planarlost's reviews
45 reviews

I found this book to be somewhat life-changing. The primary notion I derived from this story was the idea that forgiveness is more about healing the self than assuaging the guilt of others, and that forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean pardoning. That is, when we say we forgive someone, it doesn't mean that we accept or dismiss whatever wrongs they've committed, but rather, that we let go of our negative feelings toward them and what they've done. I think that this type of forgiveness is a powerful virtue and that many could learn a lot from the few people discussed in this text.

The book is decently written, and while self-control theory is useful in everyday criminological research (as a criminologist who has used it in published work), the emphasis the authors place on attempting to make this theory universal overextends its application and viability as a theory. For instance, Gottfredson and Hirschi largely dismiss the very existence of white-collar crime because their argument hinges on the fact that all crime is impulsive and therefore cannot be pre-planned or calculating; and, white-collar crime, as complex financial crime, must often necessarily involve these attributes. They essentially equate white-collar money laundering to a low-level cashier stealing from her or his register.

The authors could not comment on any crime such as terrorism, which often necessitates both extensive pre-planning and complex sociopolitical and/or religious motivations. This, along with a variety of other crimes, would defy their universal theory as they attempt to present it in this book. The work would've been much better had they not endeavored too boldly to make this theory universal, thereby forcing themselves to struggle to cram every sort of crime into one model, where many do not fit.

Again, while self-control theory as it is used commonly is incredibly useful, the universal version presented in this text is not, and does not represent the application that most criminologists employ in day-to-day research. When comparing the universal theory of self-control presented here to Hirschi's social bonds theory, I would argue that Hirschi would have been better off further developing social bonds theory. His argumentation was far better reasoned, there.

As a final aside, as someone who found it bizarre that Hirschi would go from making a compelling case on social bonds to the overextended and fallacious theoretical framework in this book, I'm told by someone familiar with the two that Gottfredson may have taken advantage of Hirschi to some extent in the working of this text, for the sake of drawing attention to the book by tacking Hirschi's name on. When this book came out, Hirschi was already somewhat advanced in age, and so probably not at his best.

Hearsay, of course.

Dawkins is a great biologist, and I do enjoy videos of his discussions and debates, but he is a middling philosopher and debater. The book is (unfortunately) reflective of the biased mentality of many new atheists and lacks depth, in parts, in the underlying research that supports its premises and rebuttals. Dawkins had evidently not read the works of Thomas Aquinas before writing this text, and appeared to be operating on secondhand accounts of his positions. He would benefit from engaging in the principle of charity by attacking steel man positions, rather than using the worst or most easily debunked variations of arguments by those of theistic persuasions.

I am an agnostic atheist and agreed with him on a number of points in a rudimentary sense. I enjoyed his wording of the argument, for example, that there are no Christian or Muslim children, only children with Christian or Muslim parents. That said, I don't think that the position of gnostic atheism (strong atheism) is intellectually honest, and Dawkins doesn't appear to be a fan of agnostic atheism (weak atheism). I hold that it is simply beyond our limited understanding as human beings to prove or disprove the existence of a god, even, or especially, if this god is not the deity of any of the sacred texts or bibles.

Similarly to Dawkins, I always try to follow the best available evidence for everything around me, but I would contend that he places too much trust in the sensory world and our limited understanding of its mechanisms and functions and forms. Asserting that our trust in science is not fundamentally like faith because it just isn't and there's "evidence" for it is intellectually dishonest. Science works well in worldly matters, if we trust our senses and proofs derived from them, but it isn't infallible, and neither are we. We should only ever be, I would say, 95% sure of anything. Dawkins appears to be 100% certain of his positions, as are many new atheists.

This is not genuine skepticism.

Regardless, the book is not without merit. If I had to rate it in "acts," I would argue that the beginning is the weakest section, the middle is the strongest, and the last third is the second strongest. I think that the text might serve to help neophytes to atheism formulate their stands more clearly, and it may work to drive theists to question their positions. Self-scrutiny is healthy and one marker of an educated mind. Where Dawkins lacks in philosophical prowess at times, he excels in accessible language, rhetorical flare, and his undeniable knowledge of biology.

