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.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

What on earth is Bill Bryson doing writing a book of popular science--A Short History of Almost Everything? Largely, it appears, because this inquisitive, much-travelled writer realised, while flying over the Pacific, that he was entirely ignorant of the processes that created, populated and continue to maintain the vast body of water beneath him.

In fact, it dawned on him that "I didn't know the first thing about the only planet I was ever going to live on". The questions multiplied: What is a quark? How can anybody know how much the Earth weighs? How can astrophysicists (or whoever) claim to describe what happened in the first gazillionth of a nanosecond after the Big Bang? Why can't earthquakes be predicted? What makes evolution more plausible than any other theory? In the end, all these boiled down to a single question--how do scientists do science? To this subject Bryson devoted three years of his life, reading books and journals and pestering the people who know (or at least argue about it); and we non-scientists should be pretty grateful to him for passing his findings on to us.

Broadly, his investigations deal with seven topics, all of enormous interest and significance: the origins of the universe; the gradual historical discovery of the size and age of the earth (and the beginnings of the awesome notion of deep time); relativity and quantum theory; the present and future threats to life and the planet; the origins and history of life (dinosaurs, mass extinctions and all); and the evolution of man. Within each of these, he looks at the history of the subject, its development into a modern discipline and the frameworks of theory that now support it. This is a pretty broad brief (life, the universe and everything, in fact), and it's a mark of Bryson's skill that he is able to carve a clear path through the thickets of theory and controversy that infest all these disciplines, all the while maintaining a cracking pace and a fairly judicious tone without obvious longueurs or signs of haste. Even readers fairly familiar with some or all of these areas o! f discourse are likely to learn from A Short History. If not, they will at least be amused--the tone throughout is agreeable, mingling genuine awe with a mild facetiousness that often rises to wit.

One compelling theme that appears again and again is the utter unpredictability of the universe, despite all that we think we know about it. Nervous page-turners may care to omit the sensational chapters on the possible ways in which it all might end in disaster--Bryson enumerates with cheerful relish the kind of event that makes you want to climb under the bedclothes: undetectable asteroid colliding with the earth; superheated magma chamber erupting in your back garden; ebola carrier getting off a plane in London or New York; the HIV virus mutating to prevent its destruction in the mosquito's digestive system. Indeed, the chief theme of this sprightly book is the miraculous unlikeliness, in a universe ruled by randomness, of stability and equilibrium--of which one result is ourselves and the complex, fragile planet we inhabit. --Robin Davidson

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.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

A fascinating and exciting insight into our exsistence., 05 Oct 2008
Well I love a good Bill Bryson book and this is surely the best. As a travel writer he has kept me interested and amused with many an exciting journey but this rates as the best journey he has ever written. A journey that takes the layman on a travel experience spanning billions of years including an insight into all the sciences and ologies one can imagine. If only I had been able to read science at school like this...I might well have found an interest.

Overrated, 23 Sep 2008
I am skeptical of journalists or writers who think they can write a book about anything. Yeah sure they've a great gift for writing but that doesn't mean they have a great gift for understanding and explaining what it is they are writing about.

I really can't fathom that in a book which attempts to cover most of science, the scientific method itself isn't even explained. This means the mechanism which establishes science as most objective and reliable paradigm we have for establishing objective truth about the universe is omitted. Now, there's a countless amount of facts, dates, figures and 'imagine this' type stuff all there with the assumed intent of making a reader go wow. All very well, some of it will fuse the imagination, but let's not forget that the scientific method is what defines science. Without it, we have no way of differentiating between science and psuedo-science, no way of differentiating the reliability of the big bang theory and crystal healers.

Too many times, instead of explaining principles and concepts, Bryson opts for facts about dates. It really doesn't matter if it was 1915, 1916, or 1917 when Einstein published his theory on general relativity what matters is what it is saying, the concepts that underpin it and why we can be confident it's correct. In this regard, Byrson comes up well short. Someone like Simon Singh, Stephen Hawking, or just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

Sometimes he's just way off. For example, when he discusses the theory of evolution which is just as sound as the theory of gravity in terms of the scientific method, since both are testifiable, falsifiable, have huge amounts of evidence (one billion+ fossils and infinite amount of DNA evidence), been through the same peer reviewing processes etc. So, in scientific terms doubting evolution is like doubting gravity.

His misunderstanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He fails to point out the probability of fossilation is only about 1 / million and the probability of finding one about the same, which by simple mathematics make every fossil find of our ancestors species a miracle in statistical terms? He also fails to include that the DNA evidence is conclusive and all of it is consistent with evolution through natural selection. DNA vindicated Darwin.

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very broad area now. Experts in Physics are not experts in Biology. Experts in Biology are not experts in Physics. A writer with no scientific expertise is certainly not an expert in anything scientific. If you really want to understand science, pick a branch of science and then pick the appropriate expert. Someone like Feymen for Physics, Dawkins for Biology or Hawking for the Universe.

Before you do any of that, make sure you understand the scientific method as described by Karl Popper. This is the framework that underpins all science and what makes science an exceptionally reliable paradigm. It's why planes fly and why we know the origins of all species on our planet.

If you couldn't give a monkeys about understanding and just want lots of scientific trivial, dates and names, well then, sadly this book could be a runner.


