Rating: 
Summary: What is Science?
Review: What to we know? What do we hope to know? What do we think we know? Sagan takes us through the tenets of science as an exploration of knowledge. He raises questions about truth, faith, and understanding. The book is easy to read. Sagan brings science down to the ordinary person's level. I would recomend this book to anyone.
Rating: 
Summary: Not bad, but some problems
Review: I can't quite share the general enthusiasm for the book. For starters, it's a collection of disparate essays, many of which are only very remotely related to the title of the book. As the chapters wear on, they become less and less like essays and more like piles of notes hastily edited and pasted under any title that seemed plausible. But this is stylistic. My deeper concerns follow.(1) The prophet of science has very little curiosity about the scientific method itself. The names of the great philosophers of science, Popper and Kuhn for example, never appear, even when they would have helped his case. He oddly lumps Aristotle with Plato as an enemy of the scientific method. (2) He flirts with the problem of religious faith within a scientific way of looking at the world, but he never confronts it head on. Many times I felt like saying, "Come on, Carl, what ARE you saying about faith?" (3) The prince of reason occasionally shows himself capable of shabby rhetorical tricks: "Isn't CETI worth one attack helicopter?" (4) His brief remarks about nuclear winter show that he never came to terms with his sin against science itself during the affair: he publicized and defended the conclusion before the data were in and before they could be reviewed by other scientists. (5) He doesn't make enough of the fact that often scientific data are difficult to interpret and that honest scientists can disagree. (6) Related to the last point, his worst moment in the book comes when instead of stating the reasons he and Edward Geller disagreed on, among other things, SDI, he resorts to ad hominem. In the chapter, Geller is called "fanatic," "desperate," and Sagan insinuates that Geller was responsible for the revocation of Oppenheimer's security credentials, though precisely what that has to do with science is unclear. He's utterly contemptuous of the claim that SDI spent the Soviet Union into collapse. (Surely it had SOMETHING to do with it.) Anyway . . . I tend to read Sagan like C.S.Lewis: they both write with a certain superficial plausibility. It's so enjoyable to be carried along by it that I don't want to stop and consider whether what they're saying really makes complete sense. For some reason, this book just didn't have that effect. As a writer, Sagan had better moments.
Rating:
Summary: EXCELLENT WORK
Review: One of the best Science books I have ever read. I would highly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in learning Science or to know the reality behind PsuedoScience. This book will teach you how to use your brain, which we rarely do!
Rating:
Summary: The Demon-Haunted World : Science As A Candle In The Dark
Review: The book writes about some of the great thinkers of our history. Darwin ,Paine, Jefferson, and their contribution to to the worlds history & science. The book covers not only our physical evolution, but our cultural evolution through history. You can see how some of the unbelievable behavior that people have justified through religion. Also by creating fears of the unknown to create beliefs that suit greed & power.
Rating:
Summary: The louis haunted world
Review: Why is it that so many people think that there are "Two sides to every story" Even when the evidence is stacked in favor of a specific point of view. I'm sorry Mr. louis but all opinions are not equal. Everybodies point of view is not equaly backed by the evidence. Don't you care about the truth Mr. smith? It matters whether A medical treatment works or not. It matters if you waste your life on a good sounding supernatural fantasy. Real wisdom and intelligence involve being in touch with what is likly to be true. Your assertion that we live in world haunted by reason is absurd and scary. More people need to realize that evidence and true actually matter. I applaud Dr. Sagan for clearly pointing this out
Rating: 
Summary: the science haunted world
Review: Sagan has written a book not on skepticism but debunking. His entire book is one long tirade on what he calls pseudo science. As one finishes the book, I got the impression that anything that doesnt fit the "scientific" paradigm, is not worth considering. This is a dangerous view to say the least. We know there is truth and that one must look at all the evidence to find it. True scientific method follows this principle. This book is one mans opinion on what reality is. But to claim it as scientific doesnt make sense. Who said the scientific view of reality is the only correct one? Buddhists believe that reality can be gained by direct insight. All science can be reduced to skepticism. I agree with skepticism, since there are two sides to anything. Yet Sagan denies the evidence for the subjects he critiques, or dismisses it as irrational or impossible. Thus he portrays science as a candle in a dark irrational world, enlightning us toward the truth. In fact, all it does is enlighten us to what others consider to be true, but may not be true at all. The danger in Sagans book is the same danger there is in any book that presents only one side of the evidence, people believe it without questioning it. Science is not immune to skepticism. Yet the information presented in Sagans book critiques the paranormal while extolling science as our saviour. A true skeptic would question science itself and its methods, which many scientists do not do. Science as portrayed in this book is not science at all, but religion. It is religion because sagan and others believe it without hardly a question. A true scientist is a great skeptic, questioning and doubting everything and examining everything. I doubt there are many scientists like that today. Sagans book surely does not qualify as such. But he gives us an insight into his thinking and the "science" haunted world.
