Customer Review

2 of 5 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars unconvincing writing style but good ideas, 19 Jan 2014
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Hardcover)
This is an interesting and courageous book given the rather abusive attacks launched by the defenders of evolutionary orthodoxy. Its original idea is to be commended but it possesses many weaknesses. Most of all it is not convincing, one never feels that the author really fully believes what he is talking about. Why is this so? It is the writing style which is convoluted, confusing and needlessly tedious at times. Occasionally it blooms with a few interesting pages where the argument grows and convinces the reader. Unfortunately this does not happen anywhere near enough. Nonetheless, the ideas concerning value, consciousness etc are good ones when it comes explaining them using current scientifically accepted arguments using the mechanistic, reductionistic, evolutionary perspective which is the only acceptable approach allowed by the scientific orthodoxy. The book does appear to get a little confused between the evolutionary type ideas and the older materialist and idealist philosophies expressed since the enlightenment. I believe that this book could have been much better and far more convincing if it had been better written and with more passion.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 27 Feb 2014 01:07:33 GMT
Hi Frank

With ll due respect, I would have found it much easier to take this review seriously if you had adopted a less pompous and more honest tone. For example, if you had written the more direct comment:

"Most of all I did not find it convincing. I never felt that the author really fully believes what he is talking about"

Rather than the pseudo clairvoyant claim:
"
Most of all it is not convincing [not to you, maybe], one never feels that the author really fully believes what he is talking about [so if you mean "I" why not say so?]

By the way, what do you know about Nagel's previous contributions to this debate? And what qualifications do you have that nabled you to judge whether he knows and/or believes what he is talking about>
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer


Location: Manchester, Lancashire, UK

Top Reviewer Ranking: 2,679