Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Excellent book, 15 Nov 2008
When I was a young man, I embarked on a degree in mechanical engineering. This was about 30 years ago. In the first year alone we had to study about eight different subjects.

These included fluid mechanics, drawing and design, solid body mechanics, electricity, mathematics, materials science, physics and thermodymamics.

I had passed three 'A' levels in chemistry, mathematics and physics while at school.

I remember that this book was easy to follow and helped me to pass my first year mathematics exam with very high marks and little effort. My nephew is now studying civil engineering and I recommended this book to him. He said that it had made all the difference.

This book uses a method of learning called programme learning in which each stage is carefully broken down. One practices a few examples in order to check one's understanding and then moves on to the next section.

Although the content in this book is somewhat stronger than 'A' level mathematics it is definitely a book for engineers and scientists who use mathematics as a tool. It hasn't got the rigorous and almost philosophical approach to the subject that one would encounter if studying the subject in its own right.

The applications are found in other subjects such as mechanics of machines, solid body mechanics and electricity. Although called engineering mathematics this book really contains the pure mathematics that engineering students need for studying other disciplines rather than applied mathematics. If you like to think in terms of pure and applied mathematics then some of the other subjects such as mechanics or electricity actually contain the applied mathematics.

Ever since using this book, I have always tried to find books using a similar approach when required to study other subjects e.g. accounting, computer studies, economics and languages.

It is surprising how few books use this excellent method as I think it would work well with other logical, numerical and scientific subjects such as accounting, economics, grammar, physics and ancient and modern languages. It certainly takes away a lot of the heavy lifting involved in learning a new subject.

Holds your hand, 04 Nov 2008
There are many positive reviews of this book and its earlier additions, for good reason. I've found this a book very useful reference for my MEng Electrical/Electronic Engineering degree.

In my opinion, the best thing about this book is that takes you through every step, beginning with a number line right the way through to the more tricky stuff. Before I started my degree I wasn't confident with maths and shaky on even the basics - now I'm about to finish my Masters degree and I feel like a maths pro! Mostly thanks to this book and its companion.

The only maths book you will ever need, 21 Feb 2008
I have been out of education for 10 years before I started my degree so I was very apprehensive about the maths. This book works wonders especially the DVD you get with it to help problem solve. This is such a well structured book with lots of worked examples.

A must have for Engineering students

Unrivalled; clear, concise and well written., 10 Aug 2007
This book is superb, I can only fault its size but the depth of coverage warrants such mammoth dimensions. The material covered within is done so in a structured fashion, ensuring the reader can actually grasp the material as appose to just learning the methodology. I have not had to use this book as a standalone revision tool but in conjunction with my maths notes, it is unbeatable. The exercise problems can get a bit tedious and some of the leaps in difficulty are inexplicable but a little extra searching and practice will iron out any reservations. If you are studying any engineering degree I would seriously recommend splashing the cash, you may not use it extensively at first but having it as a resource has been invaluable for me.

Got lost!, 16 Jul 2007
This is undoubtedly a good book but it put me to sleep at times as I could not see how all these calculations would be useful to me when I graduated. I assumed an Engineering Math book would have examples from Engineering cases but they were few and far between. I did find some other books that did this in the library.

This is a good book for learning by heart how to do these things but I think I remember about 20% of it now that the exam is over! I wanted to understand it not learn it by heart. :(

Stroud is massive! It has practically an entire intro to math book at the start which at best is good for a glance because, as an Engineer, my Math is OK. It is a huge big clunking book which broke my back carrying it but was useful none the less.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Excellent book, 15 Nov 2008
When I was a young man, I embarked on a degree in mechanical engineering. This was about 30 years ago. In the first year alone we had to study about eight different subjects.

These included fluid mechanics, drawing and design, solid body mechanics, electricity, mathematics, materials science, physics and thermodymamics.

I had passed three 'A' levels in chemistry, mathematics and physics while at school.

I remember that this book was easy to follow and helped me to pass my first year mathematics exam with very high marks and little effort. My nephew is now studying civil engineering and I recommended this book to him. He said that it had made all the difference.

This book uses a method of learning called programme learning in which each stage is carefully broken down. One practices a few examples in order to check one's understanding and then moves on to the next section.

Although the content in this book is somewhat stronger than 'A' level mathematics it is definitely a book for engineers and scientists who use mathematics as a tool. It hasn't got the rigorous and almost philosophical approach to the subject that one would encounter if studying the subject in its own right.

The applications are found in other subjects such as mechanics of machines, solid body mechanics and electricity. Although called engineering mathematics this book really contains the pure mathematics that engineering students need for studying other disciplines rather than applied mathematics. If you like to think in terms of pure and applied mathematics then some of the other subjects such as mechanics or electricity actually contain the applied mathematics.

Ever since using this book, I have always tried to find books using a similar approach when required to study other subjects e.g. accounting, computer studies, economics and languages.

