No comments about Death from the Skies!: These Are the Ways the World Will End . . ..

No comments about Saturn IB: The Complete Manufacturing and Test Records (Apogee Books Space Series).

5 comments about Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science.

1. Most of us who have been educated in the American public school system quickly learned to dread science classes as one of the more boring times of the day. The study of science class in elementary school was usually a teacher reading the text and often being reluctant to address any questions that were not covered in the teacher's edition. In high school the teacher (often hired more for their coaching expertise than academic considerations) would assign reading from the text and not welcome questions not covered in the teacher's edition. Learning was considered accomplished when the students could relate facts memorized from the text. Along the way most of us lost the desire to ask 'why' and simply calculated the time until we could escape as we memorized what was necessary to pass the next test.
   
   Dr Sagan has managed to make science interesting again, to awaken the spark of curiosity that has sadly been extinguished in so many. His writing is clear and eloquent as he invites his readers to share his love of asking 'why?' He explains how scientists look at problems, how to question authorities and determine their worth. In short he manages to undo some of the damage inflicted by years of boring science classes.
   
   This is a compilation of articles Sagan wrote for various magazines (including PLAYBOY - maybe sometimes it was purchased for the articles) during the mid to late 70's. The overlying theme is the general allure of science but also it provides a description of how scientists think about the world around them. The topics covered range from popular science fiction, mythology, frauds and pseudoscience and the 'current state' of scientific research. The age of the various articles has in some cases obscured the work - few readers today have heard of Velikovsky, a charletan who had a wide following in the 1940's and 50's, for example. In other instances the passage of time has added a new dimension to the article - we can see how well the then planned scientific research was carried out and what the results have been so far.
   
   The format of short articles that can be read in any order lends itself to reading in short bursts (as opposed to settling in for a few uninterrupted hours) making this a perfect book to take along to fill in those odd minutes on the morning commute, or waiting to pick up the kids. Each article takes just a few minutes to read but will provide plenty to think about long after.



2. This is a great book. Some of the science is a little outdated, but Carl Sagan always provides and enjoyable and interesting read.



3. PROS: Classic, elegant prose from one of the best science writers of all time. Sagan was a genius of making science interesting to the masses and his works reflect that.
   
   CONS:
   (1) This book is disjointed. It feels like a collection of independent essays or lectures that were all brought together. There is little flow from chapter to chapter and the sections of the book are somewhat arbitrary and broad. It doesn't flow as well from chapter to chapter as Sagan's other books.
   (2) The book is dated. It's not Sagan's fault, but this book is out of date. Written in the 1970s, we have since learned so much about the universe. It's interesting to hear Sagan speculate about certain planets and other things we now know about. It's cool to see how accurate many of his speculations were. Nevertheless, to learn more about the universe, you should read a book written in the 21st century.
   
   CONCLUSION: I love Sagan! I enjoyed this book. But it's disjoined and dated nature made me give it only 3 stars. He has written other better books, like "Cosmos", "Billions and Billions", and "Dragons of Eden". I also enjoyed "Contact", which is fiction. Although all those books are also dated, they have a more timeless message.



4. John W. Campbell, Jr. had many virtues as a science writer. He was well-trained in science (mostly at M.I.T.), and he had a wide range of interests. He was curious, creative, and intelligent. He was a skillful writer. But he had a weakness. He wanted to see "scientific orthodoxy" overturned, and so he was a sucker for a multitude of pseudoscientific fads-- dianetics, the Hieronymous machine, dowsing rods, the Dean drive, and psionics. In recent years, the science writer Jeffery Kooistra has expressed a Campbellian sympathy for fringe areas of science. (Lest you think that this is intended as a slam against Kooistra, let me say at once that I find his science essays to be consistently well-written and stimulating.)
   
   Most of the top science writers associated with science fiction-- Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, L. Sprague de Camp, Hal Clement, Tony Rothman, Willy Ley, Ben Bova, Robert S. Richardson, Poul Anderson, and Carl Sagan-- are much more resistant to pseudoscience. They may write about Charles Fort, Immanuel Velikovsky, dianetics, the Dean drive, Atlantis, pyramidology, ancient astronauts or the face on Mars. But they write as critics, not as converts. Most of the best science writers are adept in what Carl Sagan labels "the fine art of balony detection".
   