Essential introduction to science!, 23 Sep 2008
This book is not only highy educational, but very entertaining, and Bryson's writting style makes it fun, and it keeps you craving for more.
If would be a good idea to make this read a compulsory High School one, to excite the curiosity and the thirst for knowledge of our students, considering the fact that the more we know, the more we love.
It is a nearly complete and thorough overview on the main principles of science. Wery well informed with plenty of historical anecdotes and curiosities. I have learned and laughed so much!!!
A genius's work.

Not for me, 25 Aug 2008
I started out with enthusiasm with this book but should have read the title a little more carefully. A short 'history'of nearly everything with the emphasis on HISTORY. This book goes into great detail on how and when each new bit of information was discovered with biographies of the scientists involved. This was not really what I wanted to read about as would prefer just to know the latest most up to date information and there are plenty much more interesting books on these topics, I have been browsing the Lonely Planet version on space and science which is illustrated and topical. Dont wish to offend fans of Bill Bryson, it is probably my mistake.

How to learn very little about quite a lot, 24 Aug 2008
Bill Bryson's book is an attempt to discuss the origins of life, the universe and everything contained therein. It's slightly tongue-in-cheek title indicates that this isn't going to be some heavyweight, academic discussion but more of a Now That's What I Call Science! After all, no book can seriously claim to be all-encompassing and completely comprehensive on any one subject, let alone "everything."

A Short History of Nearly Everything is clearly written to be a book that appeals to people who wouldn't normally want to read a whole book about gravity, molecular science, or paleontology; as a result, the book falls betwixt two stools: it skims superficially pretty much every subject it touches upon, so those only mildly interested won't learn much and those who have already read something on their specialised subject probably won't learn anything they didn't already know.

The first half of the book is the most interesting, containing some great anecdotes about the famous names of science (Newton, Darwin and so forth); this section shines and brings to life people whose names have become synonymous with their subject matter. However, as the various disciplines become more professionalised, the well of anecdotal material runs short, and the book loses much of its appeal.

One of the key themes of this work, which is not overtly stated but seems unmissable, is that the narrative of the history of science is quite different from how the mainstream media portrays science itself. Specifically, science is often presented as being the concept of a battle over evidence: how an idea is proposed, evidence is put forth in support, counterevidence is held up against it and ultimately, whichever theory fits most of the facts is deemed to be that which is most probable. This is not the case, according to Bryson's book. What is deemed to be scientifically true is determined just as much by factors of cultural acceptance as objective facts. Theories are put forth, ignored, then ridiculed, then, when the evidence becomes such that it can neither be marginalised nor mocked, the theory is embraced and history effectively rewritten so that science can be presented as being the onward march of progress and enlightenment. A reassuring but historically dubious narrative.

A Short History... is marketed around the "Bill Bryson" brand: his low-key charm, wit and self-effacing humour is meant to enliven the driest of subjects. Therefore, if you enjoy his style, then you will probably enjoy this book and indeed, the book was charmingly well written and certainly easy to consume. However, at best, A Short History of Nearly Everything is a shallow introduction to the key disciplines of the various sciences, animated by some fine anecdotal touches. Bryson's book will probably provide a drop-off point for those wishing to explore in greater breadth subjects of which their curiosity has been piqued.

Charles Handy's revolutionary 1989 bestseller The Age of Unreason catapulted him into the ranks of the top management consultants. In Understanding Organizations, he solidifies his reputation as a seminal business thinker, offering a brilliantly insightful, wide-ranging look at business organizations.

This classic text offers an illuminating discussion of key concepts of concern to all managers: culture, motivation, leadership, power, role-playing and working in groups. Ever mindful of actual business practice, Handy directly addresses how managers can translate the six main concepts into invaluble tools for effective management. He discusses how all organizations need to select, develop and reward their people; to structure and design their work; to resolve political conflicts; to lay down guidelines for their managers; and to plan for the future. In each case, the approaches and techniques described here are invaluable.

Equally important, Handy excels at presenting his ideas in colourful, immediately accessible ways, filling the book with illuminating examples and inventive metaphors that range from Tolstoy's ideas on the concept of self, to the many meanings of "good morning," to the conversations that occur in a stopped elevator, to the proper size for a vineyard or an elephant. He shows, for instance, how an optical illusion experiment sheds light on interdepartmental relations, and how the way schoolchildren are typecast by their peers helps explain corporate hierarchies. And along with case studies, graphs, charts, and questionnaires, Understanding Organizations is peppered with boxed sections that offer advice and stimulate thought, brimming with provocative quotations from business wizards such as Peter Drucker, Tom Peters, Warren Bennis, Alvin Toffler, and Rosabeth Moss Kanter, as well as from Aristotle, Shakespeare, Gilbert and Sullivan, Gail Sheehy, and Joseph Heller.

What the successful manager knows intuitively, Charles Handy puts into words. His powerful interpretive schemes will help managers grasp the underlying dynamics of their company, make sense of its past, and assess--and shape--its future. --Jake Bond

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.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

A fascinating and exciting insight into our exsistence., 05 Oct 2008
Well I love a good Bill Bryson book and this is surely the best. As a travel writer he has kept me interested and amused with many an exciting journey but this rates as the best journey he has ever written. A journey that takes the layman on a travel experience spanning billions of years including an insight into all the sciences and ologies one can imagine. If only I had been able to read science at school like this...I might well have found an interest.

