The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

"We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." (p. 26) The omen above was put to print in 1995 and echoed throughout Carl Sagan's prolific career as both practitioner and communicator of science. Swathed in a world so joined at the hip to science and technology, Sagan saw denial and ignorance of science as the greatest risks to human well-being and continuity. Is the past here to stay? In the US at least, conditions are none too sunny. Nearly 7 in 10 believe that angels and demons are active in the world. 61% and 48% believe in ghosts and UFOs of extraterrestrial origin, respectively. More than half doubt the scientific consensus on climate change, while one third of the public still waffles on evolution. And over half believe that God influences the outcome of sporting events. Dr. Sagan passed away just one year after the publication of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, and in the decades that have come and gone since his oracular swan song, the American electorate seems as awash as ever in pseudoscience and superstition. As momentous, relevant, and urgent though Sagan's message was, its infiltration remains woefully incomplete. The venerated astronomer, astrophysicist, and cosmologist regularly popularized his lifelong passion for replacing delusion with fact-sensitive grandeur. His 1980 docuseries Cosmos: A Personal Voyage was such a groundbreaking moment in broadcasting because it showcased the degree to which science, presented properly, could warm hearts and inspire minds. In The Demon-Haunted World, Sagan continued this saga, with his inimitable style intact and with a dire focus on communicating how science undergirds the modern world, its co-dependent relationship with democracy, and, amid the tenured struggle for progress and survival, how it's so often overshadowed by uncritical thinking and politicized agenda. The Method The uninitiated often maintain a warped view of science, that of an arcane discipline requiring superheroic intellect out to devour devout beliefs. But as Sagan spent a lifetime making clear, science isn't just for scientists. Every one of us can revel in its fruits, be won over by its infectious appetite for discovery. Most important, we can all benefit from applying the philosophical principles on which it rests to our everyday life. What are those principles? The twinship of skepticism and trained observation fueled by an overarching preference for the truth, however inconvenient, over the psychologically comfortable. Science is far more than cold collection of data and interpretation; it is a way of thinking, an approach to the world that values the questions as much as the answers and has built-in tools for prioritizing both. "Some may consider this an overbroad characterization, but to me every time we exercise self-criticism, every time we test our ideas against the outside world, we are doing science. When we are self-indulgent and uncritical, when we confuse hopes and facts, we slide into pseudoscience and superstition." (p. 27) Donning this intellectual apparatus full-tilt may occasion us to revisit ideas we once accepted without any skeptical filter. It may require that we discard some beliefs long held dear. But in taking the plunge, Sagan reassures us, we often find that nature is far more clever, subtle, and adept at inspiring wonder than our fallible pattern-seeking devices can imagine. "Better the hard truth than the comforting fantasy. And in the final tolling it often turns out that the facts are more comforting than the fantasy...There are wonders enough out there without our inventing any." (pp. 59, 204) While this may be new cognitive territory for some of us, the benefits are too vast to pass up. A sharp mind keeps the charlatans at bay. Key to how science delivers the goods has been its unmasking of natural processes to arrive at natural explanation. We may recall how our ancestors ascribed various features and bugs of our existence to supernatural causality: witches inflicted sickness with their spells; rain was a divine reward, drought a divine punishment; earthquakes were just the local god(s) stomping around in fits of rage; the "rising" and "setting" of the sun was controlled by the whims of the neighborhood deity; short-period comets presaged the fall of state empires. The advent of science severed this agency-focused paradigm. We learned that the ebbs and flows of celestial bodies mind predictable, calculable patterns. We discovered that weather events are beholden to entirely terrestrial phenomena. We found that transmissible disease is carried by microbes and other agents in our environment. We learned that the right medicine can cure an illness. The implications were radical, for if an illness was caused by the spell of a witch there is no reason to think we should find a natural cause for it, nor is there any reason to think we should find a natural cure. But in fact, it turned out that the right remedy could always overcome the power of “magic spells.” Per a unidirectional phase shift, super- and non-natural explanations were gradually rendered obsolete, buoyed by an acute awareness of our propensity to overinterpret reality. "For much of our history, we were so fearful of the outside world, with its unpredictable dangers, that we gladly embraced anything that promised to soften or explain away the terror. Science is an attempt largely successful, to understand the world, to get a grip on things, to get hold of ourselves, to steer a safe course. Microbiology and meteorology now explain what only a few centuries ago was considered sufficient cause to burn women to death." (p. 26) Irrationalia Respect for this approach has not been universal, as a handful of minutes with mainstream media will avouch. In a world overflowing with pseudoscientific madness, Sagan divides his time between conveying the method and blitzing specific manifestations of the irrational. He casts his gaze on a whole armamentarium of woo, including creationism, crop circles, faith healing, astrology, psychics, UFOs, and alien encounters. Is there anything at all behind these claims to connect them to reality? Not if skeptical inquiry has anything to say; such notions find a vacuum of support inside, as Sagan wittily remarks, "any universe burdened by rules of evidence." (p. 58) We learn of