Rating: 
Summary: Buddha lite
Review: Buddhist math? C'mon.First, let me say that fuzzy logic and fuzzy arithmetic are great tools. They're valued parts of the 'soft logic' kit that includes probability, interval arithmetic, Bayesian and Markov networks, and lots of other good stuff. Fuzziness involves many of the formal techniques used in probability and elsewhere, and gives a useful, alternative view of the systems it addresses. The basic fuzzy idea is that most descriptions involve shades gray, that few systems really match the black/white, on/off, either/or duality of standard formal logic. That's fine, I can get along with that quite well. My basic problem, though, is that Kosko presents the fuzzy world-view vs. the traditional or "scientific" in exactly those black and white terms. He also argues that fuzziness describes the world more effectively than "scientific" terms, that the rules of arithmetic, probability, and calculus are just games. They are played for their internal consistency, not because differentiation or factorials occur in nature. That's true, and as a heavy math user I know enough to distinguish my models from reality. Two facts remain, though. First, the models very often do describe reality in ways that can be checked easily enough: the bridge doesn't fall down and the TV receives its signal. Both happen because the bad old exact arithmetic has some kind of correspondence (no, I don't know what) to the real world, giving real ability to predict real results. Second, fuzzy logic and fuzzy arithmetic are themselves mathematical formalisms. Once you get past the gee-whiz stage, there is mathematical content as rigorous as in any other field of study. It's not either/or, it's very often a different way to interpret the same self-consistent games people have played for years. It adds interesting rules to the game. The great thing is that you really can use the new interpretations and tools along with the old ones. Fuzziness doesn't demolish the old structures, it bolsters them and adds capacity. And you can get all these benefits without shrink-wrapped, bite-sized pieces of Eastern philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: Fuzzy Logic - a fuzzy book
Review: Fuzzy logic is undeniably a very useful branch of maths, with many applications in science and technology. And Bart Kosko has undoubtedly contributed a great deal to the development of this theory. Unfortunately, this book is a total let-down. It is rambling, repetitive, abrasive, ill-logical and makes far too many tall claims. The author appears to be desperate to be seen as a rebel against 'traditional' science, whereas his perceived conflict between fuzzy logic and binary logic is entirely artificial. He pulls the old 'confrontation' between Eastern and Western Philosophy out of his hat in a way reminiscent of the worst of Fritjof Capra. I was amused by his claim that the yin-yang symbol stands for 'grey' and fuzziness: in his own book it is printed in pure black and white! Also, he completely ignores the fact that all useful applications of fuzzy logic are in fact implemented on binary computers. Come on Bart, there is no war, you are not Marlon Brando, next time please write a coherent, logical and witty book on this important topic, so that I can then maybe finish it, unlike this one which I gave up on two-thirds through.
Rating: 
Summary: Life changing
Review: Growing up in the U.S., never truly appreciated Eastern thought patterns of a non-binary nature. This book has changed the way I look at things and did it in a very clear and logical way without getting boring. Bart Kosko a someone who deserves the following he has. Fantastic reading
Rating: 
Summary: Thrilling Claims From Professor Kosko.
Review: I am much more inclined to acclaim Mr.Kosko than to chastise him. Allthough I can hardly digest "to %100 percent degree" that his "Fuzzy Theory" is that much revolutionary, how can we argue against the fact that it elegantly and consistently removes all those non required by-products of Aristotelian "A or ~A" or "Black or White" while maintainig all valid approximations based on it? May be the problem arises to a considerable degree from Mr.Kosko's too far militant stance(and this appearing to be in contradiction with his advocation of Budha and "fuzzyness"!) and his coining all these as brand-new solutions. Many Valued Logic ,Probability Theory and a whole set of pardigms about uncertain and approximate reasoning are in, since centuries and allthough I strived for hard I couldn't get to the very essence of what is so much revolutionary in Mr.Kosko's reduction of probability to the "Subsethood Theorem".After all why Mr.Kosko is so relentless in disposing of the "Frequency" and other interpretations of Probability Theory bare to their bones while he is amply compliant and respitefull in assigning his degrees of "elenthhood"? Am I badly missing the target in considering both of these to be variations of just the same fundamental problem? Than what substantial gain, whether a priori , philosophical or pragmatical-experimental, in reducing one of these to the other? But being a layman instead of a guru of science, I highly admire the iconoclasm and erudition of Professor Kosko, who is masterly talking at the pinnacle of the realm of knowledge at a relatively young age.Only if he could be less colloquial in his narrative, for the sake of those to the ears of whom English is not breathed while in their craddle(like me).And if he could be less laconic at the most crucial points where explanation is expected of him. For example he suddenly locks up in silence after ground-shakingly asserting that Phytagoras's Theorem and Uncertainity Principle are actually unified in the deep and uttering a few words on this.The same for his terribly exciting claim that Uncertainity Principle has nothing to do with measurement problem and, instead, is everywhere in all Physics which tries to explain the nonlinear universe by local and linear approximations.How unifying, how big and thrilling these claims are, even for a professional civil engineer like me!. Please Professor Kosko, you certainly owe a fuller and more solemn account for all breath taking declarations and discoveries of yours to your readers. Or if you have already done it please let us (me at least) have the chance to see it. I am certainly and deeply moved by Mr.Kosko's exposition, in conclusion, and highly recommend it for any one who has some interest in the universe in which we happen to exist and live.
Rating:
Summary: A reader
Review: I bought this book when i was first being introduced to the fuzzy logic world, and i must say i get very disapointed of this.
Fist off, the author spend most time criticizing everything with occidental flavor, from religion to philosophy and i should say that i found this very upseting and distracting. About the explanations on the subject of fuzzy logic, the author uses some very abstract examples, they are good but not so ilustrative for someone who is just begining in this world and hopes to find clear examples. I give one or two stars for this item.
