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.

[EX Q]: 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.
[EX A]: NEG

[EX Q]: Not worth Saving . People have called Chuck Palahniuk's writing many things: Neo Goth, Modern Goth., New Goth....just dont get the idea that its all about whiny teenagers wearing black and griping about their latent vampire powers through bad poetry. No, Palahniuk writes a different kind of book without all of the grim color and stale mythology, but he maintains the same themes: deterioration of the human condition, lack of moral fiber in today's society, and the danker recesses of the human psyche. Survivor tackles these topics with dazzling success and even enters a few new contenders to the mix such as commercialism, consumerism, and materialism. And this is all very old news to absolutely everybody but me, because Chuck Palahniuk has been around for a while now. It was only until recently I decided to pick up one of his paperbacks at the suggestion of my thugish Top 8 Myspace friend with too much facial hair and the clown tattoo. Now, the way I like my stories told is with a good opening page, a large use of style, and a frugal use on the words. Typically, I don't read too many novels over 300 pages long. I have read plenty of longer books in the past, and all too often the only thing that separates a long story from a short one is that the author of a short book knows how to consolidate his word use and when to shut up. I'm happy to say Chuck Palahniuk is such a writer by all counts. Like any good stylist, his words flow like water straight from the page into your brain as the protagonist's situation is fleshed out. Survivor opens in the first person with a single man on a plane preparing to crash into the Australian Outback. He's the last surviving member of a death cult who has made some strange decisions...some better than others. At this time he is known the world over as a great spiritual leader, Anti Christ figure, and media mogul. There are many misconceptions about who he is and why he's on said death plane, and he'd like to set the record straight with the help of the jets black box. And from there we meet the narrator, Tender Branson, now in the past tense and living in humble times as a religious servant. Members from his cult are killing themselves left and right, so the government gives Branson his own psychotherapist and puts him on suicide watch. But Branson is way past believing anything the church filled his mind with, and is more interested in telling other people to kill themselves after they find one of his phony suicide hotline numbers stuck to the side of a bus stop. He works for a couple that is very well off, and through his years of service has accumulated a library's worth of useful housekeeping tips. The reader is educated, in detail, how to properly remove tear stains from pillow cases, urine from drapes, bullet holes in walls, and blood from fur coats. Everyday situations are presented from the most warped of perspectives, and depending on the readers attitude, this may either be disturbing or refreshing. Example: Is learning that everyone you love will someday die from owning and loving upwards of six hundred pet Goldfishes that have all died strike you as ironic, or sad? Are you intrigued by romances sparked in a cemetery, or turned off? How about an over analytic shrink who convinces a hypochondriac that he has multiple problems in an attempt identify and cure just one? Clever, or whatever? If you're leaning towards the former with any of these, I might have an author to recommend. The characters are wonderful, and I took to them like a kid to a black van with candy. They have no need for convention. They have their own means of courtship, their own philosophies forged in solitude and cynicism, their own reasons for being attracted to someone else, and their own reasons for living and dying. But none of this is to say that everything is Mentos and Diet Coke. While I've never read another Palahniuk book, I have seen Fight Club, a filmed adaptation if his book, and the voice of the protagonist in that story is very similar to the voice in this one. I couldn't even read a sentence here without hearing Edward Norton's voice, so similar were the personalities. Both had a very sardonic tone towards everything modern and cynical one liners about the status quo. Sloppy, but Ill let it pass. Did I mention that everything I just said only applies to the first half of the book? The second half falls to pieces and leaves what could have been over arching themes or meanings in smouldering shambles. It's a shame really. The first one hundred and fifty pages of Survivor read very much like something I might very well write ten years from now, whereas the second half was more like the rough draft of something I could write now. Character actions break the bank of plausibility and some scenes read like the author is trying to beat you over the head with some point that you just can't make out. For a book that started out so strong, I was left with a story that ultimately delivered nothing but the comical and poignant one liners it offered along the way. But hey, that's life, isn't it? Well sure, its life, and its shaggy dog story telling too, but read both halves and tell me that something wasnt wasted from the first one. Threads were coming together. If the book had stayed on course all the way through, I'd be using this review to announce Chuck Palahniuk as my new favorite author, and maybe Survivor as a favorite book. Unfortunately, the second half was so lacking, I can barely recommend it as a whole. But there's no reason that good writing should go to waste. Use the first two chapters here to qualify yourself for all of Palahniuk's writings. You can do it in one sitting and be introduced to a wonderful mind and voice. From there you can hopscotch the Palahniuk library with some assurance that everything will be A-OK in your tragedy of choice.
[EX A]: NEG

[EX Q]: Captures the nature of the dilemma extremely well . Tuch is very insightful in his observations about this syndrome. Having been involved in this kind of relationship myself in the past, I can say that his description of how these relationships progress is VERY familiar. This book will provide well-needed understanding by all involved parties. This understanding is crucial in order to get unentangled from this kind of relationship...or transform the unhealthy agendas/perspectives that often permeate the relationship and give the relationship a chance to either end or work out
[EX A]:
POS