Einstein, Descartes, Locke, Bohr, Rorty, Berkeley, Hume, Kant -magical names! When we step on an airplane, turn the key in the ignition, or switch on an air conditioner we - not just academicians - all agree that the ideas of these far-sighted sages of the Enlightenment and Modernism saved us from the Medieval life. But, as the author shows, if we fully accept their ideas a drastic change in our world-view ensues. Fred Bauer has been examining the great minds for many years, and in easily understood terms gives us a surely amazing Grand Unifying Theory. Of course, he gives ample reasons why we each have to choose for ourselves - rejecting or accepting concepts. In any case, The Wonderful Myth Called Science poses an exciting and at times an emotionally challenging exploration of science and living.

The Western Tradition is that humans are partially spiritual beings with an immortal destiny. This tradition is under heavy attack, most of all perhaps from neuroscience. According to Richard Watson, biographer of Descartes, the future looks like this: "When humankind finally faces the fact that the mind is the brain, that there is no independently existing mental soul to survive the death of the body, that none of us chirpy sparrows is immortal . . ., then there will be a revolution in human thought the like of which none has gone before." Th at prediction is based on contemporary materialism, according to which the only scientific account of human origins is Darwin's evolutionist account. That is a double error, based on pre-scientific na ve realism, a view Einstein called "a plebeian illusion," and based on a pre-scientific, na ve-realist answer to the question, "What is a human being." Why Control Your Imagination? is a methodical dissection of those two errors, followed by a scientific presentation of the Tradition's truths.

James yearned to weave science and religion into a popular philosophy useful for the everyday life of everyday people of faith. He saw that many of them were defenseless in an increasingly agnostic, even atheistic culture. "Thousands of innocent magazine readers lie paralyzed and terrified in the network of shallow negations which the leaders of opinion have thrown over their souls," he wrote in 1882. To which he added, "If I, . . . like the mouse in the fable, have gnawed a few of the strings of the sophistical net that has been binding down the human heart's] lion strength, I shall be more than rewarded for my pains."

Were he to return, he would surely be even more unhappy with the leaders of opinion, but also with the responses of people of faith, who either seek refuge in untenable fundamentalist reliance on religious scriptures or else view science and religion as two wholly separate, independent spheres of knowledge.

Building on three previous books about James's philosophy, as well as on three books about related topics, the present text will explain why no one professing to 'do science' in this third millennium can ignore the psychology behind all discoveries.

William James may have been the greatest thinker in history, but Ren Descartes was the most important. That is because there would have been no James if there had been no Descartes. True, such comparisons are not to be taken literally. There'd have been no Descartes if there'd been no Aristotle, no Aristotle if there'd been no Plato, etc. But what made the later thinkers great is that they used the discoveries of their predecessors to make further discoveries of their own.

Unfortunately, Descartes today is more often reviled than revered. Harry Bracken is not far from wrong in claiming that Descartes is the philosopher philosophers love to hate. The reason is simple. Whoever recognizes Descartes' revolutionary discovery for the great advance that it is, must then confront the psychological challenge it creates.

In this short work, I have shown, albeit in nearly outline fashion, that anyone who accepts what is called "modern science" must, to be logically consistent, admit that-apart from two or three major errors-Descartes' worldview is true. That means that modern science not only is not inconsistent with the existence of God and human immortality. Modern science points conclusively to both facts.

William James (1842-1910) was a towering figure in the history of American thoughtwithout doubt the foremost psychologist this country has produced. That was the opinion of Gordon Allport, a Harvard professor and one-time president of the American Psychological Association. However, few Americans living in this third millennium have ever heard of James, despite the fact that his profound insights into the human psyche are now more urgently needed than ever before. But before James' insights can once more become available, a barrier to their reception must be removed. What barrier? The pervasive contradictions in his writings. To rescue his insights from their entangling contradictions, the first step was to draw attention to common sense, the foundation of all 'scientific' learning. William James on Common Sense accomplished that. The next step is to use that common-sense philosophy and James' psychology to present a fully adequate Jamesian account of the stream of consciousness. This book, a sequel to William James on Common Sense, expands his radical-empiricist, two-part model of the stream of consciousness to the one that allows for all three of its components: sensed phenomena, memory-images, and partless thought.

**"William James (1842-1910) was "a towering figure in the history of American thought--without doubt the foremost psychologist this country has produced." That was the opinion of Gordon Allport, a Harvard professor and one-time president of the American Psychological Association. However, few Americans living in this third millennium have ever heard of James, despite the fact that his profound insights into the human psyche are now more urgently needed than ever before.

But before James' insights can once more become available, a barrier to their reception must be removed. What barrier? James' "productive paradoxes." That's what Allport charitably called them. 'They' were more than paradoxes, however. They were the pervasive contradictions in James' thought. To rescue his insights from entangling contradictions, the first step must be to draw attention to common sense, the foundation of all 'scientific' learning.

James confessed that it was only in 1903, a few years before his death, that he realized for the first time "the perfect magnificence as a philosophical achievement" of our everyday, common-sense thinking. This book draws together the threads of James' ideas about such elements of common-sense as consciousness, language, meaning, learning, space, time, and thought itself.