   Part two of _Broca's Brain_ (1980), "The Paradoxers," deals with pseudoscientific topics. "Night Walkers and Mystery Mongers: Sense and Nonsense at the Edge of Science" is a critique of past hoaxes or bandwagons-- astral projection, spirit rapping, the Cardiff giant, precognitive dreams-- with rational interpretations. Sagan closes with a list of some real-life scientific wonders. "White Dwarfs and Little Green Men" discusses some mysteries of the primitive Dogon tribe and concludes that the solution _does_ involve aliens... but not from outer space. "Norman Bloom, Messenger of God" is a portrait of a man intent on proving mathematically that he is the secvond coming of Christ. Sagan seems to harbor a certain affection for him. "Science Fiction-- A personal View" praises the field for its capacity to inspire wonder in science but criticises most of the science as badly done.
   
   Perhaps the single most controversial essay in this section is the lengthly "Venus and Dr. Velikovsky," which was originally written for a Velikovsky symposium in 1974. I have read several accounts that Sagan did not treat Velikovsky well during this conference. I reserve judgement on this issue. But the article is a reasoned and thorough rebuttal to Velikovsky's ideas presented in _Worlds in Collision_ (1950). The article criticises Velikovsky's use of myths and legends and critiques ten scientific problems (ejection of Venus by Jupiter, repeated collisions among different heavenly bodies, the Earth's rotation, manna from heaven, etc.). I have read responses to this article that argue that some of the science is "bad" or "irrelevant". I am not persuaded. Sagan seems to be on target on all counts.



5. Carl Segan's love of science and enthusiasm for sharing it with others is evident in all of his work. Sagan writes in a way that teaches fascinating information. His writing style is engaging, non-intimidating and fun. He ignites and sometimes re-ignites people's fascination with science and the universe.
   
   I read Broca's brain years ago and enjoyed it thoroughly. Subjects such as solar sailing using ion pressure, why earth has an atmosphere, can we know the universe and more were great to read.
   
   One telling explanation about the motivation of people helps sum up Sagan's attitude about science: He writes:
   
   "As the great captain of industry is moved by the love of wealth and the politician by the love of power, so the astronomer is moved by the love of knowledge for its own sake and not for the sake of its application. Yet he is proud to know that his science has been worth more to mankind that it has cost."
   
   Overall a great book that teaches and inspires!
   
   The Re-Discovery of Common Sense: A Guide to: The Lost Art of Critical Thinking

5 comments about Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution.

1. Imagine a time in the future when space travel is perfected: you can zip between the stars in a day, rather than the millennia it would currently take. You decide to go on a "road" trip and tour the Milky Way. Even with super fast travel, if you visited only one star per day, it would still take you millions of years to complete your tour. And that's just the Milky Way; if you wanted to see the whole universe, a trillion years wouldn't be enough. The universe is that big and has that much stuff in it; more stunning is that all the stars and planets take up only a very small fraction of the total space. The cosmos is an awesome place and Origins by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith discusses how it all began and what our place is in this vastness.
   
   Logically enough, the book pretty much starts at the beginning, namely at the Big Bang. Actually, it starts slightly later, when the universe was 10 to the minus 43 seconds old; before that, things are shrouded in mystery. From there, we see how the universe evolved, from a haze of pure energy and subatomic particles to one where matter, well...mattered. We then read of the formation of galaxies, then of stars and planets, and finally of life itself.
   
   Are all the answers known? No, of course not, but certain theories have been dismantled (such as the steady state theory of the origin of the universe), others are still sketchy (like how the Earth and other planets formed and a few are really speculative (like how much intelligent life there is beyond the Earth). Somehow, though, the fact that there are still mysteries out there is more pleasantly tantalizing than frustrating.
   