Overrated, 23 Sep 2008
I am skeptical of journalists or writers who think they can write a book about anything. Yeah sure they've a great gift for writing but that doesn't mean they have a great gift for understanding and explaining what it is they are writing about.

I really can't fathom that in a book which attempts to cover most of science, the scientific method itself isn't even explained. This means the mechanism which establishes science as most objective and reliable paradigm we have for establishing objective truth about the universe is omitted. Now, there's a countless amount of facts, dates, figures and 'imagine this' type stuff all there with the assumed intent of making a reader go wow. All very well, some of it will fuse the imagination, but let's not forget that the scientific method is what defines science. Without it, we have no way of differentiating between science and psuedo-science, no way of differentiating the reliability of the big bang theory and crystal healers.

Too many times, instead of explaining principles and concepts, Bryson opts for facts about dates. It really doesn't matter if it was 1915, 1916, or 1917 when Einstein published his theory on general relativity what matters is what it is saying, the concepts that underpin it and why we can be confident it's correct. In this regard, Byrson comes up well short. Someone like Simon Singh, Stephen Hawking, or just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

Sometimes he's just way off. For example, when he discusses the theory of evolution which is just as sound as the theory of gravity in terms of the scientific method, since both are testifiable, falsifiable, have huge amounts of evidence (one billion+ fossils and infinite amount of DNA evidence), been through the same peer reviewing processes etc. So, in scientific terms doubting evolution is like doubting gravity.

His misunderstanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He fails to point out the probability of fossilation is only about 1 / million and the probability of finding one about the same, which by simple mathematics make every fossil find of our ancestors species a miracle in statistical terms? He also fails to include that the DNA evidence is conclusive and all of it is consistent with evolution through natural selection. DNA vindicated Darwin.

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very broad area now. Experts in Physics are not experts in Biology. Experts in Biology are not experts in Physics. A writer with no scientific expertise is certainly not an expert in anything scientific. If you really want to understand science, pick a branch of science and then pick the appropriate expert. Someone like Feymen for Physics, Dawkins for Biology or Hawking for the Universe.

Before you do any of that, make sure you understand the scientific method as described by Karl Popper. This is the framework that underpins all science and what makes science an exceptionally reliable paradigm. It's why planes fly and why we know the origins of all species on our planet.

If you couldn't give a monkeys about understanding and just want lots of scientific trivial, dates and names, well then, sadly this book could be a runner.


Essential introduction to science!, 23 Sep 2008
This book is not only highy educational, but very entertaining, and Bryson's writting style makes it fun, and it keeps you craving for more.
If would be a good idea to make this read a compulsory High School one, to excite the curiosity and the thirst for knowledge of our students, considering the fact that the more we know, the more we love.
It is a nearly complete and thorough overview on the main principles of science. Wery well informed with plenty of historical anecdotes and curiosities. I have learned and laughed so much!!!
A genius's work.

Not for me, 25 Aug 2008
I started out with enthusiasm with this book but should have read the title a little more carefully. A short 'history'of nearly everything with the emphasis on HISTORY. This book goes into great detail on how and when each new bit of information was discovered with biographies of the scientists involved. This was not really what I wanted to read about as would prefer just to know the latest most up to date information and there are plenty much more interesting books on these topics, I have been browsing the Lonely Planet version on space and science which is illustrated and topical. Dont wish to offend fans of Bill Bryson, it is probably my mistake.

How to learn very little about quite a lot, 24 Aug 2008
Bill Bryson's book is an attempt to discuss the origins of life, the universe and everything contained therein. It's slightly tongue-in-cheek title indicates that this isn't going to be some heavyweight, academic discussion but more of a Now That's What I Call Science! After all, no book can seriously claim to be all-encompassing and completely comprehensive on any one subject, let alone "everything."

A Short History of Nearly Everything is clearly written to be a book that appeals to people who wouldn't normally want to read a whole book about gravity, molecular science, or paleontology; as a result, the book falls betwixt two stools: it skims superficially pretty much every subject it touches upon, so those only mildly interested won't learn much and those who have already read something on their specialised subject probably won't learn anything they didn't already know.

The first half of the book is the most interesting, containing some great anecdotes about the famous names of science (Newton, Darwin and so forth); this section shines and brings to life people whose names have become synonymous with their subject matter. However, as the various disciplines become more professionalised, the well of anecdotal material runs short, and the book loses much of its appeal.

One of the key themes of this work, which is not overtly stated but seems unmissable, is that the narrative of the history of science is quite different from how the mainstream media portrays science itself. Specifically, science is often presented as being the concept of a battle over evidence: how an idea is proposed, evidence is put forth in support, counterevidence is held up against it and ultimately, whichever theory fits most of the facts is deemed to be that which is most probable. This is not the case, according to Bryson's book. What is deemed to be scientifically true is determined just as much by factors of cultural acceptance as objective facts. Theories are put forth, ignored, then ridiculed, then, when the evidence becomes such that it can neither be marginalised nor mocked, the theory is embraced and history effectively rewritten so that science can be presented as being the onward march of progress and enlightenment. A reassuring but historically dubious narrative.

A Short History... is marketed around the "Bill Bryson" brand: his low-key charm, wit and self-effacing humour is meant to enliven the driest of subjects. Therefore, if you enjoy his style, then you will probably enjoy this book and indeed, the book was charmingly well written and certainly easy to consume. However, at best, A Short History of Nearly Everything is a shallow introduction to the key disciplines of the various sciences, animated by some fine anecdotal touches. Bryson's book will probably provide a drop-off point for those wishing to explore in greater breadth subjects of which their curiosity has been piqued.

