Rating: 
Summary: Critical thinking: the most precious thing you have
Review: The Skeptic's Dictionary-based upon the popular website of the same name-is one of the best resources we have today to counter the current cultural embrace of pseudoscience and hogwash. Robert Carroll examines ideas and critiques them on their merits. Moreover, he understands the logical fallacies that can compel perfectly normal people to accept silly ideas that they do not know how to analyze.The fact remains that superstition and pseudoscience are more than quaint little beliefs that can be laughed off and dismissed as unworthy of serious attention. They are demonstrably dangerous when allowed to take root. With every phony telephone psychic who rips off gullible callers for millions of dollars; with every pair of fringe fundamentalist parents who allow their children to die because they choose prayer over taking an ailing child to the hospital; with every whittling-away of accurate science education by fundamentalist ideologues, a resource like this that encourages critical thinking-the most precious and important thing a rational human being has at his or her disposal-proves its worth. There will always be some people who prefer the comforts of the mystical to the often hard lessons of coming to terms with reality. But in the latter process, character is built, and life is all the more rewarding and lovable for it.
Rating:
Summary: The ultimate compendium for rational readers
Review: This is a lively, opinionated, common-sense book debunking myths, hoaxes, superstitions, pseudoscience, the occult and more. Fun to read, too.
Rating: 
Summary: very nearly a great book
Review: This is one of those books where you pick it up to look something up, then find yourself flipping through it to check out other stuff and, before you know it, an hour or two has gone by. There is a lot of good stuff in here, so much so that I hate to criticize it for its few shortcomings, but here goes. ALCHEMY-- The section could be a lot longer and more in-depth.
ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS-- He is apparently unaware of Thor Heyerdahl and his crew making an Easter Island statue.
ANOMALOUS LUMINOUS PHENOMENA-- He doesn't debunk!
CASTANEDA-- He is apparently unaware of Richard DeMille's numerous books and articles debunking Castaneda.
GURDJIEFF-- He too readily dismisses him as a crank and con-man, but then again, I'm biased.
LOCH NESS MONSTER-- Could have been more in-depth. Dealing with the Dinsdale film, for example.
JINNI and JOGINI-- I'm not sure what these entries are doing here.
PYRAMIDIOCY-- Instead of being objective, he goes off on a rant here. Odd.
SPEED READING-- Doesn't adequately deal with all the aspects of this subject (sub-vocalization, for example), and is apparently unaware of John Stuart Mill being able to read as fast as he could turn the pages.
SUBLIMINAL-- Doesn't adequately deal with the neurological aspects of this phenomenon. Despite these problems, I would recommend this book highly, and it's a welcome addition to my library. 4 1/2 stars.
Rating:
Summary: very nearly a great book
Review: This is one of those books where you pick it up to look something up, then find yourself flipping through it to check out other stuff and, before you know it, an hour or two has gone by. There is a lot of good stuff in here, so much so that I hate to criticize it for its few shortcomings, but here goes. ALCHEMY-- The section could be a lot longer and more in-depth.
ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS-- He is apparently unaware of Thor Heyerdahl and his crew making an Easter Island statue.
ANOMALOUS LUMINOUS PHENOMENA-- He doesn't debunk!
CASTANEDA-- He is apparently unaware of Richard DeMille's numerous books and articles debunking Castaneda.
GURDJIEFF-- He too readily dismisses him as a crank and con-man, but then again, I'm biased.
LOCH NESS MONSTER-- Could have been more in-depth. Dealing with the Dinsdale film, for example.
JINNI and JOGINI-- I'm not sure what these entries are doing here.
PYRAMIDIOCY-- Instead of being objective, he goes off on a rant here. Odd.
SPEED READING-- Doesn't adequately deal with all the aspects of this subject (sub-vocalization, for example), and is apparently unaware of John Stuart Mill being able to read as fast as he could turn the pages.
SUBLIMINAL-- Doesn't adequately deal with the neurological aspects of this phenomenon. Despite these problems, I would recommend this book highly, and it's a welcome addition to my library. 4 1/2 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: What is this about?
Review: This review of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) is astoundingly off base and has little to do with the actually method. First of all it is not a "test" although for ease of conversation is often referred to this way. This fundamental error is somewhat understandable but starts the critique off on a suspect foot. The Rorschach is a method for better understanding numerous personality constructs (among other things) but the author is claiming it is measuring things that it is simply not intended to sample. The Rorschach is not left up to the examiner's interpretation, it is not a measure of creative expression, is not supposed to predict "committed actions", and outside of movement responses (M, m, and FM) it is not a projective test. People who understand the method know this. The blots do not need to be 100% "formless" or ambiguous! Where does the author get this? Why the interest in form? What about the other percepts? Now we really get outlandish because the author calls the blots "superfluous" based on his own assumption that the "therapist" is doing the interpretation. This is not the case but I suppose he meant to single out people who give the test but don't know how to administer it. It gets worse because it appears that the author is over focused on content ("I see a bumble bee", or "That's an arrogant know-it-all looking back at me"). The RIM is not all about the content! Can the author guess what the majority of the RIM is actually about? Even worse is that a single variable is NEVER used to make grand over generalizations. The "Dawes 148" reference (It would be nice to see the year here) is a good example of this repeated problem. The power of the RIM is the combination of clusters and signs. Structural summary man, structural summary! The whole idea of "deceiving others" by making up responses demonstrates further lack of understanding on the author's part. Don't you have to know what the RIM is doing so you can deceive or alter a response in a desired way? The fact that the author thinks the test is all about content presents further problems with his theory that you can "deceive" the "test". If the author does not know the fundamentals about the RIM how is a layperson supposed to deceive it? Remember, it is not a traditional test. You cannot cheat. This brings me to my last point, not that we have time to exhaust the misconceptions printed in the author's work. The idea that a person can give "good or bad responses" is overwhelming and convincing evidence that the author has no business writing about the RIM. The RIM does not, nor does the examiner label these responses good or bad. We'll leave the labeling up to the author. Besides, the subject's responses are not compared to the examiner's interpretations. Again, just wrong. It is an open-ended method with no good, bad, right, or wrong responses. This is clearly told to people before administration and has no bearing on scoring. Is this guy even talking about the Rorschach? Critiques like this seem to be attempts to fill space. They certainly have little to do with the actual Rorschach. I don't mind constructive criticism but I would expect the criticism to be informed and for the sake of education - in the ball park! This work is a disaster.
Rating:
Summary: Antidote for gullibility.
Review: Unfortunately this sort of book is still an exception in the current Age Of Disinformation. Probably will not change the minds of people who believe in UFO, ESP or God, but is still a relief for the rest of us to see that ignorance has not conquered the world. YET.
The author must be congratulated for this initiative. But must be weeping with such an imbecile attack as that the word "Love" shoud be listed "since skeptics don't believe in anything that cannot be measured in a lab". Phew!
| 