It is surprising how few books use this excellent method as I think it would work well with other logical, numerical and scientific subjects such as accounting, economics, grammar, physics and ancient and modern languages. It certainly takes away a lot of the heavy lifting involved in learning a new subject.

Holds your hand, 04 Nov 2008
There are many positive reviews of this book and its earlier additions, for good reason. I've found this a book very useful reference for my MEng Electrical/Electronic Engineering degree.

In my opinion, the best thing about this book is that takes you through every step, beginning with a number line right the way through to the more tricky stuff. Before I started my degree I wasn't confident with maths and shaky on even the basics - now I'm about to finish my Masters degree and I feel like a maths pro! Mostly thanks to this book and its companion.

The only maths book you will ever need, 21 Feb 2008
I have been out of education for 10 years before I started my degree so I was very apprehensive about the maths. This book works wonders especially the DVD you get with it to help problem solve. This is such a well structured book with lots of worked examples.

A must have for Engineering students

Unrivalled; clear, concise and well written., 10 Aug 2007
This book is superb, I can only fault its size but the depth of coverage warrants such mammoth dimensions. The material covered within is done so in a structured fashion, ensuring the reader can actually grasp the material as appose to just learning the methodology. I have not had to use this book as a standalone revision tool but in conjunction with my maths notes, it is unbeatable. The exercise problems can get a bit tedious and some of the leaps in difficulty are inexplicable but a little extra searching and practice will iron out any reservations. If you are studying any engineering degree I would seriously recommend splashing the cash, you may not use it extensively at first but having it as a resource has been invaluable for me.

Got lost!, 16 Jul 2007
This is undoubtedly a good book but it put me to sleep at times as I could not see how all these calculations would be useful to me when I graduated. I assumed an Engineering Math book would have examples from Engineering cases but they were few and far between. I did find some other books that did this in the library.

This is a good book for learning by heart how to do these things but I think I remember about 20% of it now that the exam is over! I wanted to understand it not learn it by heart. :(

Stroud is massive! It has practically an entire intro to math book at the start which at best is good for a glance because, as an Engineer, my Math is OK. It is a huge big clunking book which broke my back carrying it but was useful none the less.



Outstanding Book, Outstanding Author, 13 Oct 2008
Although i may appear biased as i have been fortunate enough to have been lectured (stats lecture) by Andy Field I honestly beleive that this book is a MUST for all psychology students around the world who will be using SPSS at some point in their psychology careers! It is simple, witty, funny, and makes stats easy to understand. Brilliant book! =]

If you are a statistics-phobe...this is the book for you!, 26 Aug 2008
If you are needing to learn both SPSS and statistics at the same time and intimidated at all by the math, this is a great book to help take you through the quagmire of both the SPSS software, the principles of statistics and make sense of it all too! Andy Field has done an excellent job at taking much of the mystery out of how and why to use the various tests. The book is comprehensive but the analysis of my research and study is focussed primarily on correlation, t-tests and regression. There are chapters in the book I will probably never read as I cannot foresee ever needing to read them. But, the book is very useful for referencing particular areas and providing a tutorial as you are working.

I love the way Andy has created and inserted his characters throughout the book - as I can identify myself as a cross between Cramming Samantha and Brian Haemorrhage.

Because I found Andy's book and CD so useful, I have not done any comparisons with other books. So, far, it has provided everything I have needed.

If you thought statatistics is complicated, this is the book for you, 21 Jul 2008
I am a post doctoral civil engineering student. I have been struggling with advanced statistics for months...when the problem was I did not have a good grasp of basic concepts. This book solved it all in a matter of days.
After reading this book.. you will be able to understand all the other more "complicated book" that you need to use.
If what you are paying for is for someone to expain stat and SPSS to you, this is your book.
Galit

Excellent, 23 Jun 2008
This book was my saviour during my dissertation. A must for any psychology student about to tackle SPSS!

Makes statistics a bit more manageable, 21 Apr 2008
I did a research project in Psychology with only very basic knowledge of statistics. I always hated statistics and tried to avoid them as much as possible. I was recommended this book, and was so glad I bought it. The style is quite refreshing and engaging, filling you with confidence as you learn.

At times it is a bit over-detailed, and you have to sift through to get to what to what you need, however, this is a strength of the book. I've seen some other books which explain what you do, but not why. Leaarning how principles can be applied to various situations is far more beneficial, as it's rare that your data will be similar to the examples in a book. If you're willing to spend just a little bit of time with it, you will find that you have a good basic knowledge of statistics, able to tackle increasingly complex problems

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Excellent book, 15 Nov 2008
When I was a young man, I embarked on a degree in mechanical engineering. This was about 30 years ago. In the first year alone we had to study about eight different subjects.

These included fluid mechanics, drawing and design, solid body mechanics, electricity, mathematics, materials science, physics and thermodymamics.

I had passed three 'A' levels in chemistry, mathematics and physics while at school.