If you ony buy one book on Organisational Behaviour, make it this one, 07 Jul 2008
Charles Handy is arguably the UK's top business "guru", but in my opinion this title somewhat diminishes his life's work, which has gone beyond matters of simple business administration into a philosophy of life and work, and is imbued with a spirituality that I find infectious (even though I am not a very spiritual person). This, however, is his seminal management text, and there is but a hint of the philosophical musings of "The Empty Raincoat" and "The Hungry Spirit".

Understanding Organisations was first published in 1976, and my fourth edition (I don't know why Amazon describes this as the third edition - that must be an error) was published in 1993, with a revised introduction in 1999. It cannot claim to be entirely up to date, therefore, but it remains valid both as a commentary on previous work on motivation, roles, leadership, power groups and organisations as well as contributing many of Handy's own ideas on the subject. I think that it was here that he first used analogies with the ancient Greek gods to describe the cultures of organisations, which he later developed in "Gods of Management". I've dipped into this book in the past, and have worked through it systematically recently as one of the key texts for a course on "Organisational Behaviour". My impression is that there are few more recent developments in this field than were taken into account in the writing of the book.

I have few quibbles. Handy's style is scholarly - I had wondered if this was his doctoral thesis but in fact he did not do one (he has an honorary one from Trinity College Dublin). It is accessible - and I do like the dry humour with which he delivers some of his case studies - but it is not as an easy or entertaining a read as some of his subsequent works. This is an excellent book, whether to use as a course text or to dip into as you experience and reflect on "trouble at mill" in your working life.


A great place to start learning about organisations, 27 May 2007
Charles Handy has been very influential shaping my attitudes to work, life styles and the management of organisations. This is a great primer for new students. I also highy recommend reading all his books and listening to his audio recordings.

His later works outline succinctly the demands changing corporations and globalization place on individuals and society. A very inspirational and thought provoking commentator, he positions the world of work in the larger context of ethics and morality. He also explores the human struggle to maintain individuality, spirituality, choice, freedom and dignity


The Star, 26 Sep 2006
Easier to understand than other management books,
Excellent aptitude and examples

Down to Earth and Practical

When I got bored with the rest this was the best


Essential, effortless reading, 27 Apr 2006
This is truly a remarkable book. Handy has compiled a great body of classic management theory and practice - and made it effortless to absorb.

And it is this accessibility and clarity that Handy brings to the subject.

I thoroughly recommend this book for serious management students (as the depth is here) and also business people who want a compact volume that is easy to read.

Overview of organisational behaviour, 01 Dec 2003
Handy's book is well-written and highly readable. By putting all litterature references at the end of the book the book becomes more readable as the book is free from reference insertions that might disturb the flow of reading. However, for academic use this convention makes it significantly more complicated to reference to any other than Handy himself. One has to cross-reference between sections of the book to try to find the original inventor of a concept. Hence, the book is highly recommended for practitioners that wants to read the book as a novel. The structure of the book makes it less user-friendly for academic work.

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.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

A fascinating and exciting insight into our exsistence., 05 Oct 2008
Well I love a good Bill Bryson book and this is surely the best. As a travel writer he has kept me interested and amused with many an exciting journey but this rates as the best journey he has ever written. A journey that takes the layman on a travel experience spanning billions of years including an insight into all the sciences and ologies one can imagine. If only I had been able to read science at school like this...I might well have found an interest.

Overrated, 23 Sep 2008
I am skeptical of journalists or writers who think they can write a book about anything. Yeah sure they've a great gift for writing but that doesn't mean they have a great gift for understanding and explaining what it is they are writing about.

I really can't fathom that in a book which attempts to cover most of science, the scientific method itself isn't even explained. This means the mechanism which establishes science as most objective and reliable paradigm we have for establishing objective truth about the universe is omitted. Now, there's a countless amount of facts, dates, figures and 'imagine this' type stuff all there with the assumed intent of making a reader go wow. All very well, some of it will fuse the imagination, but let's not forget that the scientific method is what defines science. Without it, we have no way of differentiating between science and psuedo-science, no way of differentiating the reliability of the big bang theory and crystal healers.

Too many times, instead of explaining principles and concepts, Bryson opts for facts about dates. It really doesn't matter if it was 1915, 1916, or 1917 when Einstein published his theory on general relativity what matters is what it is saying, the concepts that underpin it and why we can be confident it's correct. In this regard, Byrson comes up well short. Someone like Simon Singh, Stephen Hawking, or just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

Sometimes he's just way off. For example, when he discusses the theory of evolution which is just as sound as the theory of gravity in terms of the scientific method, since both are testifiable, falsifiable, have huge amounts of evidence (one billion+ fossils and infinite amount of DNA evidence), been through the same peer reviewing processes etc. So, in scientific terms doubting evolution is like doubting gravity.

His misunderstanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He fails to point out the probability of fossilation is only about 1 / million and the probability of finding one about the same, which by simple mathematics make every fossil find of our ancestors species a miracle in statistical terms? He also fails to include that the DNA evidence is conclusive and all of it is consistent with evolution through natural selection. DNA vindicated Darwin.

