating babies, photos of couples in flowery outfits joyfully embracing each other and articles on topics like "What Your Baby Dreams About." If like your baby info with fuzzy pictures and without cold, hard facts or edgy, ironic humor, then this is the book for you. However, the book is hard to get through -- it kind of rambles along in an unfocused way. That said, an early section on fertilization, which offers great photos of sperms attacking (oops -- I mean, embracing) eggs, was highly entertaining, and almost made up for all the incoherent sections like "Games Your Unborn Baby Plays" and "Preparing Your Baby For Birth."

If you want to find great pictures of unborn babies, this book has them. However, I really disliked the pictures of all the bare moms and dads. There was a whole chapter (short) of pictures and drawings of nude couples. Also a lot of women in underwear. If I had known, I probably would not have ordered this book, now I'm trying to censor the whole thing, so I can show it to my husband and kids.
I would otherwise agree with the other reviews. Great baby pictures, lots of nifty little facts about baby development, how to have fun with your preborn baby, etc.

Did you know that as early as 12 weeks old, your unborn baby has all the growing senses to know you--to hear the sound of your voice, to suck it's thumb, to be lulled to sleep by your loving rock, to play with you?

Our doulas have used this book to share with many clients how to understand, play with and love their babies right from the start. We believe parenting begins at conception, and this is a book that finally shows the science behind the intuition.

Blessings,

Well I did not think this was one of her best. It left me feeling that it was not finished. It kind of ended rather abruptly, however it was a good read other than that

What if the original Queen Elizabeth were around today and running a major corporation instead of an empire? The question is fun to ponder, as is Barbara Taylor Bradford's latest novel, Being Elizabeth. This new book takes Elizabeth and all her character traits out of the past and puts her in the boardroom in 2004, along with the supporting cast of characters from history. It's a wonderful premise and an enjoyable read. Highly reccomended!

What a disappointment. While I have enjoyed previous offerings by Mrs. Taylor Bradford, I do maintain a mostly moderate expectation of her works. They are generally acceptable summer or light reading. But this book, and it's earlier series companion books, has little to reccommend it.

"Being Elizabeth" is supposedly about a young, exceptional businesswoman making a name for herself, while rescuing her family enterprise from sure disaster. What this story is in actuality, is the story of Elizabeth I of England. Take the monarch out of the late 1500 and early 1600's and plop her, her cronies and antagonists into modern day and you've got yourself "Being Elizabeth". Not even the names were changed (much) to protect the fact that this story was long written before Mrs. Taylor Bradford was even born.

A waste of time, money and the good will of readers. Quite insulting to those truly expecting a "novel". Please avoid.

I can't tell you how disappointed I was in this book. Rarely do I get done with a book and think what a waste of time, and I read probably close to 100 books a year. This was one of those few books. No plot line, no action, poorly fleshed out characters -- I expected so much more from such a fine author. In fact, I got done and wondered if perhaps she had written this before becoming a published author and decided to dust it off, update it slightly and pass it off as something new. It is truly that bad.

When twenty-five year old Elizabeth Deravenel Turner inherits the family business, it is the life for which she was groomed. Albeit one that has not come easily - her younger brother and older half-sister Mary had the honor first. They had to die before she could finally inherit.

We then see Elizabeth taking over the reins with her two close friends and advisors - the triumvirate, as one calls the trio - and then the author portrays the wealth and possessions through descriptions of the homes, jewelry and art collection, giving us a peek into that world of privilege.

But, of course, nothing comes that easily for Elizabeth. She has to stave off various attempts to take over the company by other relatives; she has to somehow find enough money to make up for the bad decisions of her predecessor Mary - hence the fabulous art and jewelry auctions that bring in millions.

We catch a glimpse of Elizabeth finally acknowledging to herself and to him that Robert, her childhood friend and business associate is the love of her life. When they give into their love for one another, they become fodder for the gossip columnists - for Robert has a wife stashed away. The wife and he have been estranged for years, so Robert sets about to legally disentangle himself from her.

Through alternating first person accounts, rendered by Elizabeth in between the third-person narrative that makes up most of the book, we occasionally see Elizabeth's inner thoughts and fears.

But despite the glitz and glamour and some of the difficulties encountered along the way, the reader doesn't get much of a clue as to who Elizabeth really is, deep down.

This was a disappointment to me - thus the deduction of one star - because the author's wonderful Emma Harte saga A Woman of Substance revealed the author's talent at describing the struggle, from childhood on. Perhaps the occasional flashbacks to childhood in this book were meant to do justice to the difficulties and struggles - there is much talk about Elizabeth's father's emotional abandonment in her early years - but I don't really feel the empathy that would normally come from such disclosures.

I didn't end up really caring that much about the characters in this book, Being Elizabeth,which left me feeling a sense of deprivation.