I remember that this book was easy to follow and helped me to pass my first year mathematics exam with very high marks and little effort. My nephew is now studying civil engineering and I recommended this book to him. He said that it had made all the difference.

This book uses a method of learning called programme learning in which each stage is carefully broken down. One practices a few examples in order to check one's understanding and then moves on to the next section.

Although the content in this book is somewhat stronger than 'A' level mathematics it is definitely a book for engineers and scientists who use mathematics as a tool. It hasn't got the rigorous and almost philosophical approach to the subject that one would encounter if studying the subject in its own right.

The applications are found in other subjects such as mechanics of machines, solid body mechanics and electricity. Although called engineering mathematics this book really contains the pure mathematics that engineering students need for studying other disciplines rather than applied mathematics. If you like to think in terms of pure and applied mathematics then some of the other subjects such as mechanics or electricity actually contain the applied mathematics.

Ever since using this book, I have always tried to find books using a similar approach when required to study other subjects e.g. accounting, computer studies, economics and languages.

It is surprising how few books use this excellent method as I think it would work well with other logical, numerical and scientific subjects such as accounting, economics, grammar, physics and ancient and modern languages. It certainly takes away a lot of the heavy lifting involved in learning a new subject.

Holds your hand, 04 Nov 2008
There are many positive reviews of this book and its earlier additions, for good reason. I've found this a book very useful reference for my MEng Electrical/Electronic Engineering degree.

In my opinion, the best thing about this book is that takes you through every step, beginning with a number line right the way through to the more tricky stuff. Before I started my degree I wasn't confident with maths and shaky on even the basics - now I'm about to finish my Masters degree and I feel like a maths pro! Mostly thanks to this book and its companion.

The only maths book you will ever need, 21 Feb 2008
I have been out of education for 10 years before I started my degree so I was very apprehensive about the maths. This book works wonders especially the DVD you get with it to help problem solve. This is such a well structured book with lots of worked examples.

A must have for Engineering students

Unrivalled; clear, concise and well written., 10 Aug 2007
This book is superb, I can only fault its size but the depth of coverage warrants such mammoth dimensions. The material covered within is done so in a structured fashion, ensuring the reader can actually grasp the material as appose to just learning the methodology. I have not had to use this book as a standalone revision tool but in conjunction with my maths notes, it is unbeatable. The exercise problems can get a bit tedious and some of the leaps in difficulty are inexplicable but a little extra searching and practice will iron out any reservations. If you are studying any engineering degree I would seriously recommend splashing the cash, you may not use it extensively at first but having it as a resource has been invaluable for me.

Got lost!, 16 Jul 2007
This is undoubtedly a good book but it put me to sleep at times as I could not see how all these calculations would be useful to me when I graduated. I assumed an Engineering Math book would have examples from Engineering cases but they were few and far between. I did find some other books that did this in the library.

This is a good book for learning by heart how to do these things but I think I remember about 20% of it now that the exam is over! I wanted to understand it not learn it by heart. :(

Stroud is massive! It has practically an entire intro to math book at the start which at best is good for a glance because, as an Engineer, my Math is OK. It is a huge big clunking book which broke my back carrying it but was useful none the less.



Outstanding Book, Outstanding Author, 13 Oct 2008
Although i may appear biased as i have been fortunate enough to have been lectured (stats lecture) by Andy Field I honestly beleive that this book is a MUST for all psychology students around the world who will be using SPSS at some point in their psychology careers! It is simple, witty, funny, and makes stats easy to understand. Brilliant book! =]

If you are a statistics-phobe...this is the book for you!, 26 Aug 2008
If you are needing to learn both SPSS and statistics at the same time and intimidated at all by the math, this is a great book to help take you through the quagmire of both the SPSS software, the principles of statistics and make sense of it all too! Andy Field has done an excellent job at taking much of the mystery out of how and why to use the various tests. The book is comprehensive but the analysis of my research and study is focussed primarily on correlation, t-tests and regression. There are chapters in the book I will probably never read as I cannot foresee ever needing to read them. But, the book is very useful for referencing particular areas and providing a tutorial as you are working.

I love the way Andy has created and inserted his characters throughout the book - as I can identify myself as a cross between Cramming Samantha and Brian Haemorrhage.

Because I found Andy's book and CD so useful, I have not done any comparisons with other books. So, far, it has provided everything I have needed.

If you thought statatistics is complicated, this is the book for you, 21 Jul 2008
I am a post doctoral civil engineering student. I have been struggling with advanced statistics for months...when the problem was I did not have a good grasp of basic concepts. This book solved it all in a matter of days.
After reading this book.. you will be able to understand all the other more "complicated book" that you need to use.
If what you are paying for is for someone to expain stat and SPSS to you, this is your book.
Galit

Excellent, 23 Jun 2008
This book was my saviour during my dissertation. A must for any psychology student about to tackle SPSS!