Rating:
Summary: A Brilliant Mind, A Brilliant Book
Review: It was because of my interest in what Sagan term's "Pseudoscience" that a die-hard skeptic suggested that I read SCIENCE AS A CANDLE IN THE DARK as a reality check. While I don't agree with 100% of Sagan's perspective, I respect the man and his work. This invaluable book should be a primer for Humanities and Science courses, especially in the context of the Post Cold War Era where the "Next" culture searches for direction and meaning. Sagan's work provides American Culture with a much needed historical context for growth, poking and prodding in the areas where he challenges the quality of our thinking and insists that we are offered the choice to take either the high road of critical thinking, or the low road of a "dumbed down" entertainment-obsessed brave new world. The sections on Edward Teller and Frederick Douglas were especially illuminating. Don't miss out on finding out more about them as Sagan presents biographical data that will blow your mind. Where I disagree with Sagan is his thesis at the beginning of the book; the generalization, "Occasionally we hallucinate. We are error-prone" hardly accounts for ALL phenomena, but then Sagan is quick to respond, "But of course I might be wrong," modeling the kind of good scientist he advocates others explore becoming. And while I find his explanation of the UFO phenomena of the 1940s through the present to be the most cogent arguement against the reality of "alien abductions," I don't find Sagan advocating the study of other phenomena, like evidential mediumship. There doesn't appear to be any room for study, he's summed up the likely origins for all pseudoscience: "Miracles are attested, but what if they're instead some mix of charlatanry, unfamiliar states of consciousness, misapprehensions of natural phenomena, and mental illness?" The beauty of this book is that Sagan posits more than he seeks to have the last word, and that should engender the respect of skeptic and pseudoscientist alike. I loved this book, and Sagan's wonderful, subtle humor -- don't miss this rare and informative treat.
Rating:
Summary: brilliant
Review: I've taken in more about science from this one book alone,than what i ever did from my 12 years at school,carl sagan was without doubt a master of his trade.for somebody like myself who doesnt read to many books i found this very easy to follow,where everything was explained in the simplest of ways.the book has tons of scientific information that often left awe inspired,i found myself reading paragraphs and sometimes pages two or three times just trying to take in what was being written (not that im considerd thick you understand).ufos,aliens,telepathy,seances,fairies and atlantis are just some of issues tackled.a magic read and recomended to anyone with any intrest in science.
Rating:
Summary: Another Excellent Book By Author Of Cosmos
Review: Another excellent piece of work by Carl Sagan. This book is a must read for everyone. Dr. Sagan has done a marvelous job examining how pseudo-science works and what are it's effects. At times he seems irritated due to the fact that scientists of the past have not worked towards popularizing science and I think he is totally justified for that. Today, a lot of problems which scientists and scientific organizations face are due to the indifferent and elitist behavior of scientists of the past. On the whole as good a book as any other by Carl Sagan.
Rating:
Summary: Carl Sagan's best work and a must for everyone
Review: Society has become increasingly superstitious and religious, and science education and critical thinking are ridiculously lacking. Carl Sagan did what I wish all scientists could do: he presented rational and critical thinking in an accessible manner. He made science fun and wondrous, which so many people forget it is. "Demon-Haunted World" is one of the best books I have ever read. This was one book I could not put down. If more scientists had Mr. Sagan's charm and writing talent, we might have an easier time keeping kids interested in science, and getting them to think rationally.
| 