how two enterprising hoaxsters from Southampton fooled millions of credulants into believing that patterns in cornfields were cryptic messages from off-world. We listen in on the exploits of James Randi, who once outfoxed Australian media with video documentation of a "channeler." Our talent for deceiving ourselves is on full display as Sagan recounts the initial frisson of seeing "faces" on Mars and assesses the merits of UFO claims from perhaps every conceivable angle. (As a pioneer of exobiological research, it's no surprise Sagan devoted such sizable chunks to debunking UFO conspiracy tales, but he could have toggled it down a notch or two.) In turn, astrology and biblical creationism sport the same empirical garb as alchemy and witchcraft. (Quickly! Someone get Answers in Genesis on the phone.) From séance mediumship to `spirit photography', the counterfeit carousel requires similar ingredients to survive: "what they need is darkness and gullibility." (p. 241) Democracy and the Future Why haven't the contrails of science seeped into the inner recesses of society and taken hold of our discourse and policy, Sagan asks? A look to the past tells us that commitment to these ideals has waxed and waned over time, surfacing first and most clearly in ancient Greece in the form of natural philosophy. Greek antiquity's mental preoccupation with nature was distinguished by an express concern with natural cause and effect explanation, checked against their homegrown rules of logic and deduction. This marriage of reasoning and observation nourished some extraordinarily precocious activities. Sagan charts the achievements of early polymaths like Eratosthenes—who measured the circumference of the earth, its axial tilt, as well as its distance from both the sun and the moon all with peculiar accuracy in the 2nd century BCE, Aristarchus—who presented the first known model of a sun-centered cosmos, and Democritus—who was the first to offer an atomic theory of the universe and often considered the "father of modern science." Later societies yielded intermittent deviation from the systematic acme of Athens as triumphs gave way to enshrined overindulgence of superstition, and nationalistic fervor billowed to abnormally toxic levels. Beyond our undersized prefrontal cortex and the diversiform predispositions underwritten by our evolutionary heritage, at the heart of these setbacks lay the institution and its doctrinaire approach to knowledge. Both religious and secular governance can boast of choking free inquiry, stamping out critical investigation of the cosmos, and cultivating an infrastructural incapacity for nurturing the open exchange of ideas. Whenever and wherever this happens, humanity falters, the mind capsized under the crushing weight of tyranny. And like a derailed traincar, we inevitably throw ourselves headlong into state-sanctioned superstition and unreason. Science cannot prosper under these conditions. It stultifies and stagnates. Democracy ensures the efficacy of science insofar as it ensures all voices are heard. Science and democracy reinforce one another in this way: science depends on democratic values to function, while democracy depends sensitively on science to maintain its selected way of life—in everything from informing policy to keeping infrastructure in motion. After spending ample time surveying the overwhelming science illiteracy and innumeracy in the States, again and again Sagan returns to the point that democracy is unworkable in this environment. Uninformed citizens cannot cast informed votes. The shrieks of the ignorant become the shrieks of the next generation, who often adhere to the ideological persuasions impressed by their sheltered upbringing. Those who would charge that beliefs in pseudoscience are harmless should consider the extent to which they can be emblematic of a larger infirmity. We need open-minded, critically thinking, intellectually equipped individuals exercising their constitutional duty and voting on the policies that will give shape to the parameters under which future generations may thrive or fall. "A proclivity for science is embedded deeply within us, in all times, places and cultures. It has been the means for our survival. It is our birthright. When, through indifference, inattention, incompetence, or fear of skepticism, we discourage children from science, we are disenfranchising them, taking from them the tools needed to manage their future." (p. 317) Closing Thoughts Sagan’s penultimate work is packed with diverse subject matter. Much more than an impassioned defense of science, The Demon-Haunted World meanders through philosophy, history, politics, religion, and grin-inducing exposés on claims to reality that just aren’t so. While acknowledging the imperfections of science that come with all human endeavors, Sagan urges that when it comes to understanding how the world works and why nature is the way that it is, science seizes the epistemological crown. It is also a siren call to the coming generations: that we stifle its advance and deflect its discoveries at our own peril. With mounting concerns over a warming planet, overpopulation, and sustainability, and the most forward-focused way to preserve our pale blue dot, we cannot afford to treat with insouciance its revelations. Every human should read this book. On a more personal note, Sagan holds a special place in my own intellectual journey, reviving a pulse which continues to reverberate throughout my life. His books unshackled my imagination. His words spoke for me. He gave me a voice. A man of great passion and fierce intellect, he had the uncanny ability to ambush the heart with an equal measure of poetry and humble curiosity. His words can be understood by anyone who takes the time to read them. Carl synthesized my deepest thoughts and pointed me toward new horizons. He opened my eyes to a post-religious ethos and, more than anyone else, inspired me to abandon the intellectual celibacy of my youth and secure a personal relationship with reality and the cosmos. If Sagan communicated anything, it's that science is a unification measure, something in which all of us can partake. Together with reason it is among the greatest tools in our survival kit. Let's keep them burning brightly. "I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us - then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."