   There can be alternate explanations involving supernatural entities which may provide simpler answers but are not really theories as they cannot pass scientific scrutiny. Tyson and Goldsmith touch on these alternatives, but mainly just on their inadequacy from a scientific standpoint. That is to say, if you believe in "creation science", this is probably not the book for you.
   
   If you have read a lot about astronomy and cosmology already, such as Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, then Origins will not offer much that you don't already know. This book is designed more for the layperson whose knowledge of these fields is more limited. On the other hand, the authors write with a lot of wit and clarity, so even if you know most of the information within, it is presented in a refreshing enough manner to still make it worth your while.



2. Here it is about 10 years since Carl Sagan passed away, and we are now being treated to works by Neil deGrasse Tyson. I believe that Tyson can be mentioned in the same breathe as Sagan without suffering by the comparison.
   
   If you are a science fan, you owe it to yourself to read this one. There is an economy, style and comprehensiveness here that appear flawless. The Hundred Greatest Stars Reading the Mind of God Cosmos Horizons: Exploring the Universe (with TheSky CD-ROM, AceAstronomy?, and Virtual Astronomy Labs)



3. Highly recommend. Prof. Tyson is good teacher, and despite his position and impressive curriculum vitae, personally responded to some questions that arose from reading the book. Inspirational topic and author.



4. This is the best summary of our cosmic history, written for the intelligent laymen. Dr. Tyson is a master at bringing things down to a intellectually respectable level without resorting to baby talk.



5. I purchased this book to have something to read on an airplane ride to Europe. I had already read and enjoyed Death By Black Hole so I figured I would give this a try.
   
   I'm a physics grad student and have an interest in cosmology, but have only taken freshmen level Astronomy courses. That said, I found myself somewhat too informed beforehand to properly enjoy reading this book. It is clearly written to appeal more to a mass audience with little to no knowledge on the subject.
   
   The writing style, as noted in many of the reviews, is fairly simple, at times bordering on silly with its painful attempts at "science humor". This made it somewhat difficult to enjoy the book, as I found that I already knew much of what Tyson was saying, if not more.
   
   People looking for an introductory, easy to read survey on the subject of cosmology will like this book. Those of you with any knowledge on the subject, no matter how basic it might be, would probably be better off reading Death By Black Hole (that book being a compilation of Tyson's articles written for a slightly more scientific audience). Anyone looking for an even more substantial popular science book could try Elegant Universe by Greene, although I admit that book was too abstract for me at times.

5 comments about Aerodynamics, Aeronautics, and Flight Mechanics.

1. I had this book while in college, and now I use it frequently at work. As a teaching tool it is horrible. It is vague and lacks detailed explanations. For real world use it is invaluable. I use it a lot and it is an excellent general reference book. If you need a general reference for aerodynamics and aircraft flight get it. If you are looking for a teaching tool look elsewhere.



2. As I read in another review, the quality of the book depends on what you need it for. Although it covers a breadth of topics, it is poor for learning from. There are misprints and not enough examples. It also annoyed me that the derivations weren't always worked out completely, sometimes introducing other variables without explaination. You'd have to have read and absorbed all the previous chapters to make those leaps on your own. There is a very good list of notations in the back, however, and the author is consistent with it which somewhat lessens this problem. A pet peeve from the book, however, is how the author assigns writing computer programs as problems, and then refers to those programs as derivations of other principles later in the book. For a better introduction on aeronautical principles, I recommend Anderson's text, which is an easy read and is very clear in its derivations.



3. I plead that this not be used as text for any course, as it is a lousy teaching book. It lacks continuity and contains far to many typos. Does make a good desk ref, lots of real world data, but with an under used index individuals unfamiliar with the text might have a hard time finding what they are looking for.



4. I have both editions of this book. The first one was not so good; the second is still worse. It is the first edition with some few changes and many misprints. The introduction of some computer programs does not make this book an up-to-date one.
   It is still an old book with just a colorfull cover.



5. From the selections of texts I have had to read this year including: Gas Dynamics, Numerical Methods with Matlab, and Aerodynamics, this text was by far the worst. It is all talk and no example. There are maybe two or three actual examples in the whole thing. The sections are setup in a logical manner and the flow was okay. However, there is no overall view provided. Equations are dropped out as though they are they are important, when they're just intermediate steps to other equations.
   
