Rating: 
Summary: Utter Rubbish
Review:
This book is utter rubbish. It is carelessy written, its arguments are logically shaky to say the least, and it contains glaring factual errors.
I was all the more disappointed because I had previously read Postman's excellent book "Amusing Ourselves to Death". Furthermore, Postman's topic in "Technopoly" is a serious one and deserves a serious and lucid treatment which, alas, it does not get here.
As I read this book I became more and more exasperated by its shoddy thinking, but the "last straw" which made me bang the book shut in disgust was Postman's statement that a Turing Machine is a computer which can pass a Turing Test.
Rating:
Summary: Poor argumentation, great writing.
Review: After reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, this book was a huge disappointment. The main problem is that most of the book boils down to a statement that technology is taking away our good time-honored value systems, and putting new ones in their place. Indeed, the book goes into *great* length to describe and contrast those new values with old ones. The problem is - Postman never actually says *why* it is that those new values are bad, what is it about technology that makes it so inherently evil. Most of the time he just authoritatively states it is, or provides a furiously hand-wavy explanation involving the destruction of the 'moral fiber' in our societies. Unfortunately for his readers, not only is the main argument in the book weak, but so are the supporting arguments that seem to be full of strawman arguments, unsupported assertions, and other such. (This gem, for example, is from page 112: "The plain fact is that humans have a unique, biologically rooted, i! ntangible mental life which in some limited respects can be simulated by a machine but can never be duplicated." That's a very strong statement, but Postman doesn't provide any sort of support for it. Apparently, we're supposed to 'just believe' him, even though he demands that we don't do so for anyone else.) All in all, this book seems to be more of a haphazard collection of anecdotes than a coherent argument, and is a real disappointment especially when compared to Amusing. Too bad, because I expected more of Postman.
Rating: 
Summary: A inspiring book that allows you to reevaluate your own view
Review: An inspiring book that had me looking at the way that I live my life, and how dependant I am on technology. Neil Postman stresses that without understanding what it would have been like without the impressions of technology, we cannot fully understand how it is taking us [as people in general] away from our natural cultures. Explaining the possitive points of technology first, he then continues by stressing where and when technocracies took over, and offers some sugjestions on how to solve them. I recomend this for anyone that has ever questioned technology or its hidden motives.
Rating: 
Summary: Great analysis of technological evolution.
Review: Clever and resourceful. It is fascinating the way Postman interweaves different aspect of life, such as printing press, IQ test, language, education, and polling system, into Technopoly. Postman's argument of American culture becoming too technologicaly oriented and loosing the traditions is a legitimate point. However, he ignors the fact that America does not have a tradition. America is trying to stablish a tradiotion. The tradition that America is "loosing" was not American tradition, it came with the pilgrims. As Postman is full of fascinationg information himself, he argues that we don't need any more information, "Technopolist stands firm in believing that what the world needs is yet more information...Information is dangerous when it has no place to go...Information without regulation can be lethal." But, he does not prescribe that, how much information is enough information? And how could we regulate information in a democratic society? The system is set-up for gathering infromation. Students are incouraged to collect infromation. One of the main points of Postman's argument is that the rise of technopoly demolished religious believes and therefore the traditions. Although the topics are repetitious, I found the book easy to read. Postman provokes many questions, such as, are we controlling technology or technology is controlling us? What is the purpose of history? Are we happy about where technology is taking us? Is it too late, or can technology be controlled? What about God?
Rating: 
Summary: Dated but very relevant, sobering
Review: Cultural critic Neil Postman goes after what he calls technolopy which is essentially a "self-justifying, self-perpetuating system wherein technology of every kind is cheerfully granted
sovereingty over social institutions and national life." Postman is not by any means an luddite but he wants us to be aware of how technology has shaped our society,and epistemology. Often not for the better in many respects. We live in a society that does not use machines but is more and more used by them. It shapes our world view. Postman attempts to trace it's effect on us from the beginning. Overall he does a fine a job. Although a easy read many of the topics require closer scrutiny and thinking. Which is good, he wants you to think about whats happening not just accept what he has to say. In one chapter he roasts the medical industry's infatuation with new technology while the doctors neglect their patients. Patients invariably are reduced to slabs of meat on a assembly line. He makes the salient point that information is not understanding, which is usually ignored by most promoters of technopoly. Another chapter deals with 'scientism' which is science distorted into a intolerant fundamentalist belief system and its effects on our society. This chapter is his most humorous as he disects some the masters of the obvious(Dilbert like scientists who think they have discovered something profound but what most people on the street already know)Like people are afraid of death and that open minded people tend to be open minded. That's right Ph.d's have done studies to prove these notions! Perhaps a better title for this chapter would have been "the marching morons of science." The last chapter deals on how to resist technology in our daily lives. Which he sums ups in several points(not all of them are listed in this review). Though it's not enough in my opinion, considering technolopy's corrosive influence on people and cultures throughout the world. Things need to be addressed at the nation policy level if anything is to be really changed. * who do not regard the aged as irrelevant * who admire technological ingenuity but do not think it represents the highest form of human achievement. * who are at least, suspicious of the idea of progress, and who do not confuse information with understanding. * who have freed themselves from the belief in the magical power of numbers, do not regard calculations as an adequate substitute for judgement or as synonym for truth. The book is a good starting point to informing oneself on the minuses of technology. Though dated much of his observations are still relevant and a good antidote to high tech mavens like Kelly, Moravec and their ilk. Another good book is David Ehrenfeld's "Beginning Again" written from a profession biologist POV. Or better yet, get Wendell Berry's tract "Life is a miracle" which a rather thorough disection of technolopy's epistemology and what lies beneath it's pretty public facade.