This book is a detailed, insightful look into the white power movement and should be read and discussed in every high school. It illuminates all of the tricks and tools used by white supremacists online and offline. It might serve as a sort of wake-up call for those falling into the fallacious, anti-scientific trappings of "race realism" and prejudicial hate.

This book tells the otherwise almost untold and ignored story of the anti-abortion terrorism of the fundamentalist Christian right. Whether one is Christian or atheist or Muslim, pro-choice or anti-abortion, this is a worthwhile read. It is difficult to fathom that one could consider themselves "pro-life" and then be willing to do what the people described in this text did without being crushed by the weight of their cognitive dissonance.

Well-written and well-formatted, this book is a fantastic look into the available information related to women in the Viking Age. It is cogent and concise and delivers bit after bit of evidence without wasting a word on fluff or filler. She doesn't speculate wildly or make unscientific conclusions and sticks to the facts and reasonable consensus. Throughout the chapters are also images of interesting artifacts such as jewelry and gravestones.

I can't think of anything I would change about the text.

My only comment to potential readers is that, while Jesch does an amazing job of giving you enough information to comprehend everything she discusses, she can't describe it all in encyclopedic detail. So, if you are a neophyte to Viking history, this book will leave you hungry to read more!

This book is enjoyable and well-written, and contains a lot of useful information about evolution. It covers almost every argument in favor of evolution that one could imagine. My only critique of the book is that Coyne uses the "bad design" argument early on, and I object modestly to this point, as someone who believes in evolution. While I don't think the "design" of the body is proof of intelligent design or favors creationism, I don't think "bad design" necessarily works against it, either.

The human body may be a lot like coding. Sometimes, things just work and we leave it alone. Sometimes, removing or changing one line or instance can have unforeseen consequences on the rest of the code. Coyne uses the example of the circuitous path of the laryngeal nerve, which is commonly pointed to, as an example of bad design. Yet, we know that this nerve innervates other parts of the anatomy on its path, and that innervation itself is complicated and still not wholly understood by neuronatomists. He argues that the long path of the laryngeal nerve makes it more susceptible to damage, and yet if it connected directly to the brain from the larynx, whatever it would have innervated along its former path would still require innervation. Therefore, it would seem to me that there would just be something else there potentially susceptible to similar damage.

I think the case for evolution is powerful enough that speculative and subjective ideas about "bad design," when there is still so much we don't know, even about the brain, are unnecessary. I favor abandoning the argument and sticking to the other substantial proofs of evolution. Biogeography alone makes a better case than most metaphysical or any "bad design" arguments.

I would rate this book a 4.5/5 if I could. Great work.

This book is dense in places and, in my opinion, isn't a good introductory book on the subject of evolution (and, perhaps, isn't meant to be). If I had to choose between this or another text to initiate someone, I would probably pick Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True over this text (likewise from 2009 and referenced by Dawkins in this work). If I had to compare any two books by biologists on evolution, I think Coyne's makes a better case and is more general where it needs to be. That said, as a supplementary reading on evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth is worth a read.

I don't think many people could deny that Dawkins is a knowledgeable biologist with some rhetorical flare.

The book was fascinating, well-written, and made me chuckle on more than one occasion.

It's sometimes more a history of people in science than anything else, but the way the author moves seamlessly from topic to topic in a coherent fashion is enjoyable to read, as are the anecdotes. I've read that Bryson is occasionally loose with facts in other works, so I did fact-check periodically as I perused. Everything I happened to research was correct, either in the past or the present. That is not to say that the entire book is correct in every fact, but everything I personally reviewed was sound.

Some of the facts presented in this book, as noted on Wikipedia, are now outdated due to new discoveries in science since its publish. I give the book a 4/5 for this reason. I would give an updated version of this book a 5/5. It's closer to a 5/5 than a 3/5.

A thoughtful look at American criminal justice with substantial prescriptions for reform. My only objection to the book is that, in some places, the author lumps women's treatment by the criminal justice system in with racial minorities under the umbrella term of minorities, and this isn't necessarily the case. Women, particularly white women, often receive lighter and shorter sentences than men, especially men of non-white races. Other than that, which could be corrected with a little qualification or differentiation, I think this should be required reading for U.S. politicians.