Comments on: Reviews of DEATH!

By: Akusai

Akusai — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:05:34 +0000

Sorry for the extreme lateness, but I finally read the book and posted my own meager review at my blog Action Skeptics. In short, it's fantastic. You should write lots more books.

By: Phil Plait

Phil Plait — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:22:26 +0000

And another: Guys Lit Wire. I like this one a lot.

By: Phil Plait

Phil Plait — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:35:01 +0000

Two more: Wired Magazine (!) and Duffbert.

By: Some Canadian Skeptic

Some Canadian Skeptic — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:54:12 +0000

WAY too late, but here’s mine.

http://somecanadianskeptic.blogspot.com/2008/11/death-from-this-guys-blog.html

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:14:08 +0000

The book rocks! Well written, just the right amount of humor and Phil always gives you statistics on how unlikely things are to actually happen so you don’t get too worried from reading it. I’ve only got about halfway through the book before I found issues with the Kindle version. In a couple sections of the book the DRM would fail and cause issues with accessing any other DRM content until I reset the device. Amazon is in the process of correcting the issue so I am anxiously waiting for them to repulbish it so I can finish the book.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:09:39 +0000

Phil,

My 18 month old is totally fascinated by your book. He keeps picking it up, taking the cover off, going through it, taking out my bookmark…. And then he babbles after looking through it. Since he’s just learning how to talk, I can’t quite figure out if he likes it or has found an error. I think he likes it because you talk about different ways to make a “really big mess” and that any mess he makes pales in comparison.

By: Leander

Leander — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:31:37 +0000

I’m geetting way too worked up about this, but yeah, you’re right Legion. It’s annoying as hell. “Oh, let’s just ignore that it wasn’t even a review and that he just made a comment in good spirit that anybody with a rudimentary form of humour should be able to appreciate. Let’s just keep up the division between ‘us and them’. Let’s ignore that they’re about being open-minded and dialogue between different world views, screw that – we need to maintain our identity as rational, sceptical people after all ! Otherwise, what else would protect us from this mysterious, big universe and all these dumb & dangerous people who don’t experience it the way we do ? God (oopsy !) forbid we chill a little.” Man.

By: Legion

Legion — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 02:21:46 +0000

Agreed, Leander. It is hilarious that a ‘scientist’ has to stoop to conjuring up a straw man opponent to fulfil some deep-seated need for a wonted mythical dualism between a) science; and b) things dubbed antiscience. I assume only ‘goofy antiscientists’ give reviews which highlight the irony of metaphorical explications in the narratives of ye olde thin-skinned champions of all that is True and reasonable physicalist Cosmoverse as appreciated by ‘proper’ storytellers.

By: Nails67

Nails67 — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:35:08 +0000

Book signings, anywhere?

By: Gary Ansorge

Gary Ansorge — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:50:53 +0000

Leander:

Yes. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough in your comment to be worth my time,,,

Grand Lunar: Proton decay is highly speculative. The Standard Model says they don’t however, we still have a lot to learn. Let me get back to you in, say, a decade or two,,,

Gary 7

By: Grand Lunar

Grand Lunar — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:39:01 +0000

I recently finished it, and loved it!

I have to wonder, though; how certain is it that protons will break down? Isn’t there a chance thay won’t, and thus we’ll have a different End of the Universe senerio?

By: Leander

Leander — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:36:10 +0000

@Gary

”Acid? What? Are you lost in the 90s?”

Yeah, ignore ”…some ayahuasca, do some ritual magick or WHATEVER” and pick the one that gives you a lukewarm, almost snappy, totally off-topic comeback. Typical, ‘sceptic, rational’ procedure…pick the ‘weakest’ part and attack that one, don’t bother to deal with the rest.

”Done that. Still rational!”

What exactly is your point ? Have you even read what I wrote after the recommendation ?

By: Gary Ansorge

Gary Ansorge — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:12:52 +0000

I’m about half way through the book and have found two editing errors so far. Where do you want those sent???

Leander: Acid? What? Are you lost in the 90s? Been there. Done that. Still rational!

GAry 7

By: Leander

Leander — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:24:18 +0000

Okay, I’m not writing this to defend the ”goofy antiscience guy”, I’m pretty sure he can do that himself. The behaviour shown on this blog entry, by supposedly rational people, is just so mind-boggling that I can’t keep my mouth shut.