   Homework problems are insanely hard to do for those unfamiliar with the subject. Do not read this book expecting to learn how to build a plane. The only thing you can pick up are broad concepts. Example, Chapter 4 is on drag, most books do a really good job of giving you an idea of the big picture and how to use concepts. Rather than give a broad overview of the overall or total drag and then breaking it down from there, the author starts examining pieces of the drag problem and connects some of them together near the middle, without talking about how to incorporate the rest and ends with a talk about getting minimum drag. Horrible explanation.
   
   Equations, explanations and concepts need to be presented in a clearer fashion examples need to be added and then it might be a decent book. Until then it's only a mediocre piece of work.

5 comments about The New American Ephemeris for the 21st Century, 2000-2100 at Midnight.

1. Based on the earlier work of Neil F. Michelsen in 1976, The Michelsen memorial edition of "The New American Ephemeris For The 21st Century: 2000-2100 at Midnight" by Rique Pottenger is newly updated and expanded with the latest Jet Propulsion Laboratory data, several other new features, all while retaining familiar data and a format relied upon by astrologers world wide. Updates and new additions include the entire 21st century from 2000 through 2100; Ceres added to the daily longitude listings; a new formula increasing accuracy of monthly position calculations of the Galactic Center; monthly positions for Eris, Chiron, Pallas Juno, and Vesta; Astro Data column phenomena sorted by time as well as by date; and planetary ingress data that includes R if planet is retrograde when it ingresses. Of special note is the Dedication followed by the ;memorial feature `Remembering Neil' which capsulizes the beginning years of the development of computer technology as applied to astrology. "The New American Ephemeris For The 21st Century" is a 624-page treasury of information, example and instruction that is especially recommended to dedicated astrologers and should prove to be a cornerstone of any personal, professional, and academic library's Astrological Studies reference collection.



2. Reading the special Dedication to Neil Michelsen brought me back to when ACS was first formed. Astrologers were thrilled about the availability of accurate computerized charts at very affordable prices. The entire dedication piece to Neil is very moving and inspirational.
   
   Having the full century 2000-2100 in one book is the way to go, particularly for astrological researchers and future generations of astrologers. The addition of asteroids will encourage more astrologers to follow the transits of these asteroids, resulting in more familiarity with their meaning in the chart. Keeping Chiron listed under Astro Data is vitally important to continue studying this important heavenly body.
   
   I was pleased to see the 90 degree dial version of Neil's chart alongside his natal chart, giving astrologers a glimpse at how valuable this added technique can be. On the last page of the ephemeris, Maria Kay Simms lists her books. In my opinion, Dial Detective is the best book on the market covering the 90 degree dial.
   
   Jeri London
   Astrologer and Author of "Astrology Workbook Part I"



3. I did not realize how much I missed having an ephemeris in book form until I got this one. Yes, I have the software and ephemeredes are available online, but it's great to just have the book to quickly thumb through to check the timing of upcoming aspects and transits. THE NEW AMERICAN EPHEMERIS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY is even better than the 20th Century version. The new feature that I like best is that the retrograde periods for all planets are all shaded gray, so you can tell at a glance when the retrogradation begins and ends. The other immediately noticeable difference is that the asteroid Ceres is given its own column between Mars and Jupiter. I've never worked with the asteroids, so I don't know of how much value this is for me personally, but for those who find them useful, this could be a valuable addition.
   
   This ephemeris is the work of Rique Pottenger based on the earlier work of Neil F. Michelson, who died at age 59 on May 15, 1990. At the beginning of the book is a dedication to and biographical reminiscence of Michelson, who was astrological computing's supreme pioneer.
   
   If you've been debating whether to spring for an ephemeris in book form, don't hesitate any longer. It's definitely worth it. I spend so much time at the computer already. It's great to get to do some astrological work away from it. Five stars.