Makes statistics a bit more manageable, 21 Apr 2008
I did a research project in Psychology with only very basic knowledge of statistics. I always hated statistics and tried to avoid them as much as possible. I was recommended this book, and was so glad I bought it. The style is quite refreshing and engaging, filling you with confidence as you learn.

At times it is a bit over-detailed, and you have to sift through to get to what to what you need, however, this is a strength of the book. I've seen some other books which explain what you do, but not why. Leaarning how principles can be applied to various situations is far more beneficial, as it's rare that your data will be similar to the examples in a book. If you're willing to spend just a little bit of time with it, you will find that you have a good basic knowledge of statistics, able to tackle increasingly complex problems

Tilting at windmills, 02 Jun 2007
In this tome Mr Mandelbrot lambasts the previous century's inadequate financial models but seems unwilling to admit that the field has moved on somewhat, and unable to offer a practical model of his own.

Mr Mandelbrot shows how Bachelierian models fail to account for disastrous market drops which ruined many investors. He rubbishes two conventional assumptions: that each price move is independent of another and that their magnitude follows a Normal distribution. Skillfully constructed charts make plain the reality that a large market move is likely to be followed by another. More charts show just how badly market data fits to a Normal distribution: by this measure dozens of trading days in the 20th century were so unlikely not even one should have occurred in the lifetime of the universe.

The author suggests we discard such woefully unrealistic theory and start again, taking fractals as our base. In a display humility atypical of the rest of the book Mr Mandelbrot admits to having no way to calculate price and risk in his proposed model, or even calibrate its parameters "Alpha" and "H" to the real world.

The tragedy of this foray into fractal finance is in its pointlessness. What made 1960s financial models so unrealistic was the assumption of unchanging volatility. By late 90s anyone with sufficient computing power could drop this assumption and include real "volatile volatility" in their models. In modern theory, October 1987 was not a 22-sigma "not in the lifetime of the universe" event. It was a spike in the volatility process, as the models predict will happen from time to time.

In fairness, the book offers many insights into what drives the markets, the trouble with fundamental valuation, rationality of market agents, flow of information, and more. I could recommend reading it for those insights alone.

...with tangerine trees and marmalade skies..., 08 Jul 2006
Orthodox economics is very formal using complex models to predict future behaviour. Most economists, like meteorologists, are not held accountable for their predictions.

Within the very wide field of economics there are many conflicting views about the nature of economics and there is much in the way of interesting work going on out there and I would cite the contributions of the Austrian school and the evolutionary school and especially point to the very accessible work of Paul Ormerod who give somewhat different views to those of the standard model.

This book is not aimed at those practitioners of economics or indeed the professionals of the City of London or Wall Street. To my mind, as an interested observer, Mandelbrot and Hudson are doing all of us a service in illuminating the gaps in economic theory that underpins the financial industry. John Maynard Keynes, who's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936)can be said to lie at the heart of much of contemporary economic theory, once famously compared the financial services industry to gambling, also made his fortune on the stock market.

The book methodically disects each of the pillars of contemporary financial theory and exposes it's weakness then introduces some basic fractal geometry ideas to exhibit their apparent ly better predictive use. As someone who favours the approach of ideas of chaos theory into the economics brew I tend to be more open to the approach that Mandelbrot uses but the proof of the pudding, as we say in England, lies in the eating and this populist text is certainly not the place for complex technical proofs or highly mathematical analysis. It is a difficult path to take but for the purposes for which this book is intended, which I believe is aimed at the educated investor or someone without an economics or financial background, it is about right.

I found the book both accessible and lucid. There are areas with which I would have wished for a more techical exposition but this is something that I will take up when I delve further into this subject matter.

There are many interesting ideas here and I suspect that there are many in the financial services community who are looking into these in greater detail or even have already absorbed them into their toolkit. Given the competitive nature of the financial markets I suspect that this knowledge will quickly be dispesed throughout the community.

All in all this is a nice easy read which will prompt further thought and study upon it's contents. My only, minor reservation, which prevents me awarding five stars is that I think a non-technical appendix, in keeping with the rest of the book, about the basic precepts of fractal geometry would have been helpful for the lay reader.

Well worth a look.


Necessary evil, 16 May 2006
If you invited Benoit Mandelbrot to your party, he'd be the geeky guy dissing people's illogical clothing, drinking too much punch, testing the aerodynamics of different canapes, and pouring food colouring in the pool. In other words, he's a risk and he won't get any girls, but on a balance of probabilities, the party Mandelbrot was at will be the one people will wish they'd been at.

This book is a rant, reflecting the death of editing in favour of celebrity authorship. So it's repetitive. It's also light on theory, and it repeats itself. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. Mandelbrot makes the case early on that the behaviour of market prices, or of any variable not constrained by physics, are not normally distributed. He then goes on to claim that artificial systems are non-Gaussian, putting them outside the reach of statistics - and by extension, outside the reach of CAPM, Black-Scholes, VAR, and GARCH. He proposes power law distributions as an alternative. He's probably right, but he never demonstrates this claim, and the alternative he suggests - multifractals - is, by his own admission, not very useful.

