You don't need some pretentious ass telling you what's great. I agree with the reviews sick of the shakespeare reference. Shakespeare was good, but many of the writers on here are alot better. In responsoe to one of the reviewers
"Science for Bloom (and that other Bloom, too) is anthropology - psychology, the social stuff that may strive to apply scientific methods but is far from natural science; and he (they) show, in their proclivity for cabalism and antipathy for imperial, dull and wrong "science", that they have, like the majority of Americans, never taken a single course in biology, evolution, geology, physics, cosmology; never read, say, Wilson, Darwin, Dennett, Lyle, Hawking, Weinberg, Sagan. Their "gnosticism" is a cheesy wriggling out of of both religion and science. If he/they want to make any reference to dogmas of science, he/they need to understand it a little. Science is not what they think it is."
I agree that social sciences are almost pseudo sciences. All the good stuff in psych is just common sense. And yes, I have taken several courses in math, Physics, astronomy, biology and chemistry.(I even made it to state for biology in hs). I have also taken courses in philosophy and theology. I feel, unlike bloom, that science ad religion are very important. Science is not perfect though. Many of the great scientists you listed had atheistic agendas. Men such as Hawking are uncomfortable with the creational notions of the big bang, so they are always devising some ridiculous way to get around it. I think Hawking is probably overrated anyway because of his wheelchair condition.