4. I am one of those astrologers who grew up with the American Ephemeris and would be lost without it in my work, in spite of the internet. There are many things, cycles and motions one cannot quickly survey without an ephemeris spanning more years, and as far as I am concerned the American ephemeris has always been the best and easiest to read and handle. I am extremely glad that they are not going out of print and that an entirely new one has been created covering this entire century. For someone over 50 it is a little disconcerting to look at planetary motions after I'm gone, but never mind:-) The format of the new ephemeris is exactly like the ones we are used to, only a little wider, for a column on Ceres has been added in this edition. So a big thanks to the publishers for giving us all access to this information. And of course now comes my next request, as a teacher in astrology: how about creating an ephemeris for 1950-2050 ? For right now students have to buy two ephemerisses, one for quickly glancing progressions and such, and one for transits. To astrology students: you will understand I can really recommend this ephemeris!



5. I am very happy with my purchase and very quick mail to australia as well, thankyou

1 comments about Universe: The Solar System w/Student CD & Starry Night CD: featuring Starry Night Backyard and Deep Space Explorer.

1. Universe: The Solar System w/Student CD, Starry Night CD, New Light on the Solar System & eBook
   
   great condition thanks

1 comments about Neither Star Wars Nor Sanctuary: Constraining the Military Uses of Space.

1. For nearly fifty years the world has engaged in activity in outer space for military, scientific, and commercial purposes, but without placing weapons there or engaging in serious efforts to target objects in space. Working effectively during the cold war, since then the space arena has witnessed the entry of many more actors and a much broader array of vested interests than during the cold war, resulting in a variety of positions regarding future space activities. For example, humans have been in space more or less continuously since 1961 and since November 2000 have been permanently in place on the International Space Station, a peaceful, cooperative venture of sixteen nations that represents at more than $100 billion the largest non-military cooperative effort in world history. At the same time, almost 700 spacecraft are operating in continuous Earth orbit, each serving a range of scientific, military, civilian, and commercial uses. And the hegemonic status of the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia has been demolished in the last twenty years. Over 60 new launches take place every year, and at least 35 nations had payloads in orbit in 2005.
   
   This activity has sparked a debate, especially since 2000, about how best to ensure American access and reliance on space assets for its many uses, including military ones. Debate over this issue has been marked by two extreme positions, neither of which are representative of the majority of those debating the subject. The first is the "sanctuary" concept, which insists that space should not be used for military purposes under any circumstances and a "Star Wars" approach that seeks to ensure American hegemonic status in space through weaponization and other potentially offensive actions. This "Star Wars" position is best stated by the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, which concluded in 2001: "We know that every medium--air, land and sea--has seen conflict. Reality indicates that space will be no different. Given this virtual certainty, the United States must develop the means both to deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space" (Donald H. Rumsfeld, et al., "Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization" (Government Printing Office, 2001), p. x).
   
   Michael O'Hanlon, a senior scholar at the prestigious Brookings Institution, wades into this exceptionally divisive debate in "Neither Star Wars nor Sanctuary" and strikes a careful balance between the legitimate necessity of protecting American resources in space and perhaps giving the impression of belligerence toward other nations. He notes that the United States' unilateral abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in June 2002 opened the door to develop space-based ballistic missile defense, and that the Bush administration reportedly engaged in research and development on anti-satellite weapons.
   
   Carefully reviewing the public record on this important issue and noting the perspectives of a range of others, O'Hanlon comes firmly down in favor of a middle ground for space weaponization debate. He find that the simplistic "either/or" discussion of popular media fails to unpack the nuances of the debate and tends to obscure the truly important differences. In so doing, one must always distinguish between the militarization of space--force enhancement through communications, navigational, early warning, intelligence, and other types of satellites--and the deployment of weapons in space. This dichotomy tends to polarize the discussion in ways that misdirect it from the central issue, as O'Hanlon views it, devising the best approach toward ensuring national and global security in space.
   
   O'Hanlon believes that it makes sense to recognize that the place the United States is in the first part of the twenty-first century is the best place to be from the standpoint of national security space issues and therefore a continuation of this situation is the logical approach to dealing with the issue. The status quo for the U.S. is not a bad future, and therefore changing the national security space regime may be both unnecessary and potentially disastrous.
   