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very broad area now. Experts in Physics are not experts in Biology. Experts in Biology are not experts in Physics. A writer with no scientific expertise is certainly not an expert in anything scientific. If you really want to understand science, pick a branch of science and then pick the appropriate expert. Someone like Feymen for Physics, Dawkins for Biology or Hawking for the Universe.

Before you do any of that, make sure you understand the scientific method as described by Karl Popper. This is the framework that underpins all science and what makes science an exceptionally reliable paradigm. It's why planes fly and why we know the origins of all species on our planet.

If you couldn't give a monkeys about understanding and just want lots of scientific trivial, dates and names, well then, sadly this book could be a runner.


Essential introduction to science!, 23 Sep 2008
This book is not only highy educational, but very entertaining, and Bryson's writting style makes it fun, and it keeps you craving for more.
If would be a good idea to make this read a compulsory High School one, to excite the curiosity and the thirst for knowledge of our students, considering the fact that the more we know, the more we love.
It is a nearly complete and thorough overview on the main principles of science. Wery well informed with plenty of historical anecdotes and curiosities. I have learned and laughed so much!!!
A genius's work.

Not for me, 25 Aug 2008
I started out with enthusiasm with this book but should have read the title a little more carefully. A short 'history'of nearly everything with the emphasis on HISTORY. This book goes into great detail on how and when each new bit of information was discovered with biographies of the scientists involved. This was not really what I wanted to read about as would prefer just to know the latest most up to date information and there are plenty much more interesting books on these topics, I have been browsing the Lonely Planet version on space and science which is illustrated and topical. Dont wish to offend fans of Bill Bryson, it is probably my mistake.

How to learn very little about quite a lot, 24 Aug 2008
Bill Bryson's book is an attempt to discuss the origins of life, the universe and everything contained therein. It's slightly tongue-in-cheek title indicates that this isn't going to be some heavyweight, academic discussion but more of a Now That's What I Call Science! After all, no book can seriously claim to be all-encompassing and completely comprehensive on any one subject, let alone "everything."

A Short History of Nearly Everything is clearly written to be a book that appeals to people who wouldn't normally want to read a whole book about gravity, molecular science, or paleontology; as a result, the book falls betwixt two stools: it skims superficially pretty much every subject it touches upon, so those only mildly interested won't learn much and those who have already read something on their specialised subject probably won't learn anything they didn't already know.

The first half of the book is the most interesting, containing some great anecdotes about the famous names of science (Newton, Darwin and so forth); this section shines and brings to life people whose names have become synonymous with their subject matter. However, as the various disciplines become more professionalised, the well of anecdotal material runs short, and the book loses much of its appeal.

One of the key themes of this work, which is not overtly stated but seems unmissable, is that the narrative of the history of science is quite different from how the mainstream media portrays science itself. Specifically, science is often presented as being the concept of a battle over evidence: how an idea is proposed, evidence is put forth in support, counterevidence is held up against it and ultimately, whichever theory fits most of the facts is deemed to be that which is most probable. This is not the case, according to Bryson's book. What is deemed to be scientifically true is determined just as much by factors of cultural acceptance as objective facts. Theories are put forth, ignored, then ridiculed, then, when the evidence becomes such that it can neither be marginalised nor mocked, the theory is embraced and history effectively rewritten so that science can be presented as being the onward march of progress and enlightenment. A reassuring but historically dubious narrative.

A Short History... is marketed around the "Bill Bryson" brand: his low-key charm, wit and self-effacing humour is meant to enliven the driest of subjects. Therefore, if you enjoy his style, then you will probably enjoy this book and indeed, the book was charmingly well written and certainly easy to consume. However, at best, A Short History of Nearly Everything is a shallow introduction to the key disciplines of the various sciences, animated by some fine anecdotal touches. Bryson's book will probably provide a drop-off point for those wishing to explore in greater breadth subjects of which their curiosity has been piqued.

If you ony buy one book on Organisational Behaviour, make it this one, 07 Jul 2008
Charles Handy is arguably the UK's top business "guru", but in my opinion this title somewhat diminishes his life's work, which has gone beyond matters of simple business administration into a philosophy of life and work, and is imbued with a spirituality that I find infectious (even though I am not a very spiritual person). This, however, is his seminal management text, and there is but a hint of the philosophical musings of "The Empty Raincoat" and "The Hungry Spirit".

Understanding Organisations was first published in 1976, and my fourth edition (I don't know why Amazon describes this as the third edition - that must be an error) was published in 1993, with a revised introduction in 1999. It cannot claim to be entirely up to date, therefore, but it remains valid both as a commentary on previous work on motivation, roles, leadership, power groups and organisations as well as contributing many of Handy's own ideas on the subject. I think that it was here that he first used analogies with the ancient Greek gods to describe the cultures of organisations, which he later developed in "Gods of Management". I've dipped into this book in the past, and have worked through it systematically recently as one of the key texts for a course on "Organisational Behaviour". My impression is that there are few more recent developments in this field than were taken into account in the writing of the book.

I have few quibbles. Handy's style is scholarly - I had wondered if this was his doctoral thesis but in fact he did not do one (he has an honorary one from Trinity College Dublin). It is accessible - and I do like the dry humour with which he delivers some of his case studies - but it is not as an easy or entertaining a read as some of his subsequent works. This is an excellent book, whether to use as a course text or to dip into as you experience and reflect on "trouble at mill" in your working life.