This book presents a fun and casual introduction to artificial neural networks. (Although, for an introductory book on the subject with more beef, I recommend K. Gurney's "An Introduction to Neural Networks.") With a grandiose, almost spiritual title like "The Engine of Reason, The Seat of the Soul," one might expect a more interesting vision of consciousness, and perhaps even a belief in some kind of soul. What one finds instead is standard materialism supported by standard arguments. On the philosophical side there is nothing original or interesting here. For better materialism with more subtlety I recommend D. Dennett's "Consciousness Explained," as well as the very good "Freedom Evolves." For a good alternative view that doesn't slip into mysticism, I very strongly recommend D. Chalmer's "The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory." With that said, the presentation of the philosophical ideas in "Engine" is for the most part lucid, so if you have little exposure to the philosophy of mind, you might find it interesting. To summarize, fun and interesting for the beginner, not really worth a look for those already familiar with neural nets and philosophy of mind.

Churchland is a great philosopher who has made many significant contributions to the study of the mind. Unfortunately, most of those contributions lie in his papers, other books, and works co-authored with his wife, Patricia Churchland. "The Engine of Reason..." is aimed for the 'popular science' crowd, and it is a wonderful introduction to vector coding and some introductory neuroscience. But it is surprisingly weak in philosophical arguments. It really reads like a light, scientific textbook, and the bulk of it consists of oversimplified explanations which rely too heavily on scientific findings that aren't thoroughly established yet. He is extremely unfair towards philosophers who aren't eliminative materialists (like Searle, Nagel, etc.), and he spends literally no time refuting their arguments. Instead he bullies the reader into believing that the above writers must hold some antiquated Cartesian view which relies too heavily on intuition. He knows he has science on his side and is rather insulting towards philosophers, making them look like idiotic armchair scientists. While unfortunately philosophers are notorious for that fault, they also ask some pretty good questions and make you think. Churchland does neither in this book. This book is a real good starter for vector coding and neuroscience. But for 'popular science' that's scientific but extremely philosophical, I haven't found anything yet that beats Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained. For a good refutation of Searle, Nagel and the rest, read their own works and don't just listen to the brief overview Churchland gives.

The book comes in two parts. The part one, which takes up more than a half of the whole book, explains what recurrent neural networks are and how those can be used to explain our own cognitive functions. This is generally a good introduction, I think. His style is casual, and we see certain smugness you normally expect at a college lecture, e.g., introducing certain authorities as his friends and presenting the picture his own daughter and the medial and lateral brain stereographs of his wife (Patricia Churchland). Like other popular science books, however, his description of neural nets is far from precise but let's not expect too much from a book of this kind. Unlike what some of our reviewers below suggested, he minimizes the use of scientific jargons and when he use such jargons he explains what those are. The first part was overall very much enjoyable to read.

You cannot expect it to be a fully philosophical book, though. His new epistemological framework arises from this newest perspective the theory of neural networks has created. To know what neural nets are is immensely important. Let's remind ourselves of a classic work in cognitive science and neurobiology. It's David Marr's _Vision_. There Marr expresses the view that physical (hardware) implementation is quite irrelevant. Now we know this is not true. To understand why this is so one may have to consult the part one.

The problem area is the part two. The chapter 11 was full of hopes and lots of blah-blah-blah's that bore you to hell. What's interesting, and makes you slightly angry, is his explanation of consciousness. Perhaps that is because Churchland's argument seem amazingly simple. But, to think about it, it has to be simple. Otherwise it cannot be a reduction. If you want to argue against reductionism, you need to bring up some form of dualism. In fact, this is what Searle does. Searle's arguments are not directed agains neural networks. His favorate scapegoat is symbolic computation. But this is something researchers have done away with a long ago. I personally think Searle never really understood what neural nets are.

What's not really satisfactory are these: Some will find he never really defeated Nagel and Jackson. I should agree with those who think so. If ever he did, his argument lacked logical clearity or I am very dumb. He is not successful in constructing a model of consciousness, either. The problem is, he thinks he is. Like Newton did, and Euclid earlier, he tries to create a set of descriptive axioms to come to grip with consciousness. But unlike Euclid, Netwon, and Einstein (remember his two postulates), some of his axioms require a first-person perspective. (ref. pp. 213-214) For example, to verify that consciousness disappears in deep sleep, somebody obviously has to go to bed. However imprecise, MEG maybe used to detect conscious activities in a live brain. But there exists no 3rd-person method to verify consciousness is a single unified experience. Churchland has been successful in explaining a lot but I think we still have a long way to go. And his descriptive theory is not adequate.

Plus, there is a misprint in page 230 of the softcover edition. The "o%cial" should be read "official".

I can't evaluate the neurobiology in the book since I'm no scientist, but Churchland's entirely accessible discussions of vector coding, feed-forward and recurrent networks, and the general landscape of contemporary neuroscience were exhilarating to read. They made me want to rush out and buy textbooks on the brain--a pretty impressive achievement, as far as I'm concerned.

Churchland's philosophical perspective, as anyone familiar with his work will expect, is thoroughly naturalistic. He has very little patience with anti-reductive arguments, and the three he discusses (Nagel's, Jackson's, and Searle's) receive straw-man treatments, though like everything else in the book, each treatment is good-natured and fairly humble. Readers already lacking tolerance for Searle will enjoy Churchland's caricature of The Rediscovery of Mind as a Betty Crocker cookbook.