He comprehensively demolishes the random walk model, claiming to have demonstrated that volatility clusters, and that there is memory in all markets. This may be true, but it will have the effect of encouraging snake oil salesmen (see below).

More pertinent and scary is that Mandelbrot does show that the exponents needed to model power law distributions for different markets or instruments are so diverse and intractable as to make general market models meaningless. He does not explain how multifractals address this. He also points to the simple arithmetic inadequacy of using closing prices in hindcasting exercises, which is equally scary for anyone who actually tests their models. He spits on technical analysts, who don't. For this he gets an extra star.

Nassim Taleb is probably more eloquent on the subject of wild randomness, but he's too urbane to punk your party. Mandelbrot is trouble, and if you're in finance, he's coming your way.

A solid critique to Modern Finance Theory, 21 Oct 2005
Benoit Mandelbrot may sometimes write too much about himself, but his critique of the Modern Finance Theory is very sharp. After exposing why some basic assumptions underlying the Modern Finance Theory and, more importantly, its applications in financial products, are totally nonscientific, Mandelbrot explores his way out of the chaos. Some parts of the book may be redundant, but the insights are bright indeed. After reading the book, one wonders why so much money is invested using evidently mistaken theories. Even many insiders might have an interesting read, as the financial world is well known for its herdfollowers. Mandelbrot does not offer a new Theory and those looking for chaos theory to so solve the problems may be disappointed. However, his final suggestions need a follow-up from the financial world. Very recomendable for people in the money business.

Best finance layman's book Iýve ever read!!, 12 Jul 2005
Mandelbrot, much like Mr. Howard, "say it as it is". Modern finance theory simply does not fit the facts. This is a grave accusation but Mandelbrot makes such a good case against modern finance that one is left wondering upon completing the book how the workhorses of academic ink are still standing! A truly fascinating book that at best will lead you into seriously questioning what you have learned at uni and at worst will enhance your historical understanding of financial theory. Written in eloquent, "user-friendly" manner, this book advocates a completely fresh look at the financial world through the lenses of fractal geometry. This means that the reader will encounter terms like "fractional Brownian motion set in multifractal time", which may sound more like rocket science to some than finance, but Mandelbrot and Hudson do a magnificent job in explaining tough terms in everyday English (not to mention the pictorial essays). In a nutshell, this book is thought-provoking, well-written and personally, i think that for the price that it is selling a true bargain.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Excellent book, 15 Nov 2008
When I was a young man, I embarked on a degree in mechanical engineering. This was about 30 years ago. In the first year alone we had to study about eight different subjects.

These included fluid mechanics, drawing and design, solid body mechanics, electricity, mathematics, materials science, physics and thermodymamics.

I had passed three 'A' levels in chemistry, mathematics and physics while at school.

I remember that this book was easy to follow and helped me to pass my first year mathematics exam with very high marks and little effort. My nephew is now studying civil engineering and I recommended this book to him. He said that it had made all the difference.

This book uses a method of learning called programme learning in which each stage is carefully broken down. One practices a few examples in order to check one's understanding and then moves on to the next section.

Although the content in this book is somewhat stronger than 'A' level mathematics it is definitely a book for engineers and scientists who use mathematics as a tool. It hasn't got the rigorous and almost philosophical approach to the subject that one would encounter if studying the subject in its own right.

The applications are found in other subjects such as mechanics of machines, solid body mechanics and electricity. Although called engineering mathematics this book really contains the pure mathematics that engineering students need for studying other disciplines rather than applied mathematics. If you like to think in terms of pure and applied mathematics then some of the other subjects such as mechanics or electricity actually contain the applied mathematics.

Ever since using this book, I have always tried to find books using a similar approach when required to study other subjects e.g. accounting, computer studies, economics and languages.

It is surprising how few books use this excellent method as I think it would work well with other logical, numerical and scientific subjects such as accounting, economics, grammar, physics and ancient and modern languages. It certainly takes away a lot of the heavy lifting involved in learning a new subject.

Holds your hand, 04 Nov 2008
There are many positive reviews of this book and its earlier additions, for good reason. I've found this a book very useful reference for my MEng Electrical/Electronic Engineering degree.

In my opinion, the best thing about this book is that takes you through every step, beginning with a number line right the way through to the more tricky stuff. Before I started my degree I wasn't confident with maths and shaky on even the basics - now I'm about to finish my Masters degree and I feel like a maths pro! Mostly thanks to this book and its companion.

The only maths book you will ever need, 21 Feb 2008
I have been out of education for 10 years before I started my degree so I was very apprehensive about the maths. This book works wonders especially the DVD you get with it to help problem solve. This is such a well structured book with lots of worked examples.

