Haack finds a happy mean between the old foundationalist epistemology, as exemplified by C.I. Lewis, and more recent coherentist epistemologies coming down from Hegel and others. This book is a modest, yet important, step in the development of the theory of knowledge. Essentially, she argues for muti-directional non-deductive support relations should be considered as normative facets in the justification of (evidence for) theories. Of course, there is also a lot more said in the book than this.

Haack also addresses the Quinean idea of a naturalization of epistemology. She does this with a clear head, that is free of a pre-concieved metaphysical agenda. She decides middle ground between a science independent epistemology and a extreme sort of "scientism" is the safest place to stand. I found her arguements persuasive here, and I decided maybe epistemology is a worthwhile area of philosophy, when practised as a semi-independent investigation, set off from biological psychology, and the sciences of cognition and learning behavior.

Haack solves the conundrum of coherentism vs. foundationalism. This is rare: philosophy that proves something interesting to be true. No other 20th C. epistemology will be widely read 100 years from now. This one will required reading even then.

Philosophy of logic . . . well, a discipline which really must be learned at the feet of a master. But for us ordinary folk who have to get through logic courses, Haack's book, despite the odd title, is a masterpiece of lucidity, simplicity, and comprehensiveness, in a field where virtually all other entrees read like "greek" for the greekless, or . . . well, logic for the ???

If you just heard something about logic and is looking for something interesting to read there may be easier and funnier books. But, if you have some knowledge of elementary formal logic and are motivated to take some time to learn about the philosophy of logic, this is a very rewarding book - it's real modern analytic philosophy at its best.

Susan Haack writes with true insight and intelligence. Her positions, against the excesses of post-modernist criticism and extreme political cant, are well argued and incisive. However, I wish she could write better. Her book is written in academese, with its fractured sentence structure, inconsistent tone and obtuse terminology, in some places almost impossible to slog through. Still, try it: you may learn a great deal.

Susan Haack is a pragmaticist. Don't let the label fool you. Notice I wrote pragmatICIST, not pragmaTIST. The difference, you ask? Well, in contradistinction to Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnams 'pragmatism' which stresses anti-science and devalues terms like 'objectivity' and 'truth,' Haack is a philosophical descendent of Charles Peirce and John Dewey (begrudginly, I'll throw William James' name in, but that's a stretch). These essays are brilliant defences of the pragmaticist vision of truth, scientific method (or, if we like, methods) and objective knowledge.

If all that sounds too philosophical to the average reader, it most likely is not. Haack writes with a down to earth style, a sparkling British wit and a very even flow; especially considering the complexity of some ideas expressed in these pages. It should be mentioned though that although topics covered in these essays include multiculturalism, feminist epistemology, sham reasoning and relativism, this book is much more philosophical in nature than others. Haack is not just another author throwing down the 'science wars' gauntlet (not that it hasn't been thrown down enough already). Whereas most books attacking the abuses of feminism, relativism and postmodern thinking in science, while rightfully exposing their disasterous consequences, end up more as social commentary than actual reasoned arguments; and nary a philosophical arguemt is launched. This is precisely the void that Haack so flawlessly fills.

Highlites include a brilliantly constructed 'panel' discussion between 1800's pragmaticist Charles S. Peirce and modern neo-pragmatist Richard Rorty. Haack constructed the dialogue using exerpts of their work and she does a beautiful job making it feel like a discussion. Also, the essay 'Puzzling Out Science' and 'Science as Social' do an excellent job showing that science (contrary to the old Baconian and new 'pragmatist' thought) can be both social and individual. The last two essays deviate a bit from the underlying sceince theme, tackling affirmative action and the absurdities of the academy's expectation that professors (along with masters and doctoral students), to achieve noteriety, must argue the most outlandish theories in the most outlandish way. True to form, these essays are not blank social criticisms so common in books today but are well reasoned, philosophical explorations. The only problem with the book is one common to essay collections. The essays tended to repeat themselves from time to time, not only in ideas (towards the end, you WILL be predicting what Haack's next line will be) but in phrasing. Save for that, flawless!

Haack's book seeks to respond to the increasingly noisy voices in the academy which are clamoring for all the typical postmodern tenets to be taken as brute fact....the non-existence of any essential anything (especially selves), the pure relativism that chops the universe up into a fractured perspectivalism, and the mistrust for "methodology" of any sort as a "hegemonic discourse." Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate makes an epistemologically sound reply to that academic cacophony; Haack relies on C.S. Peirce's thought to establish the legitimacy of the scientific method, the possibility of the existence of Truth, and the good old-fashioned "wissenschaftlich" approach to philosophy. It is the first time that I have encountered a thinker who manages to balance the commitments of contemporary, liberal academics with traditional philosophical hermeneutics. Well-written, never dry (except when quoting from Peirce!), and generally very refreshing. Anyone in the academy can benefit from her perspective. Bravo to Haack for seeking a responsible end to the posturing and absurdity of so much of the postmodern "platform."

Wow, what a disappointment this book is! First, it is quite pricey considering it is simply a collection of Haack's papers that have been published in various journals; one would expect better editing and perhaps even a glossary but this simply copies the papers verbatim.

For those who are beginners in formal logic or who have been out of the field for a while you will likely have problems beginning in the first chapter. Who remembers the definition of "wff"?

No, Haack should have completely rewritten the papers to make the ideas and arguments approachable for all readers of this book or at least she should have included something like "intended for the graduate level philosophy student" to make her intention clear. The book needs expansion of ideas beginning with some basics as well as some "niceties" such as a glossary of acronyms and some good editing.

That said, the basic premise of the book is rather a sad statement on the present level of thinking inside formal logic. Haack quite plainly states "I do not beleve truth comes in degrees"...Indeed. From a scientific/mathematical/engineering background, I find that quite a loaded statement and indicative of a completely closed pre-postmodernist mind.

Considering the work done in mathematics, computing and science since Godel by people like Turing, Chaitin and Prigogine showing the inconsistencies that may be found at the core of formal Aristotelian-based logic and its derivatives perhaps Haack should leave her foxhole. Yes, there is no reason to keep defending formal logic's shortcomings has long since disappeared along with Newton's view of the universe.

In the end, I would highly recommend anyone thinking about purchasing this book to consider the validity of "truth does not come in degrees" and then go and buy "Fuzzy Set Theory" and Perlovsky's latest.

One of the most interesting thing about deviant logic is its widespread dismissal by the academic community despite the widespread application of fuzzy logic to home appliances and engineering devices and other aspects. Susan Haack has addressed the lacunae admirably in this wonderful book and she deserves every kudos for it. It is pitched at a not-too-technical level and should appeal to all layman and also the academics.