A great place to start learning about organisations, 27 May 2007
Charles Handy has been very influential shaping my attitudes to work, life styles and the management of organisations. This is a great primer for new students. I also highy recommend reading all his books and listening to his audio recordings.

His later works outline succinctly the demands changing corporations and globalization place on individuals and society. A very inspirational and thought provoking commentator, he positions the world of work in the larger context of ethics and morality. He also explores the human struggle to maintain individuality, spirituality, choice, freedom and dignity


The Star, 26 Sep 2006
Easier to understand than other management books,
Excellent aptitude and examples

Down to Earth and Practical

When I got bored with the rest this was the best


Essential, effortless reading, 27 Apr 2006
This is truly a remarkable book. Handy has compiled a great body of classic management theory and practice - and made it effortless to absorb.

And it is this accessibility and clarity that Handy brings to the subject.

I thoroughly recommend this book for serious management students (as the depth is here) and also business people who want a compact volume that is easy to read.

Overview of organisational behaviour, 01 Dec 2003
Handy's book is well-written and highly readable. By putting all litterature references at the end of the book the book becomes more readable as the book is free from reference insertions that might disturb the flow of reading. However, for academic use this convention makes it significantly more complicated to reference to any other than Handy himself. One has to cross-reference between sections of the book to try to find the original inventor of a concept. Hence, the book is highly recommended for practitioners that wants to read the book as a novel. The structure of the book makes it less user-friendly for academic work.

Delightful book, 07 Sep 2008
This more than just a description of a museum. This is also a journey into the history of the natural sciences and a part biography as well. Well illustarted, Richard Fortey describes an institution that is trying hard (and succeeding if the new Darwin Centre is any guide)to move with the times, make science accesible to the public, yet has more going on behind the scenes than we could ever give credit.

Anyone who lives in or visits London should pay more than one visit to this marvelous place, and thanks to this book they will be well briefed as to what goes and has gone on there.

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.

Still great after all these years, 24 Apr 2008
Despite being over 30 years old, this book is still a powerful and exciting account of how life, including humans, came to be. The examples and explanations (aphid & ant coexistence, fluke worms in snails) are breathtaking in their descriptions of the natural world, and could easily awaken an interest in zoology in the casual reader.

A fascinating and exciting insight into our exsistence., 05 Oct 2008
Well I love a good Bill Bryson book and this is surely the best. As a travel writer he has kept me interested and amused with many an exciting journey but this rates as the best journey he has ever written. A journey that takes the layman on a travel experience spanning billions of years including an insight into all the sciences and ologies one can imagine. If only I had been able to read science at school like this...I might well have found an interest.

Overrated, 23 Sep 2008
I am skeptical of journalists or writers who think they can write a book about anything. Yeah sure they've a great gift for writing but that doesn't mean they have a great gift for understanding and explaining what it is they are writing about.

I really can't fathom that in a book which attempts to cover most of science, the scientific method itself isn't even explained. This means the mechanism which establishes science as most objective and reliable paradigm we have for establishing objective truth about the universe is omitted. Now, there's a countless amount of facts, dates, figures and 'imagine this' type stuff all there with the assumed intent of making a reader go wow. All very well, some of it will fuse the imagination, but let's not forget that the scientific method is what defines science. Without it, we have no way of differentiating between science and psuedo-science, no way of differentiating the reliability of the big bang theory and crystal healers.

Too many times, instead of explaining principles and concepts, Bryson opts for facts about dates. It really doesn't matter if it was 1915, 1916, or 1917 when Einstein published his theory on general relativity what matters is what it is saying, the concepts that underpin it and why we can be confident it's correct. In this regard, Byrson comes up well short. Someone like Simon Singh, Stephen Hawking, or just about anyone with scientific training does a much better job.

Sometimes he's just way off. For example, when he discusses the theory of evolution which is just as sound as the theory of gravity in terms of the scientific method, since both are testifiable, falsifiable, have huge amounts of evidence (one billion+ fossils and infinite amount of DNA evidence), been through the same peer reviewing processes etc. So, in scientific terms doubting evolution is like doubting gravity.

His misunderstanding insinutates that the lack of fossils found in human evolution may cast doubt on the theory. He fails to point out the probability of fossilation is only about 1 / million and the probability of finding one about the same, which by simple mathematics make every fossil find of our ancestors species a miracle in statistical terms? He also fails to include that the DNA evidence is conclusive and all of it is consistent with evolution through natural selection. DNA vindicated Darwin.

If you want a pop Science book so that you can understand science just skip this book. Science is a very broad area now. Experts in Physics are not experts in Biology. Experts in Biology are not experts in Physics. A writer with no scientific expertise is certainly not an expert in anything scientific. If you really want to understand science, pick a branch of science and then pick the appropriate expert. Someone like Feymen for Physics, Dawkins for Biology or Hawking for the Universe.

Before you do any of that, make sure you understand the scientific method as described by Karl Popper. This is the framework that underpins all science and what makes science an exceptionally reliable paradigm. It's why planes fly and why we know the origins of all species on our planet.

If you couldn't give a monkeys about understanding and just want lots of scientific trivial, dates and names, well then, sadly this book could be a runner.