As far as I understand it, an essential asset of sceptics is to critically, rationally look at things and then come to a conclusion. What I ask myself, and you Phil, is this: How can anyone who actually takes a rational, critical look at thedailygrail.com and the posts by the people running the site assume that they, or specifically Greg, are antiscience ? It should be clear to a five-year-old that they’re interested in news from both sides of the fence, be it ‘real science’ or the fringe areas…and that they condemn or embrace neither, but are interested in open-mindedness and dialogue.

Anybody failing to see that lacks essential characteristics of a sceptic. Because either you filter their ‘agenda’ through your preconceived views, or you come to conclusions about it without having examined it. Both entirely unscientific and unworthy of a real sceptic.

Furthermore, do you really lack the sense of humour to appreciate his words about anthropomorphizing the universe for what they were – a tongue-in-cheek comment in regards to your role as sceptic ? Something completely devoid of any offensive spirit ? Or are you so afraid that one of your peers might think you were *actually* anthropomorphizing the universe (golly !), that you had to make it look like he was not getting your literary metaphor ?

And oh, it still eludes me how his post was a review (he stated he hadn’t read your book yet), and uhm, how exactly it was a bad one. You’re a little hard to follow there.

What the hell with referring to the commenters though ? Did you do that to make him seem even less respectable than you attempted with what you called him, or do you actually think we all should start to judge writers and their writings by the comments they get now ? I hope you don’t, this would put you in a pretty bad light considering none of these supposedly rational suckups here had the guts to point out how off the mark you are when it comes to simple tongue-in-cheek humour, or open-mindedly looking at a webpage.

Geez guys, get those sticks out of your backsides, take some acid, some ayahuasca, do some ritual magick or whatever…and when you come back still a sceptic – awesome ! Then we’re gonna have great grounds for a fruitful discussion. But ridiculing and denying everything from your arm chairs that doesn’t fit your narrow reality tunnels, that’s as far from the scientific spirit as you can get.

Have a great weekend.

By: Sunner

Sunner — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:14:15 +0000

I’m slowly working my way through the book.
Not slowly because it’s bad or boring, but due to time contraints, speaking of which, Phil, you’re screwing with the quality of my work, this Monday I stayed up far too late reading your book, which turned me into a zombie the next day at work.

That said, excellent book, easy to get into, the traditional BA mix of humor and facts, with a bit of sarcasm here and there

By: Scott G.

Scott G. — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:27:49 +0000

I had no idea that Harold Geller did AstroCast! I’ll have to peek in his office next time I wander past and see if the book is still there.

By: amphiox

amphiox — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:25:27 +0000

Hmm. . . A man-made disaster that would fit into the theme of the book?

Well, one could posit a future war between earth and space colonies. Though it’s really just a variation on the “alien invasion” theme.

By: shane

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:53:44 +0000

Poseidon Adventure

I still remember reading the Mad Comic version as a kid… The Poopside Down Adventure. Heh.

By: José

José — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:45:46 +0000

“there is no possibility of manmade disaster entertained whatsoever”

I totally agree with this. It’s the same reason I hated the Poseidon Adventure. I still can’t believe they couldn’t find a way to work a single forest fire into that film.

By: shane

shane — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:31:06 +0000

The 3 star Amazon dude doesn’t like SF by the look of it. Thumbs down for that part but he then says “there is no possibility of manmade disaster entertained whatsoever”. Wow, way to miss the point.

Just finished the chapter on GRBs. Going down to the hardware store to see if I can by a few kilometres of lead shielding….

By: Lugosi

Lugosi — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:00:56 +0000

There’s still a print magazine out there with a circulation over one million!?!?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:48:59 +0000

I just finished last night.I am going to read it again in about a week. 1) to digest what I did understand and 2) to wrap my head around some of the concepts in the book that I am not to up to speed on.

Awsome…

By: Rich M

Rich M — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:36:55 +0000

In fact we have already shot a response to a question likely to appear in our December Episode where Dr. Geller is show perusing through your book. That in response to a question about the Sun and when it will consume the Earth.

By: hale_bopp

hale_bopp — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:00:37 +0000

Of course, I read the one by the “goofy antiscience guy” first…you really need to learn not to link to those

By: Mike Torr

Mike Torr — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:52:21 +0000

I’m halfway through the last chapter now, and it’s been a wonderful read. Phil has put a lot into this book. I especially liked the chapter on stars and the different elements in fusion reactions, because it explained stellar behaviour very clearly and in a fascinating way.