I have known Dr. Thomasson since 1985 when we were in the undergraduate philosophy program at Duke, and I consider her a close friend. While my lowly bachelor's degree in philosophy is too limited to understand the nuances of this book (I decided to leave philosophy for the more lucrative but equally vague and abstract career running an Internet firm), I applaud that she tries to defend common sense -- namely that ordinary objects like tables and chairs do exist. That she is bucking the prevailing fad in philosophy -- that such ordinary objects do not exist -- is all the more reason for her to pursue her work, of which this book is just a small piece.
Amie and I have had many conversations about the role of philosophy in society, about whether it is still useful today or whether it's limited to academics writing ever more irrelevant papers to bolster their careers while the world moves forward without them. Does it solve today's problems? Do philosophers even care? Is pragmatism a dirty concept to be avoided, one that can only interfere with the sanctity of pure thought? But then, why would one have gone into metaphysics in the first place if pragmatism was a valued trait? Those people would probably have studied ethics instead, which is what I studied while I was at Duke. Call me pragmatic, I don't care.
When one follows an argument down a rabbit hole that ends up at a conclusion that defies common sense, one might want to question whether something went very wrong somewhere down the line. This is exactly what Amie does in her book. To which I say, bravo.