Essential introduction to science!, 23 Sep 2008
This book is not only highy educational, but very entertaining, and Bryson's writting style makes it fun, and it keeps you craving for more.
If would be a good idea to make this read a compulsory High School one, to excite the curiosity and the thirst for knowledge of our students, considering the fact that the more we know, the more we love.
It is a nearly complete and thorough overview on the main principles of science. Wery well informed with plenty of historical anecdotes and curiosities. I have learned and laughed so much!!!
A genius's work.

Not for me, 25 Aug 2008
I started out with enthusiasm with this book but should have read the title a little more carefully. A short 'history'of nearly everything with the emphasis on HISTORY. This book goes into great detail on how and when each new bit of information was discovered with biographies of the scientists involved. This was not really what I wanted to read about as would prefer just to know the latest most up to date information and there are plenty much more interesting books on these topics, I have been browsing the Lonely Planet version on space and science which is illustrated and topical. Dont wish to offend fans of Bill Bryson, it is probably my mistake.

How to learn very little about quite a lot, 24 Aug 2008
Bill Bryson's book is an attempt to discuss the origins of life, the universe and everything contained therein. It's slightly tongue-in-cheek title indicates that this isn't going to be some heavyweight, academic discussion but more of a Now That's What I Call Science! After all, no book can seriously claim to be all-encompassing and completely comprehensive on any one subject, let alone "everything."

A Short History of Nearly Everything is clearly written to be a book that appeals to people who wouldn't normally want to read a whole book about gravity, molecular science, or paleontology; as a result, the book falls betwixt two stools: it skims superficially pretty much every subject it touches upon, so those only mildly interested won't learn much and those who have already read something on their specialised subject probably won't learn anything they didn't already know.

The first half of the book is the most interesting, containing some great anecdotes about the famous names of science (Newton, Darwin and so forth); this section shines and brings to life people whose names have become synonymous with their subject matter. However, as the various disciplines become more professionalised, the well of anecdotal material runs short, and the book loses much of its appeal.

One of the key themes of this work, which is not overtly stated but seems unmissable, is that the narrative of the history of science is quite different from how the mainstream media portrays science itself. Specifically, science is often presented as being the concept of a battle over evidence: how an idea is proposed, evidence is put forth in support, counterevidence is held up against it and ultimately, whichever theory fits most of the facts is deemed to be that which is most probable. This is not the case, according to Bryson's book. What is deemed to be scientifically true is determined just as much by factors of cultural acceptance as objective facts. Theories are put forth, ignored, then ridiculed, then, when the evidence becomes such that it can neither be marginalised nor mocked, the theory is embraced and history effectively rewritten so that science can be presented as being the onward march of progress and enlightenment. A reassuring but historically dubious narrative.

A Short History... is marketed around the "Bill Bryson" brand: his low-key charm, wit and self-effacing humour is meant to enliven the driest of subjects. Therefore, if you enjoy his style, then you will probably enjoy this book and indeed, the book was charmingly well written and certainly easy to consume. However, at best, A Short History of Nearly Everything is a shallow introduction to the key disciplines of the various sciences, animated by some fine anecdotal touches. Bryson's book will probably provide a drop-off point for those wishing to explore in greater breadth subjects of which their curiosity has been piqued.

If you ony buy one book on Organisational Behaviour, make it this one, 07 Jul 2008
Charles Handy is arguably the UK's top business "guru", but in my opinion this title somewhat diminishes his life's work, which has gone beyond matters of simple business administration into a philosophy of life and work, and is imbued with a spirituality that I find infectious (even though I am not a very spiritual person). This, however, is his seminal management text, and there is but a hint of the philosophical musings of "The Empty Raincoat" and "The Hungry Spirit".

Understanding Organisations was first published in 1976, and my fourth edition (I don't know why Amazon describes this as the third edition - that must be an error) was published in 1993, with a revised introduction in 1999. It cannot claim to be entirely up to date, therefore, but it remains valid both as a commentary on previous work on motivation, roles, leadership, power groups and organisations as well as contributing many of Handy's own ideas on the subject. I think that it was here that he first used analogies with the ancient Greek gods to describe the cultures of organisations, which he later developed in "Gods of Management". I've dipped into this book in the past, and have worked through it systematically recently as one of the key texts for a course on "Organisational Behaviour". My impression is that there are few more recent developments in this field than were taken into account in the writing of the book.

I have few quibbles. Handy's style is scholarly - I had wondered if this was his doctoral thesis but in fact he did not do one (he has an honorary one from Trinity College Dublin). It is accessible - and I do like the dry humour with which he delivers some of his case studies - but it is not as an easy or entertaining a read as some of his subsequent works. This is an excellent book, whether to use as a course text or to dip into as you experience and reflect on "trouble at mill" in your working life.


A great place to start learning about organisations, 27 May 2007
Charles Handy has been very influential shaping my attitudes to work, life styles and the management of organisations. This is a great primer for new students. I also highy recommend reading all his books and listening to his audio recordings.

His later works outline succinctly the demands changing corporations and globalization place on individuals and society. A very inspirational and thought provoking commentator, he positions the world of work in the larger context of ethics and morality. He also explores the human struggle to maintain individuality, spirituality, choice, freedom and dignity


The Star, 26 Sep 2006
Easier to understand than other management books,
Excellent aptitude and examples

Down to Earth and Practical

When I got bored with the rest this was the best


Essential, effortless reading, 27 Apr 2006
This is truly a remarkable book. Handy has compiled a great body of classic management theory and practice - and made it effortless to absorb.