   He notes that the U.S. has pursued what amounts to a three point program relative to space security issues, and this appears both prudent and in retrospect quite prescient. First, the U.S. has ensured that peer competitors did not step beyond the space technological capabilities that this nation possessed through a range of hard and soft power efforts, treaties and arms control measures, and other initiatives. Second, the U.S. has long made clear that it would take harsh action should a competitor alter the national security regime in space. A long history of declaratory statements condemning actions viewed as belligerent in space and warning of appropriate repercussions has helped to create the current favorable situation for the United States. A continuation of those methodologies is appropriate and completely expected by the other nations of the globe. Third, the U.S. has pursued on the whole a reasonable program of research and development to ensure that any rival capabilities can be destroyed if necessary.
   
   O'Hanlon argues for a moderate approach to the space weaponization debate, one that emphasizes "Neither Star Wars nor Sanctuary" as its end result. What happens long term, however, is very much an open question? The prospects for preventing space weaponization are not good. Can the world continue the status quo, which isn't really all the bad for the U.S., for the foreseeable future?

4 comments about Foundations of Modern Cosmology.

1. I got this book from my university library. Pretty easy reading considering I'm an engineering student. But then, this book isn't just for physics/astronomy students, as the authors have mentioned. It starts by giving a brief history of cosmology, continuing to current understanding before going to the current problems. The book is not math intensive as it emphasize on understanding the concepts. That's why it is something like a popular-science book. For those who have an interest in cosmology, consept-wise, I recommend this title. Those requiring intensive math, look elsewhere. The other cosmology book I've read is by Martin Roos.



2. This is a serious yet easy to read book on a facinating and popular subject and its main commendation is its accessibility and rigour. It is an excellent antidote to some of the glossy and expensively packeged books by "pop" writers and TV programmes.

   As the introduction of the book makes clear, the authors aim for a wide audience for whom Cosmology is not a core discipline. Not only do they do a good job in meeting this goal, but they also present the physical concepts and experimental results in a way that provides new and deep insights to those whose main interest is Physics. For instance, the discussion of the Big Bang and the cosmic models provides an excellent complement to the mathematical presentation of authors like M.V. Berry. Equally, there is a plethora of material that describes experimental results like those for General Relativity: bending of light under the infulence of the sun's gravity, the Eotovos experiment to demonstrate the Equivalence Principle, etc.

   The book covers a broad field: Some historical aspects, Special and General Relativity, the Big Bang and various cosmic models, dark matter, and large scale structure.

   The glossary and the authors' web site provide further information on the subject.




3. I took the class given by Hawley and he makes the book extremely easy to comprehend. Granted, he wrote it, the man is a hilarious comedic genius. He makes the concepts in the book very simple, and easy to understand. I've learned the concepts before in this book, and havent fully comprehended it. This book made it all come together. Get it!



4. I order the book relatively close to the date i needed it for class and got it just in time! Thanks a lot!

5 comments about The Science Before Science: A Guide to Thinking in the 21st Century.

1. It must be stated that one needs to acquire a certain way of thinking (or perhaps tap into a prior unused part of the brain) to follow the scenic route Anthony Rizzi takes you on the way to wisdom. Once you've got the hang of it, it is a singular experience. The book explains a lot (if not all), but foremost why nobody, including scientists and students alike, shouldn't confuse the hardware with the software. Brilliant stuff!



2. What can you say about a book that reunites the everyday experience of our lives of our common sense and reasonable observations with the sometimes jarringly unlikely claims of some scientists about the nature of reality.
   
   Does the great 'relative' distance from electrons to protons really mean that everything in the universe is really mostly just a vast meaningless near emptiness? More likely Rizzi says is that the scientist forget his real life sized self conducting a real lifesized experiment with real-life sized equipment?
   
