In this video I want to discuss two books and the only thing these two books have in common is the form of title that they've chosen and the title of this video gives you a hint. They have both jumped on this Richard Dawkins bandwagon of titling your book to something something delusion. So here goes the two books that I want to discuss are the Nat Delusion by Afghani Morosov and the Science Delusion by Rupert Cheldrake to completely different books about completely different topics. Ain't that fun. So first of all this one the Nat Delusion. This book I can hardly recommend. I actually thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. Although maybe Richard enjoyed wouldn't be the right term to use to be perfectly honest with you. It's not so much a question of enjoying it as realizing as you're reading it that this is a bit of a wake-up call especially if you have been kidding yourself into thinking that a freely available internet where technology of sharing information is freely available to everybody. Necessarily leads to more freedom of speech to a crumbling of oppressive regimes. If for example you were taken up into the whole Iranian Twitter revolution and you thought that something significant was going on there and that this might have lead to a improvement in democracy in Iran then this book will disabuse you of such notions in no uncertain terms. It like I said it's a wake-up call and I hardly recommend it. This book this book left me in two minds. I have to be perfectly honest with you. There are parts in this book in Rupert Childrake's Science Delusion. There are parts in this book where I found myself wholeheartedly agreeing with what you were saying and then there are other parts in this book where I'm thinking that Mr. Childrake has allowed himself to become so open-minded that to coin an often-used phrase his brain has fallen out and I'm finding it hard to pinpoint exactly where he crosses that line or if he even crosses that line. So rather than me pontificating about what I think what I'm going to suggest here is that some of you pick up this book read it and tell me what you think. Tell me whether you do agree with anything he says in this book and if you don't if there are some things you do agree with and some things you don't agree with then what is it? Where do you think he crosses some line or other? For example when I hear his his theory or his hypothesis of morphic resonance I'm left with this uneasy feeling where I have no idea what he's talking about in the sense that I have no idea as to what is resonating here and how and that leaves me deeply dissatisfied with the explanatory power of a suggestion of hypothesis such as morphic resonance a similar thing with his foray into the paranormal and again I don't see him propose anything that sounds usable useful as an explanation maybe that's what's bugging me about this that his hypotheses stray into the useless the possibly useless but maybe I'm just not cutting it so if you've already read the book what do you think and if you haven't well would you mind reading it and then tell me what do you think thank you