This book is absolutely eye-opening. The Demon-Haunted World explains complex ideas about science, skepticism, and critical thinking in a way that’s easy to understand and actually enjoyable to read. Carl Sagan does an incredible job showing how important it is to question information, think logically, and not blindly believe everything we hear. Even though it was written years ago, it feels very relevant today. I especially liked how the book mixes science with real-life examples — it really makes you reflect on how you see the world.

This book should be required reading for all students at a grade school level. Carl Sagan is one of the greatest science communicators of all time, because he was very thoughtful and impassioned about teaching and applying the scientific method. He wrote and taught in a very accessible way for non-experts. Dr. Sagan applies his love for science and rational thought to various topics, some thought to be untouchable, like religion and politics. He gives the reader insight into how religion and politics can affect scientific endeavors and the advancement of our species. Sagan also writes about the prevalence of pseudoscience, mysticism and scam artists and how they can negatively impact the reputation of real scientists. He also gives insight on how media affects the public perception of science and its practioners.

The author put a lot if research into these topics

This book should be the basis for a freshman level high school science class. At least a semester. Critical thought has become a lost art in the United States, and we need to get it back. I'm only two chapters in, but I'm hooked. The text is engaging, relatable and not terribly complex. The tone is conversational, as if you and Carl Sagan were having a conversation over a couple of beers. I HIGHLY recommend this book.

