Negative Positive
Title: A dishonest treatment of facts
Review: This book is an attempt to treat paranormal phenomena using the tools of science. However, solid statistical evidence is overwhelmed by telling the reader amusing stories. The fact that selective reporting accounts for virtually all the strange claims by Dean Radin becomes obvious if we look at reviews of this book, for example. Radin wrote that none (except of prof. Scargle) gave him less than 4 stars. Radin "overlooked" the review by the "reader from Pittsburgh" called "one good chapter" which gave him 3 stars. Furthermore, Radin wrote a review for himself and got 5 stars for free in this way. My review (and I guess that many others) were not published several times. This type of "selective reporting" occurs not only when people judge this book but also in paranormal phenomena generally and the book does not take this dishonesty into the account at all and treats uncritically the claims by people who really wish paranormal phenomena to exist.
Is the review positive or negative? 