   "Possible universes" emerging when you observe a particle for momentum rather than location? Bizarre. No thank you, it's time for a few weeks of vacation and don't bring the calculator! Such errors in interpretation of data follow when your guiding philosophical common-sense principles get forgotten while a scientist is emerged in remote calculations. Do equations really fully 'explain' things like motion, matter? Er, no. Materialism has no basis in science.
   
   What about the spiritual, free will, the intellect...just atoms banging into each other randomly? A quarkfest? An old idea, that misses something remarkable about the difference between sensing and knowing. Rizzi's insights are exciting.
   
   Isn't it possible and maybe even very likely that God brings about creation at the quantum level? This level transcends our means to know exactly but reduces us to probabilities or "chance"? Isn't 'chance' just another way of saying ' I've reached the limit of my ability to know this particular matter exactly and am reduced to probable results.' Nature transcends our ability to completely know it scientifically.
   
   Dr Rizzi clarifies this sometimes confused and conflicted world of science where mere mathematical calculations are too readily given ontological status as if the numbers explained themselves. They don't.
   
   It is the real world of experience and sound starting principles, the science before science, that allows human intelligence to follow faithfully in its scientific and metaphysical journey.
   
   If you have kids, you will love this book, for it provides a coherent intellectual apprehension of reality, a universe not stripped of all that is finest in the human and divine. Rather consider how God might operate in evolution as the efficient cause in a universe that has led to consciousness and intelligence. Good science, good philosophy, good foundations for an integrated religious sense of the wonder of being.
   
   One doesn't have to accept the type of intelligent design theory like that recently argued in a Pennsylvania court to show how God can and likely does operate in his creation and evolution in ways that are of course consistent with the valuable insights of good science. Intelligent Design is so obvious in things that one is naturally and reasonably religious.
   
   What Dr Rizzi does is give us the way to integrate it all, God and the world of experience and the good science that should flow naturally from sound philosophical guiding principles. We can avoid 17th century errors of arbitray materialism and blinding idealism that still afflict the scientific and philosophical enterprise.
   
   You owe it to yourself to get this book for yourself and those you care about. It is a true and faithful guide to thinking in the 21st century and as another reviewer pointed out, it is geared to include a wide readership from high-schoolers to Phd's.
   
   You'll love this unique book and be very, very happy you bought it.



3. A nice antidote for those scientists who seem to think that philosophy only consists of Popper's principle of falsifiability.



4. This book is not about science. It is religion masking itself as science. A more honest title would have been "The religion before science". I just heard him being interviewed on the Catholic religious channel EWTN and he explained how when human sperm and egg cells join a soul is created/affixed to them. Science doesn't have much to say about religion, Dr. Rizzi should try not saying much about science. I found his description of Koko (the signing gorilla) embarrassing, he kept referring to her as a "he". Dr. Rizzi would have been more believable if he had at least researched the topic enough to learn the gender of the animal that he was describing.
   
   I'm not meaning to attack any religion or philosophy but simply make clear that this book is religious/philosophical and is in no way a history of science as the title alludes.



5. Having majored in Neuroscience with a year of lab experience as a research associate, I can say everything I know was represented fairly and accurately in this amazing book. The Science Before Science is packed with the best of modern science and the science before it, philosophy. Dr. Rizzi clearly lays out all the things we know before we come to do modern science, then he elucidates the incredible findings of modern science. In so doing, he demonstrates an uncanny ability to think clearly about modern science and the science before it, revealing his love(philia) of wisdom (sophia). The book is not about history, as one reviewer strangely thought; nor, as the same reviewer even more strangely thought, is it about religion. In fact, that same reviewer appears to demonstrate the modern confusion between knowledge and belief, which Dr. Rizzi lucidly deals with in the first two short chapters! Dr. Rizzi clearly points out that knowledge comes before belief, not the other way around. In fact, much of the book extols the thinking of "pagans" such as Aristotle. We need, as the book reminds us, to trace all our knowledge back to the physical world.
   
   In reading this book one can begin to glimpse how Dr. Rizzi might, as he actually did, solve an 80 year old problem in Einstein's theory of general relativity. If that achievement and this book are any indication of things to come, I can't wait to hear more about his science... and the science before it.