In this task, you are given books product reviews in English language. The goal is to classify the review as "POS" if the overall sentiment of the review is positive or as "NEG" if the overall sentiment of the review is negative.

Input: Consider Input: A philosopher's view of science . In this book Popper presents two contradictory theses: (a) science can be based on deductive logic only, and there is no need for induction; (b) science cannot have a logical basis.     Because deduction yields sure knowledge if it is based on sure knowledge and induction always produces only hypothetical knowledge, as Bertrand Russell clearly stated, Popper begins by trying to show that the use of deduction instead of induction can provide a solid logical basis for science. He talks about replacing "inductivism" by "deductivism." In reality, he explains the use of deduction in the testing of a theory: consequences are deduced from the theory and are compared with known facts, which is something known by many. Induction, on the other hand, is used in creating hypotheses in both experimental and theoretical investigations and is again used in generalizing the results of tests (a) to all other possible tests in experimental investigation, and (b) also to some phenomena that cannot be used to test the theory created using the hypothesis, or hypotheses, that are produced inductively. When Popper claims that inductivism can be replaced by deductivism, he is unaware of the fact that induction is used at the beginning of both experimental and theoretical investigations to create hypotheses and again at the end of the investigation to generalize the test results.     But in the rest of the book, Popper concentrates on the generalization of test results, which is done through induction and is what he overlooked to begin with, as explained above. Consequently, Popper proves rightly that scientific knowledge cannot be produced using deductive logic, which is the opposite of what he tried to prove earlier.     The truth is that new knowledge is not a product of logic but is learned from the world about singular phenomena and is generalized through induction. Induction does not yield logically sure knowledge, but evolution created the human brain/mind so that it knows that it has to trust induction. Thus, everyone avoids hitting his or her head against hard objects by learning from past experience through induction. Someone who does not trust such inductive knowledge is punished severely. Similarly, when a scientist or an engineer does not use an accepted theory anywhere in his or her work, he or she is likely to be punished by failure and its consequences of many kinds.    Popper's views should serve to waken up those who seek the comfort of producing all knowledge through deduction only, but in fact, they shed doubt mostly on theories, because a theory is not deduced from anywhere, unlike empirical knowledge is, about some singular phenomena. A theory is constructed and tested by using induction or deduction, as necessary, at various stages of the total process on the basis of empirical knowledge. Popper's views are those of a philosopher who is not familiar with the mission and methods of science and thinks that science is about discovering something that can be called the absolute truth. Read also my evaluation of Kuhn's views.    Another erroneous idea of Popper is that theories can be falsified but cannot be verified. It is true that if a new theory is falsified by a few or even a single test, there is usually no more wish to keep testing it. But when an accepted theory is falsified by one phenomenon, it is not discarded as invalid. Its use continues where it gives good results. It is also true that a theory cannot be verified in an absolute sense, but this is true also about empirical knowledge. The generality of any knowledge is a consequence of induction which is forced upon the mind by the results of evolution, as mentioned. The verification of a theory, or any knowledge, means that it can be used where it gives useful results. Unfortunately, the impossibility of the logical or experimental validation of knowledge in a general way is seen as a weakness of only theories by those who ignore what a theory is and how it is constructed, tested, and used.

Output: NEG


Input: Consider Input: Brilliant Thud memoire . The F-105 is a most fascinating aircraft. A superb cold-war design; it was meant to be a sort of man-guided supersonic cruise missile for delivery of nuclear weapons to tactical targets in the european theater. It was, of course, never used for this purpose, but was instead put to a use in the air war over Vietnam. The Thud was never meant to be a precision dive bomber, or to pass through heavily defended areas at subsonic speeds. All the same, politicians dictated this use (and of course went looking for someone besides themselves to blame when their "top fighter-bomber" started getting shot down in heroic quantity; so many were shot down, there weren't enough seasoned men to continue to fly them. They were shot down in so many myriads, fresh out of pilot school fighter-bomber jocks, or long grounded middle-aged desk jockies would be put directly into combat (where they would often be shot down).    The men who flew this jet were, as the cliche goes, a special breed of heroes. Unlike, say, fighter pilots or B-52 pilots, they faced almost certain death, or horrible imprisonment. Their survival rate was comparable to that of the B-17 tailgunner over Germany in WW-2; very low indeed. Oftentimes their missions were secret in nature, so the government couldn't even acknowledge that the Thud had been shot down and work for the release of the pilot.    Major Rasimus' memoire takes place at a crucial escalation in the war; in 1966. The Johnson administration decided to escalate the war by "sending messages" to the North Vietnamese via the use of bombing as a psychological and diplomatic tool. The hare-brained scheme was that, by bombing one thing, and not another, the NVA would be trained, like a pet dog is trained with a rolled up newspaper. The idea was ridiculous, and of course didn't work.     Rasimus was one of those unsung heroes who, fresh out of pilot school, grew enormous handlebar moustaches to protect them from evil on their impossible missions. He tells the tales of the base dog, Roscoe, and of various of his team, and those who came after. You can practically smell the oil on the tarmac, and the blackpowder charges which combat-started the '105's engines. While americans would rather forget the war in Vietnam, I can't forget the courage of these men who fought in these insane supersonic contraptions. May their spirit inspire a new generation of warriors. Thanks Ed; for your service and your great book

Output: POS


Input: Consider Input: Fascinating roller coaster to discovery . Andrew Solomon is a science writer who has taken the risky step of telling the vast, intriguing story of a deeply personal condition in the first person - which means that we follow him on an extraordinary roller coaster ride toward self discovery and healing (Solomon suffers very serious depression and tries all manner of "cures" including a death-wish desire to contract AIDS, and bizarre tribal rites in Africa) while also tracing the long tortuous history (and geography) of Depression as a subject. Our understanding of Depression, Solomon lucidly reveals, has been the subject of a centuries-long tug of war between two mindsets: those who see it as a chemical condition, and those who see it as a psychological (ie emotional) condition. As the history of civilisation veers between rational and romantic eras, so too has the understanding and treatment of Depression. Is it any wonder that a modern sufferer is torn between the talk-therapies and the chemical therapies such as Prozac?    Andrew Solomon comes down with an argument that both therapies are flipsides of the same whole - and that both have a role to play as sufferers seek escape from the bottomless black abyss. On the way he covers related subjects including Depression and suicide and Depression and creativity - and, this is the miracle of his writing and a tribute to his approach - the subject matter comes over as fascinating rather than gruelling.    If you are a sufferer, or live with one - or simply wish to know better how the human mind really works, this volume is pretty compelling. One of the best pieces of advice that Andrew Solomon cites is from a Greek philosopher who, more than 2000 years ago suggested that sufferers enjoy good wine and food, and surround themselves with good friends. A humane and enormously rich piece of science writing


Output: POS