In a world of ungrounded thought, I feel comforted by Sagan's sagely, skeptical words. "Skepticism doesn't sell newspapers," he explains. He was heavily pro-science and upset about America's scientific illiteracy which fawns over fables and eschews facts. In this book, he takes no prisions from Atlantis and Lemuria, New Age pseudoscience, religious doctrinaire that attempts to validate themselves through prophecy, weeping paintings of the Madonna, Jesus' face on tortillas, fortune tellers (that btw target young women), psychics and channels including Ramtha, amulets, exorcisms, psychic surgery, witches, ghosts, flying saucers, astrology, reliance on prayer and miraculous healing, contradictory platitudes, and spiritual justifications for nearly any action. "Some portion of the decision-making that influences the future of our civilization is plainly in the hands of charlantans," Sagan writes. "When we are self indulgent and uncritical, when we confuse hopes and facts, we slide into pseudoscience and superstition." Carl Sagan's question for a possible extraterrestrial was, "Please provide a short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem." "How is it, I ask myself, that UFO occupants are so bound to fashionable or urgent concerns on this planet? Why not even an incidental warning about CFCs and oxone depletion in the 1950s, or about the AHIV virus in the 1979s, when it might have really done some good?" Sagan thoroughly elucidates the most common strategies used to defend perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. In this book, he includes some history of the founding father's of the U.S. who were "realistic and practical, wrote their own speeches, and were motivated by high principles." He also uses examples of leaders and events in Europe, Russia, and China, and how they thought in ways that were superior to the dreck we have spiraled down to. He admires Jefferson's response to the Sedition Act and Linus Pauling's stance against nuclear weapons and involvement in the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963. Sagan himself took an anti-nuclear stance. Carl Sagan wisely implores us to question everything our leaders tell us. "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." As far as Sagan's brief mention of drugs used for certain DSM diagnosis, the expert I defer to in that realm is Robert Whitaker and his book "Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill." I read portions of Sagan's book over again, and skimmed a few parts that seemed a bit repetitive. Overall, a very worthy read that I give a strong five stars.

In 1996, Carl Sagan published The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, a book that was at the time heralded as “Wonder-saturated” (The Washington Post) and “a manifesto for clear thought” (Los Angeles Times). Here Carl Sagan argued that “Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking.” The Religious Right,realize this, and they see it as a way of thinking inimical to their dogmatic assertions, assertions drawn on a Bronze Age religion codified in a document put to paper in the first millennium B.C.E. Ironically enough, as Sagan points out, “A Candle in the Dark“ was a Biblically-based book published in London in 1656 on the cusp of the Enlightenment, a book whose author, Thomas Ady, attacked the witch hunts of his time “as a scam ‘to delude the people’.” The arguments he raised will be familiar to us today: “Any illness or storm, anything out of the ordinary, was popularly attributed to witchcraft.” Thomas Ady saw the absurdity of this reasoning 350 years ago. He saw that it was time to move past such primitive and superstitious thinking. I wonder what he would say today, hearing these arguments still uttered. Sagan wrote, “For much of our history, we were so fearful of the outside world, with its unpredictable dangers, that we gladly embraced anything that promised to soften or explain away the terror. Science is an attempt, largely successful, to understand the world, to get a grip on things, to get hold of ourselves, to steer a safe course. Microbiology and meteorology now explain what only a few centuries ago was considered sufficient cause to burn women to death.” Ady, writing more than three centuries ago, foresaw that nations “[will] perish for lack of knowledge.” Yet lack of knowledge is being codified and legislated today by the likes of David Barton and Republican-controlled governors and legislatures. Carl Sagan foresaw this: “I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us – then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls.” The results, as he says, are terrifying: “The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.” And so they have. The demons have stirred. And they are among us. We can blame a once obscure NW Arabian god for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis; we can blame witches for disease – or we can turn to science to try to understand these things. The Bible doesn’t explain the ocean’s growing dead zones; it doesn’t explain our planet, which the Bible would have us believe to be permanent and unchanging, but which science shows to be in constant flux, a living, breathing organism. The challenges faced by our modern world cannot be met by a book written by men with a Bronze Age knowledge base. We could use Carl Sagan now, we could use his voice, his wit, his ability to make science comprehensible to people. We could use him as a voice against the imposition of dead-end religious doctrines and dogmas that make of science a heresy, we could use him to re-light the candle that holds back the demons in the darkness.