And it is this accessibility and clarity that Handy brings to the subject.

I thoroughly recommend this book for serious management students (as the depth is here) and also business people who want a compact volume that is easy to read.

Overview of organisational behaviour, 01 Dec 2003
Handy's book is well-written and highly readable. By putting all litterature references at the end of the book the book becomes more readable as the book is free from reference insertions that might disturb the flow of reading. However, for academic use this convention makes it significantly more complicated to reference to any other than Handy himself. One has to cross-reference between sections of the book to try to find the original inventor of a concept. Hence, the book is highly recommended for practitioners that wants to read the book as a novel. The structure of the book makes it less user-friendly for academic work.

Delightful book, 07 Sep 2008
This more than just a description of a museum. This is also a journey into the history of the natural sciences and a part biography as well. Well illustarted, Richard Fortey describes an institution that is trying hard (and succeeding if the new Darwin Centre is any guide)to move with the times, make science accesible to the public, yet has more going on behind the scenes than we could ever give credit.

Anyone who lives in or visits London should pay more than one visit to this marvelous place, and thanks to this book they will be well briefed as to what goes and has gone on there.

Perfect introduction, 19 May 2008
This is probably the best introduction available, being lucid and succinct, it also takes just the right approach to the subject for the beginner. Instead of a chapter by chapter guide to the main thinkers or theories, Wolff cleverly structures the book in such a way that the student is gently coaxed into exploring the fundamental questions of political philosophy for himself. The author notes at the beginning that it is sometimes said that 'who gets what?' and 'who says so?' are the only two questions of importance in the subject. Whilst denying this to be entirely the case, Wolff puts these questions firmly into intial context by asking why we need the state at all and then proceeds to ask if we do need the state, who indeed should govern it? He then explores the issue of the distribution of goods before returning to the 'who says who gets what?' and by the end of the book the reader should be able to explore that question through the lenses of the competing theories of today, such as feminism or communitarianism.

I was lucky enough to have the author as one of my lecturers at university and, indeed, to take my tutorials in political philosophy in my final year. As a working class student with little self-esteem and who was failing abjectly to mix within the rarefied air of an elite university, Mr Wolff admirably strived to boost my confidence and his tutorials (and lectures) were a model of patience and clarity. This book is imbubed with these qualities throughout and thus can't be recommended highly enough. Whether you are an a-level student or a 1st year undergrad, this book will have you asking the right questions and position you to look in more detail at the major theories.

Easy to read short intro to political philosophy, 24 Feb 2008
Jonathon Wolff has written an excellent and easy to digest intro to political philosophy. It's not particularly long and doesn't provide an in depth look at many topics. But it covers off the basics and sets out the key ideas and people. He has also used a semi chronological layout which helps give a sense of the way thought has developed over time. A good resource for a student, but certainly readable enough for someone taking a casual interest in the subject area.

A critical but sympathetic guide to the persuasiveness of liberal political philosophy, 09 Sep 2007
Jonathan Wolff defines the territory of political philosophy by reference to the modern distinction between descriptive and normative political study; i.e. a descriptive process entails the collecting and ordering of factual data about politics, a normative process entails reasoned argument to the effect of purporting a theory on which to model politics. The latter normative process is the task of political philosophy.

Whilst an introduction to political philosophy might aspire to be a purely descriptive account of normative arguments (and criticisms), Wolff's book isn't neutral in this respect, assuming throughout a (in his words) `liberal individualist' outlook. As such his starting point in chapter one is the 17th century proto-liberal depiction of the State of Nature, and the pressing need to find a rational basis for political rights and obligations. After discussing in chapter two how best to justify political interference in otherwise free peoples lives, Wolff goes on in chapters 3, 4 and 5 to consider the question of who should govern, the significance of freedom as a political concept, and property distribution.

By the end of the book the reader will have impressed on him a rudimentary but subtle philosophical appreciation for the virtues of liberal democracy. Furthermore, he will have encountered many of the key thinkers in the development of the liberal tradition, including Locke, J.S. Mill and John Rawls. However, Wolff also ensures an awareness that a philosophical defence of politics is problematically never rigorous enough to overcome every sceptical argument. Indeed, Wolff is particularly sensitive to the persuasiveness of arguments for anarchy, and to the reality that politics is very rarely sustained by rational assent. He also in the final chapter discusses feminist objections.

The book is overall a well-measured, subtle and clear introduction to liberal political philosophy, ideal for students of the subject. I give it four stars rather than five because there is a wider world of political philosophy not much engaged with. Although Wolff is reasonably explicit about the purpose of the book as a liberal manual, his bias leaves liberal thought better intact than is often elsewhere concluded.


Very accessible and honestly engaging, 10 Nov 2006


As an upper sixth-form student hoping to pursue a partial degree in philosophy, this book has been an excellent introduction to the central issues of political philosophy.

Lucid, impartial text that avoids dry language and communicates ideas clearly and enjoyably make this book a highly recommended pick.

Good though incomplete, 22 Sep 2002
Enjoyable reading for those who want to become acquainted with some questions of political philosophy. However, no introduction to political philosophy is complete with only one page dedicated to Burke and Oakeshott and not a single reference to Popper or Isaiah Berlin. Nevertheless, pleasing.

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