A must have for Engineering students

Unrivalled; clear, concise and well written., 10 Aug 2007
This book is superb, I can only fault its size but the depth of coverage warrants such mammoth dimensions. The material covered within is done so in a structured fashion, ensuring the reader can actually grasp the material as appose to just learning the methodology. I have not had to use this book as a standalone revision tool but in conjunction with my maths notes, it is unbeatable. The exercise problems can get a bit tedious and some of the leaps in difficulty are inexplicable but a little extra searching and practice will iron out any reservations. If you are studying any engineering degree I would seriously recommend splashing the cash, you may not use it extensively at first but having it as a resource has been invaluable for me.

Got lost!, 16 Jul 2007
This is undoubtedly a good book but it put me to sleep at times as I could not see how all these calculations would be useful to me when I graduated. I assumed an Engineering Math book would have examples from Engineering cases but they were few and far between. I did find some other books that did this in the library.

This is a good book for learning by heart how to do these things but I think I remember about 20% of it now that the exam is over! I wanted to understand it not learn it by heart. :(

Stroud is massive! It has practically an entire intro to math book at the start which at best is good for a glance because, as an Engineer, my Math is OK. It is a huge big clunking book which broke my back carrying it but was useful none the less.



Outstanding Book, Outstanding Author, 13 Oct 2008
Although i may appear biased as i have been fortunate enough to have been lectured (stats lecture) by Andy Field I honestly beleive that this book is a MUST for all psychology students around the world who will be using SPSS at some point in their psychology careers! It is simple, witty, funny, and makes stats easy to understand. Brilliant book! =]

If you are a statistics-phobe...this is the book for you!, 26 Aug 2008
If you are needing to learn both SPSS and statistics at the same time and intimidated at all by the math, this is a great book to help take you through the quagmire of both the SPSS software, the principles of statistics and make sense of it all too! Andy Field has done an excellent job at taking much of the mystery out of how and why to use the various tests. The book is comprehensive but the analysis of my research and study is focussed primarily on correlation, t-tests and regression. There are chapters in the book I will probably never read as I cannot foresee ever needing to read them. But, the book is very useful for referencing particular areas and providing a tutorial as you are working.

I love the way Andy has created and inserted his characters throughout the book - as I can identify myself as a cross between Cramming Samantha and Brian Haemorrhage.

Because I found Andy's book and CD so useful, I have not done any comparisons with other books. So, far, it has provided everything I have needed.

If you thought statatistics is complicated, this is the book for you, 21 Jul 2008
I am a post doctoral civil engineering student. I have been struggling with advanced statistics for months...when the problem was I did not have a good grasp of basic concepts. This book solved it all in a matter of days.
After reading this book.. you will be able to understand all the other more "complicated book" that you need to use.
If what you are paying for is for someone to expain stat and SPSS to you, this is your book.
Galit

Excellent, 23 Jun 2008
This book was my saviour during my dissertation. A must for any psychology student about to tackle SPSS!

Makes statistics a bit more manageable, 21 Apr 2008
I did a research project in Psychology with only very basic knowledge of statistics. I always hated statistics and tried to avoid them as much as possible. I was recommended this book, and was so glad I bought it. The style is quite refreshing and engaging, filling you with confidence as you learn.

At times it is a bit over-detailed, and you have to sift through to get to what to what you need, however, this is a strength of the book. I've seen some other books which explain what you do, but not why. Leaarning how principles can be applied to various situations is far more beneficial, as it's rare that your data will be similar to the examples in a book. If you're willing to spend just a little bit of time with it, you will find that you have a good basic knowledge of statistics, able to tackle increasingly complex problems

Tilting at windmills, 02 Jun 2007
In this tome Mr Mandelbrot lambasts the previous century's inadequate financial models but seems unwilling to admit that the field has moved on somewhat, and unable to offer a practical model of his own.

Mr Mandelbrot shows how Bachelierian models fail to account for disastrous market drops which ruined many investors. He rubbishes two conventional assumptions: that each price move is independent of another and that their magnitude follows a Normal distribution. Skillfully constructed charts make plain the reality that a large market move is likely to be followed by another. More charts show just how badly market data fits to a Normal distribution: by this measure dozens of trading days in the 20th century were so unlikely not even one should have occurred in the lifetime of the universe.

The author suggests we discard such woefully unrealistic theory and start again, taking fractals as our base. In a display humility atypical of the rest of the book Mr Mandelbrot admits to having no way to calculate price and risk in his proposed model, or even calibrate its parameters "Alpha" and "H" to the real world.

The tragedy of this foray into fractal finance is in its pointlessness. What made 1960s financial models so unrealistic was the assumption of unchanging volatility. By late 90s anyone with sufficient computing power could drop this assumption and include real "volatile volatility" in their models. In modern theory, October 1987 was not a 22-sigma "not in the lifetime of the universe" event. It was a spike in the volatility process, as the models predict will happen from time to time.