1. "Science is fun and easy." For an entire chapter, Sagan argues that the public could and would enjoy science programming if only the media would try it. "Learning about science is easier than most people think. Teaching about science is easier than most people think," goes Sagan's message. But then in the next chapter, he explains Maxwell's theories in words which I can't understand. I know more about music theory than most people, but I don't feel burdened by carrying those facts around in my brain. They all interconnect, so they all seem like only one simple fact to me. I would probably enjoy a TV program in which a musical composition is analyzed, but most people wouldn't. In like manner, a person who knows many interconnected facts about science could probably enjoy a science program, but not enough to make the Neilsons happy. Such a person, undoubtedly, is Sagan himself. Betcha he knew so many interconnected facts about science that they seemed like only one simple fact to him. This probably made him think that one could teach another person about science as easily as one could teach a person that "Dover is the capital of Delaware." 2. Is science really as interesting as the paranormal? Excuse me for a minute while I talk about myself: It would be nice if I could make a scientific discovery which would add to the total body of knowledge. That would be immensely gratifying to my hunting instinct. But how could I realize such a dream? First of all, I would have to understand Maxwell's formulas. That task alone leaves me flabbergasted, and that's only step one. My hopes of meeting an extraterrestrial or an archangel are small indeed, but greater than my hopes of making a scientific discovery. Consequently, the paranormal continues to interest me more than science no matter how much I read The Skeptical Inquirer. I once expressed these feelings at a skeptics club meeting. I suggested that most paranormalists believe as they do because they, like me, want to make discoveries which will add to the total body of knowledge. A Montessori teacher at the meeting countered by telling us of a workshop which she presented for public school math teachers. By hands-on demonstration, they showed many wonders which their visitors had never seen before. A square really is--well, a square! A cube really is--well, a cube! Those who were not too awe-stricken to move were frenetically writing notes. Her testimony proves to my satisfaction that we can meet an important need by learning about the known world. But we are creatures with many needs. Maybe learning about the unknown world could be a completely different need. Could one ever substitute for the other? Probably, probably not. Suppose one of the workshop visitors arrived home that night and came face to face with an alien offering an abduction. Would the answer be yes or no? 3. inquiry, not faith If I understand correctly, Sagan offers science education as an antidote to tabloid gullibility. Yes, I know, it's not facts about science which are so important, it's the scientific method. But would an upgrading of science education really do the trick? I doubt it. Scientists are blessed with both facts about science and the scientific method. So according to Sagan's logic, they should be the least gullible. The title of "least gullible," however, seems to go to stage magicians. Stage magicians have caught psychics who have fooled scientists. In fact, Randi hasn't missed one yet! Maybe the answer is not more science education, but more stage magic education. It's a fascinating and informative book, despite these few points of disagreement.

Interesting, compelling, beautifully written and even more actual now if possible

