| |||||||||||||||
|
Amazon.co.uk Trade-In Store
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
His explanations are written in clear, easy to understand language. For example, this book has one of the best descriptive accounts of the relationship between stellar temperature, size, colour and brightness that I have seen.
I do have some niggles. For example, Upgren's staement that mag 9.5 is "too faint even to be seen with binoculars", will raise some eyebrows, but I suggest that given the quality of the rest of the book, such errors can be forgiven, especially from one who is primarily a naked-eye observer writing a naked-eye book.
An excellent read!
Buying into the religion hates science paradigm, the author makes sure the reader knows that no one "held Copernicus and his theory [heliocentrisim] in lower esteem" than Martin Luther. The author claims this theory was a competing worldview on "somewhat equal ground" to Christianity. He goes on to say one [science] is based on "testing and questioning" while the other [Christianity] is based on "blind faith."
It is obvious, the author, Arthur Upgreen, has never studied the science versus religion debate closely. If he had, he would have never made such claims right after quoting the
works of Christians like Kepler, Galileo and Copernicus. Nor does he detail the errors that led to the geocentrisim interpretation/theory to begin with. Nor the fact that
Christianity has never been based upon "blind faith."
If geocentrisim and the Galileo Affair of centuries past continue to be such authors' best evidences for their belief, then they don't have much ground to stand on. Compare these and what few other "antiscience" events one finds in orthodox, rational Christianity to its pro-science history and scholars,
one finds the former doesn't even show up on the charts.
Why write all this all on one paragraph? Because there is so much bad science out there as there is, and so many don't like science, simply because people like this don't test what they believe.
|