Rating:
Summary: Don't bother
Review: I bought this expecting some informative reading. I finished it, not having fulfilled my hopes. The author spends his time discussing philosophy & religion, insulting scientists & mathematicians, and saying how much greater Buddha was than Aristotle.
Let's try a thought experiment: Suppose you have a fireplace, and 1 log was left partially sticking out of the fire last night, such that the flames missed it. Would you say that the log was burned (A) or unburned (not A)? According to Mr. Kosko, science & math would pick one or the other. That's bunk, we'd say the log was 40% burned and 60% unburned (A & not A). We'd use percentages. The author would argue that on a 0<->1 fuzzy continuum, from burned to unburned, the log would fall on a point 0.4 fuzzy units from the unburned point and 0.6 fuzzy units from the burned point. Any monkey can see that he's taken the same thing all scientists do and changed around the words.
Oh, and for all the computer programmers out there (of which I'm one), the author seems to think that binary computer programming is incapable of utilizing multiple partial conditional statements (IF-THEN-ELSEIF-THEN-ELSE-THEN-ENDIF). This programming construct was not invented by fuzzy science, but has been around for a very long time.
Part of the section about how fuzzy-logic controlled machines was interesting and informative. Once again, multiple partial condition control statements are no invention of fuzzy science.
Rating:
Summary: Don't bother
Review: I bought this expecting some informative reading. I finished it, not having fulfilled my hopes. The author spends his time discussing philosophy & religion, insulting scientists & mathematicians, and saying how much greater Buddha was than Aristotle. Let's try a thought experiment: Suppose you have a fireplace, and 1 log was left partially sticking out of the fire last night, such that the flames missed it. Would you say that the log was burned (A) or unburned (not A)? According to Mr. Kosko Kosko, science & math would pick one or the other. That's bunk, we'd say the log was 40% burned and 60% unburned (A & not A). We'd use percentages. The author would argue that on a 0<->1 fuzzy continuum, from burned to unburned, the log would fall on a point 0.4 fuzzy units from the unburned point and 0.6 fuzzy units from the burned point. Any monkey can see that he's taken the same thing all scientists do and changed around the words. Oh, and for all the computer programmers out there (of which I'm one), the author seems to think that binary computer programming is incapable of utilizing multiple partial conditional statements (IF-THEN-ELSEIF-THEN-ELSE-THEN-ENDIF). This programming construct was not invented by fuzzy science, but has been around for a very long time. Part of the section about how fuzzy-logic controlled machines was interesting and informative. Once again, it seems to me that multiple partial condition control statements are no invention of fuzzy science.
Rating:
Summary: too much chaff
Review: I have been researching fuzzy logic for a few years now and someone handed me this book. I was looking for a book like this to integrate more philosophy and examples, rather than straight forward hard-core math equations and theory. Be careful what you wish for, it might come true! This book was a rambling diatribe with a lot of subjective views on many disjointed topics. I really had to wade through a lot of painful reading to get to some useful information, which was very few and far between. His analogies and comparisons between fuzzy logic and Aristotle vs. Buddha detract rather than add to the argument. The chapters get away from the chapter titles with haughty generalizations and distracting writing. A good editor and a more focused, less "fuzzy" style would have made this more appealing. Don't buy this if you are looking for a book on fuzzy logic.
Rating:
Summary: how to be happy...toss true-false replace with kinda-sorta
Review: I read this about 7 years ago and it totally changed my life and my view of the world. (NOTE: It changed for the better) It's kind of a disorganized mess of a book but you'll get used to it. Read at least the first few chapters. Basically taught me to let go and think of everything in a "fuzzy" way. I think the people of the world would be much happier if they were able to toss the idea of black-white/true-false answers.
Rating:
Summary: The title is apropos
Review: I was looking forward to a good popularization of Fuzzy Logic theory, but I am quite disappointed. This is not a science book, nor is it a popularization of science. What science it does contain is unclear, is not presented in laymen's terms, and in some cases is factually wrong. The author asserts, pg. 107, that E = mc^2 is an approximation of a nonlinear equation, and attempts to prove it by pointing out where Einstein makes an approximation in his 1905 paper. It turns out that he was taking the Newtonian limit of an equation, and the limit implies the famous E=mc^2, but the E=mc^2 is not itself an approximation. This isn't a particularly serious error, and in fact he would have been technically correct until he said that the famous equation itself was an approximation. It is a sign of Kosko's attitude when he asserts that "[e]ven many physicists forget" that Einstein did this. I do not doubt that fuzzy logic is useful, but this is not a useful primer from which to learn first principles. Rather it is a diatribe against "Aristotalean logic". Einstein's work, to use him as an example again, was impressive because it was it turned out to be correct to a high degree of precision, not because Newton's work was wrong. Einstein's attitude towards his work was "Hey look at what I found!" not "Can you believe this Newton guy? He got it all wrong!" The author tries to unite philosophy and science and fuzzy logic and politics into one book, and fails utterly. His presentation of each of these topics detracts from the others. Douglas R. Hofstadter's classic "Godel, Escher, Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid" does this much better, in a far classier manner, and addresses quite clearly the "mapping problem" (as Kosko calls it) between logical systems and using them to describe the real world. Fuzzy math is a clever mathematical device, and turns out to be very useful for engineering automatic computer controls for systems with several degrees of freedom, but you don't even learn this until the second half of the book, right before he dreams of applications of fuzzy logic to politics. Those who subscribe to the view that the "black-and-white" judgmentalism of science is a bad thing may enjoy the philosophical combativeness of this book, but even they will not learn anything new. No, I do not recommend this book even in the slightest degree, except as an example of how not to write a popular science book.
| 