I sit before my computer, typing out a review of what is my favorite book. I’m daunted by the magnitude of this task, having just finished the book for the fourth or maybe fifth time. I wish I could remember when I bought this book, likely close to a decade ago, but I’m sure that I must have been awestruck to discover a book written by a man who has influenced my life and my interests to such a great extent. One of the great memories of my early life was that of waiting to plop down in front of the TV set for a few Sunday nights in 1980, as our PBS station aired a thirteen part series called Cosmos. Accompanied at the TV by my mom and grandmother, Cosmos captured my imagination in ways that will last my whole life. It was a series not merely discussing outer space, but in fact, it addressed the history of humanity’s understanding of our place in the world, the universe, and in life. Why is the memory of a TV show so incredibly dear to me? I could say that the show opened my mind to concepts and philosophies and possibilities that I never imagined, and that’d be a fair and true statement. What really makes the series so pivotal in my life, though, is that I shared such a formative experience with my mom and my grandmother; two people to whom I owe my life, my intelligence, and, hopefully without too much hyperbole, my essential spirit. At the age of nine, it’s not very likely to imagine that I would have planted myself in front of a television tuned to PBS on a Sunday evening, but the patient guidance and love of my mom and grandmother gave me the gift of knowledge and wonder. Needless to say, I’ve always been partial to the works of Dr. Carl Sagan. Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark is the first work of Dr. Sagan’s that I’ve read as an adult and in the many years I’ve owned this book, I’ve read it at least four times. Why re-read a book so often? The answer is found in my reverence of the book’s message, its point, and its passion. Not only have I read it often, but I have made an irregularly observed tradition to start each new year with a fresh reading. At least three times, I’ve picked the book up within hours of watching the ball drop in Times Square, heralding in the new year. Many who know me, already know this is my favorite book, but I’m deeply challenged when I’m asked what the book is about, and several paragraphs into my review, I’m probably overdue in attempting to answer this exact question. In this book, Dr. Carl Sagan tackles one of the key problems facing our time, as well as repeated throughout the history of our civilization, and that is the propensity for humanity to delve into our darkest superstitions and most bleak behaviors when our knowledge or ego is challenged. It seems that throughout the history of our species, we’ve turned our backs on critical thought and skepticism at times when those with claims to power and zealotry and wealth have found it advantageous and profitable to subvert the masses. Why discuss witch burnings and crop circles and claims of government coverups of alien abductions from 50 years ago? The answer lies in the here and now. At a time when every facet of our daily lives revolves around technology; when each and every human being lives under the threat of annihilation by nuclear weapons; when communications are global but subject to being monitored in violation of the founding documents of our nation (granted this is a problem that would occur years after Sagan’s death, yet it’s exactly the type of behavior Sagan speaks of), we find that critical thought wanes in the population of our own nation, not to mention that of the entire world. Credulity and old habits creep into our consciousness. Our world, our freedoms, and our lives come under attack. Go to the movies and watch ghosts haunt a house or watch the undead torment campers in the woods. Turn on the TV, and you’re likely to find tales of alien spacecraft being hidden by the government. You’re equally likely to channel surf past a shopping network selling new age crystals. But where on broadcast television are you likely to find a substantive debate on issues of education or technology? Where do you see educational programming talking about the technology that engulfs our very lives? As Sagan points out, imagine the irony that kids can watch a cartoon about a prehistoric family with a dinosaur for a pet (I actually protest... I enjoyed the Flintstones!), but may never have the opportunity to watch a show about the invention or technology of television, itself! At what cost to our freedoms, will we accept great claims without great proof? What decisions do we as a world culture need to make to grow and prosper and what can we learn from our history, replete with credulity and domination and fear mongering? Should we shrink from the challenges of education and critical thinking, what price will we pay? Will it be our personal or national economic stability? Will we see our freedoms curtailed (as if we haven’t witnessed that already)? Or will we pay with the extinction of our species? The thesis as I understand it, of this book is that we, as a culture and society, may be repeating a common mistake of our history: accepting a diminution of our critical thinking skills at our own distinct peril. Because of the threats we face though, this time we stand at these crossroads at possibly the least opportune of times. Throughout history, those in power or those who seek it, have abused our fears and used them to control the masses to their own advantage or profit. This book begs to serve as a wake up call to anyone willing to accept the challenge not only to read it, but to deeply ponder each of its points and positions. It offers the methods of critical thought as the grand lighthouse by which we can safely steer our course through the treacherous times and malevolent forces we face. Dr. Sagan, true to the book’s title, offers the methods of science as a candle in the darkness in men’s souls. This book occupies a special place in my life, as I’ve stated. I believe that this is a book of such enormous importance, that it should be required reading in every senior level high school class in the country. It may not be comfortable reading, and Dr. Sagan wrote on an astronomically high reading level (forgive the pun, as Dr. Sagan was of course a world renown astronomer) that it may take weeks or months to fully drink in the material, but the discussion that Dr. Sagan presented are vital. The arguments he presents are vital to our intellect, our freedom, and to our humanity. For making me think and contemplate, reading after reading, this book scores five stars.

Muy buen producto

Excellent. Dommage que ce livre n'ait pas été traduit en français.

Très satisfaite de ce produit. C'était un cadeau d'anniversaire qui selon ses dires et sans lus aucuns doute à fait un heureux.