In fairness, the book offers many insights into what drives the markets, the trouble with fundamental valuation, rationality of market agents, flow of information, and more. I could recommend reading it for those insights alone.

...with tangerine trees and marmalade skies..., 08 Jul 2006
Orthodox economics is very formal using complex models to predict future behaviour. Most economists, like meteorologists, are not held accountable for their predictions.

Within the very wide field of economics there are many conflicting views about the nature of economics and there is much in the way of interesting work going on out there and I would cite the contributions of the Austrian school and the evolutionary school and especially point to the very accessible work of Paul Ormerod who give somewhat different views to those of the standard model.

This book is not aimed at those practitioners of economics or indeed the professionals of the City of London or Wall Street. To my mind, as an interested observer, Mandelbrot and Hudson are doing all of us a service in illuminating the gaps in economic theory that underpins the financial industry. John Maynard Keynes, who's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936)can be said to lie at the heart of much of contemporary economic theory, once famously compared the financial services industry to gambling, also made his fortune on the stock market.

The book methodically disects each of the pillars of contemporary financial theory and exposes it's weakness then introduces some basic fractal geometry ideas to exhibit their apparent ly better predictive use. As someone who favours the approach of ideas of chaos theory into the economics brew I tend to be more open to the approach that Mandelbrot uses but the proof of the pudding, as we say in England, lies in the eating and this populist text is certainly not the place for complex technical proofs or highly mathematical analysis. It is a difficult path to take but for the purposes for which this book is intended, which I believe is aimed at the educated investor or someone without an economics or financial background, it is about right.

I found the book both accessible and lucid. There are areas with which I would have wished for a more techical exposition but this is something that I will take up when I delve further into this subject matter.

There are many interesting ideas here and I suspect that there are many in the financial services community who are looking into these in greater detail or even have already absorbed them into their toolkit. Given the competitive nature of the financial markets I suspect that this knowledge will quickly be dispesed throughout the community.

All in all this is a nice easy read which will prompt further thought and study upon it's contents. My only, minor reservation, which prevents me awarding five stars is that I think a non-technical appendix, in keeping with the rest of the book, about the basic precepts of fractal geometry would have been helpful for the lay reader.

Well worth a look.


Necessary evil, 16 May 2006
If you invited Benoit Mandelbrot to your party, he'd be the geeky guy dissing people's illogical clothing, drinking too much punch, testing the aerodynamics of different canapes, and pouring food colouring in the pool. In other words, he's a risk and he won't get any girls, but on a balance of probabilities, the party Mandelbrot was at will be the one people will wish they'd been at.

This book is a rant, reflecting the death of editing in favour of celebrity authorship. So it's repetitive. It's also light on theory, and it repeats itself. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. Mandelbrot makes the case early on that the behaviour of market prices, or of any variable not constrained by physics, are not normally distributed. He then goes on to claim that artificial systems are non-Gaussian, putting them outside the reach of statistics - and by extension, outside the reach of CAPM, Black-Scholes, VAR, and GARCH. He proposes power law distributions as an alternative. He's probably right, but he never demonstrates this claim, and the alternative he suggests - multifractals - is, by his own admission, not very useful.

He comprehensively demolishes the random walk model, claiming to have demonstrated that volatility clusters, and that there is memory in all markets. This may be true, but it will have the effect of encouraging snake oil salesmen (see below).

More pertinent and scary is that Mandelbrot does show that the exponents needed to model power law distributions for different markets or instruments are so diverse and intractable as to make general market models meaningless. He does not explain how multifractals address this. He also points to the simple arithmetic inadequacy of using closing prices in hindcasting exercises, which is equally scary for anyone who actually tests their models. He spits on technical analysts, who don't. For this he gets an extra star.

Nassim Taleb is probably more eloquent on the subject of wild randomness, but he's too urbane to punk your party. Mandelbrot is trouble, and if you're in finance, he's coming your way.

A solid critique to Modern Finance Theory, 21 Oct 2005
Benoit Mandelbrot may sometimes write too much about himself, but his critique of the Modern Finance Theory is very sharp. After exposing why some basic assumptions underlying the Modern Finance Theory and, more importantly, its applications in financial products, are totally nonscientific, Mandelbrot explores his way out of the chaos. Some parts of the book may be redundant, but the insights are bright indeed. After reading the book, one wonders why so much money is invested using evidently mistaken theories. Even many insiders might have an interesting read, as the financial world is well known for its herdfollowers. Mandelbrot does not offer a new Theory and those looking for chaos theory to so solve the problems may be disappointed. However, his final suggestions need a follow-up from the financial world. Very recomendable for people in the money business.