Though his explicit discussion of anti-reductionism is sparse, the rest of Churchland's book serves as a demonstration of how much exciting work can be done if we simply ignore armchair naysaying. So I was more bothered by his lack of engagement with philosophers already on the elimintivist bandwagon. His discussion of Dennett, in particular, was cursory and frustrating. It seems to me that he conflates Dennett's distinct accounts of consciousness and content, needlessly (and in the relevant sense inaccurately) portraying Dennett as being a friend of robust human uniqueness.

But quibbles aside, the book is a fantastic read. Its optimistic view of the possibilities of computational neuroscience is infectious. Anyone without ideological blinders on will come away excited about the future of brain research.

This book is the hallmark of the connectionist dream -the belief that all aspects of mind, brain and consciousness can be explained by calling up neural network models-. Now the basic premise behind all this I will not contest. The brain is a large parallel distribuited processing network of neurons. But there is another big step from this to the statement that everything the mind is is a vector coding of a neural network. This is far too siplistic. Churchland of course realizes this, but continues to talk of connectionist models like neurosciences messiah.
This is perhaps only one aspect of Churchlands book, however. Overall, the book attempts to reconcile philosophy of mind with neuroscience, and it succeeds to an extent. In many parts the discussion falls into vector coding talk, but in many others it stellarily accounts for deep problems. It is a good introducion to neuroscience, neural networks and philosophy. Churchland does not present his own strong theories, but he does well in staying away from controversy. The best part of the book is in my opinion, the attempt to build a framework of the impacts neuroscience has in social and philosophical domains. This is not done often enough, and if it is, rarely with such lucidity and clarity.
Now I would have ceritanly liked much more speculation when it commes to consciousness, given the Churchland's contribuition to the literature. But he refrains from this and merely describes some other models, like Llinas thalamic oscillations, and is content in stating that it is at leas possible to see what an explanation for consciousness would look like from a neuroscience context.
The book is a grat read, and students of philosophy, neuroscience and cognitive science should enjoy it.

The Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants is a good book to have on your shelf if you are interested in if you want to know what wild plants are edible. The book does discuss many different types of plants that grow out in the wild. The Field Guide does a good job of discussing where to find the plants, how and when to harvest, and a general guide of preparing the food. Where I find this book lacking is that there are no actual pictures of the plants in question. Before I chose to eat something out in the wild I want to be doubley sure I am picking the right plant. So I do feel it is a good guide and filled with information, I wished some time could have been spent on photography for my personal piece of mind.

I owned this before and I remember it seeming more durable but it is well written.

This book first caught my attention in the 70s but over the years I had lost my original copy so I repurchased one. It is still a good book even though the pictures are all rendered as art, which makes me a little nervous on critical IDs. I enjoy the details on preparing the plants, some of which were apparently as the native Americans had done. It is a very good companion book to some of the more recent works out there such as the North American Guide to Edible Wild Plants.

Other reviewers caution that this text "should not be your only source"... I agree, but I'd guess that's true of any such reference.

I have long owned the earlier edition and excitedly bought this new one. This book is a good idea but poorly executed. (Let me say right away that I am the author of an edible plant book, so you can accuse me of bashing the competition if you want.) The older edition was one of the books that helped get me interested in this topic, and it is sentimental to me, so I keep trying to like this book but find it difficult.

While it does contain a lot of good information and covers an excellent selection of species, it is also full of inaccuracies - and how can a reader know what to trust? Out of the dozens of edible plant books I have, this is one of the least accurate and I believe is based on comparatively little first-hand experience. The misinformation and omissions are too numerous to list, but here are a few examples:

Jack-in-the-pulpit and skunk cabbage cannot be simply dried to eliminate their calcium oxalate. Believing this would be potentially dangerous, and painful at best. They require prolonged extreme dessication under hot conditions (I have some of both kinds that have been drying for 8 years and still have calcium oxalate a-plenty), or prolonged baking (days or weeks). Also, the book does not even mention that eastern and western skunk cabbage are completely different plants, nor does it specify which one it is talking about. The documentation of their food uses differs.

The drawing of arrowhead tubers looks so dramatically unlike the real thing that you would never know if you found them. The jerusalem artichoke tubers depicted are a cultivated form, which looks and tastes quite different from the typical wild type.

This book is not very good for identification and doesn't even use the scientific names of the plants. The preparation sections are typically 1-3 sentences - not much at all. Much of the text seems like space filler, although it is a good read.

All of the info in this book is easy to find in other books - the author doesn't seem to contribute anything to this field. If you have this book, keep it and refer to it. If you are considering getting into foraging, don't make it a priority. Depending on your location, check out Edible Wild Plants of the Prairie, Steve Brill's wild food book, Abundantly Wild (Midwest), The Euell Gibbons books, or Nancy Turner's books for the Pacific NW. These are all much better. Get a tree, shrub, and wildflower guide to your specific region for ID.