Best finance layman's book Iýve ever read!!, 12 Jul 2005
Mandelbrot, much like Mr. Howard, "say it as it is". Modern finance theory simply does not fit the facts. This is a grave accusation but Mandelbrot makes such a good case against modern finance that one is left wondering upon completing the book how the workhorses of academic ink are still standing! A truly fascinating book that at best will lead you into seriously questioning what you have learned at uni and at worst will enhance your historical understanding of financial theory. Written in eloquent, "user-friendly" manner, this book advocates a completely fresh look at the financial world through the lenses of fractal geometry. This means that the reader will encounter terms like "fractional Brownian motion set in multifractal time", which may sound more like rocket science to some than finance, but Mandelbrot and Hudson do a magnificent job in explaining tough terms in everyday English (not to mention the pictorial essays). In a nutshell, this book is thought-provoking, well-written and personally, i think that for the price that it is selling a true bargain.

Too much repeat, 10 Jan 2006
I needed a good refershing course about statistics, but this Dummies does not reach it. It is vastly incoherent, trying to make each chapter self-readable with little reference to the previous chapters. As a consequence, there is little structure and too much repeat. It also describes each formula in great detail, at the expense of major points of interests, like quality review, which would deserve a greater focus on practical examples.

A straightforward guide to the fundamentals of statistics, 04 Jan 2006
As software author with over 12 years experience in the industry I utilize facts and figures on a daily basis. Comprehensive, precise and accurate data is essential in my work and moreover the understanding of the methods involved achieving this information.
Approximately one year ago I was at a complete loss on a problematic report I was developing in a peace of software, a co-worker recommended I read the Statistics for Dummies and lent me his book. That evening I glanced over the book to quickly locate exactly what was required. The following morning I solved the problem within 30 minutes. I was so taken back with the transparency of the descriptions and straightforwardness of the explanations in the book I acquired a copy for myself on Amazon that very week.
This book lives not on the shelf but on my desk at hand with a select few.
I am at this time here on Amazon looking to acquire a further copy to exchange my original paperback which is now a little scruffy so while here I thought a quick review was well warranted.
Final note, if you’re a student or an accountant, an educator or a developer or anyone whom needs to use statistics I highly recommend this book to you.
Statistics are actuality extremely straightforward when explained by someone who truly understands them such as Deborah Rumsey the author of this excellent and easy to understand book.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Excellent book, 15 Nov 2008
When I was a young man, I embarked on a degree in mechanical engineering. This was about 30 years ago. In the first year alone we had to study about eight different subjects.

These included fluid mechanics, drawing and design, solid body mechanics, electricity, mathematics, materials science, physics and thermodymamics.

I had passed three 'A' levels in chemistry, mathematics and physics while at school.

I remember that this book was easy to follow and helped me to pass my first year mathematics exam with very high marks and little effort. My nephew is now studying civil engineering and I recommended this book to him. He said that it had made all the difference.

This book uses a method of learning called programme learning in which each stage is carefully broken down. One practices a few examples in order to check one's understanding and then moves on to the next section.

Although the content in this book is somewhat stronger than 'A' level mathematics it is definitely a book for engineers and scientists who use mathematics as a tool. It hasn't got the rigorous and almost philosophical approach to the subject that one would encounter if studying the subject in its own right.

The applications are found in other subjects such as mechanics of machines, solid body mechanics and electricity. Although called engineering mathematics this book really contains the pure mathematics that engineering students need for studying other disciplines rather than applied mathematics. If you like to think in terms of pure and applied mathematics then some of the other subjects such as mechanics or electricity actually contain the applied mathematics.

Ever since using this book, I have always tried to find books using a similar approach when required to study other subjects e.g. accounting, computer studies, economics and languages.

It is surprising how few books use this excellent method as I think it would work well with other logical, numerical and scientific subjects such as accounting, economics, grammar, physics and ancient and modern languages. It certainly takes away a lot of the heavy lifting involved in learning a new subject.

Holds your hand, 04 Nov 2008
There are many positive reviews of this book and its earlier additions, for good reason. I've found this a book very useful reference for my MEng Electrical/Electronic Engineering degree.

In my opinion, the best thing about this book is that takes you through every step, beginning with a number line right the way through to the more tricky stuff. Before I started my degree I wasn't confident with maths and shaky on even the basics - now I'm about to finish my Masters degree and I feel like a maths pro! Mostly thanks to this book and its companion.

The only maths book you will ever need, 21 Feb 2008
I have been out of education for 10 years before I started my degree so I was very apprehensive about the maths. This book works wonders especially the DVD you get with it to help problem solve. This is such a well structured book with lots of worked examples.

A must have for Engineering students

Unrivalled; clear, concise and well written., 10 Aug 2007
This book is superb, I can only fault its size but the depth of coverage warrants such mammoth dimensions. The material covered within is done so in a structured fashion, ensuring the reader can actually grasp the material as appose to just learning the methodology. I have not had to use this book as a standalone revision tool but in conjunction with my maths notes, it is unbeatable. The exercise problems can get a bit tedious and some of the leaps in difficulty are inexplicable but a little extra searching and practice will iron out any reservations. If you are studying any engineering