Rating:
Summary: Dated but very relevant, sobering
Review: Cultural critic Neil Postman goes after what he calls technolopy which is essentially a "self-justifying, self-perpetuating system wherein technology of every kind is cheerfully granted
sovereingty over social institutions and national life." Postman is not by any means an luddite but he wants us to be aware of how technology has shaped our society,and epistemology. Often not for the better in many respects. We live in a society that does not use machines but is more and more used by them. It shapes our world view. Postman attempts to trace it's effect on us from the beginning. Overall he does a fine a job. Although a easy read many of the topics require closer scrutiny and thinking. Which is good, he wants you to think about whats happening not just accept what he has to say. In one chapter he roasts the medical industry's infatuation with new technology while the doctors neglect their patients. Patients invariably are reduced to slabs of meat on a assembly line. He makes the salient point that information is not understanding, which is usually ignored by most promoters of technopoly. Another chapter deals with 'scientism' which is science distorted into a intolerant fundamentalist belief system and its effects on our society. This chapter is his most humorous as he disects some the masters of the obvious(Dilbert like scientists who think they have discovered something profound but what most people on the street already know)Like people are afraid of death and that open minded people tend to be open minded. That's right Ph.d's have done studies to prove these notions! Perhaps a better title for this chapter would have been "the marching morons of science." The last chapter deals on how to resist technology in our daily lives. Which he sums ups in several points(not all of them are listed in this review). Though it's not enough in my opinion, considering technolopy's corrosive influence on people and cultures throughout the world. Things need to be addressed at the nation policy level if anything is to be really changed. * who do not regard the aged as irrelevant * who admire technological ingenuity but do not think it represents the highest form of human achievement. * who are at least, suspicious of the idea of progress, and who do not confuse information with understanding. * who have freed themselves from the belief in the magical power of numbers, do not regard calculations as an adequate substitute for judgement or as synonym for truth. The book is a good starting point to informing oneself on the minuses of technology. Though dated much of his observations are still relevant and a good antidote to high tech mavens like Kelly, Moravec and their ilk. Another good book is David Ehrenfeld's "Beginning Again" written from a profession biologist POV. Or better yet, get Wendell Berry's tract "Life is a miracle" which a rather thorough disection of technolopy's epistemology and what lies beneath it's pretty public facade.
Rating: 
Summary: Postman, heal thyself
Review: For two semesters, I've taught out of *Technopoly*, and I sympathize with many of the points in it. Scientism bothers me, and I'm always going on about the Popperian criterion, that a scientific proposition must be falsifiable. So I was disappointed to see Postman fall prey to the same fallacies he criticizes. For example, he repeats the tired old error that Einstein proved "everything is relative" and so morals don't matter-- a classic example of the equivocal fallacy, as neither of Einstein's theories of relativity had anything to say about moral relativism. Postman also misrepresents BF Skinner's vision of humanity: "The automaton to be redeemed by a benign technology." Anyone who bothers to read Skinner will find that he regards human beings as feeling, thinking, flesh-and-blood creatures. More broadly, Postman proceeds on the explicit assumption that science and religion are irreconcilably at odds, when in fact, science has nothing whatever to say about religious propositions. It is only when religious authorities presume to make testable claims about the natural world that science might come to bear. To think otherwise is to give science powers that it doesn't have-- in a word, it's scientism. Postman's nostalgia for an age of religion-induced "certainty" left me totally cold. Certainty about what is most uncertain? No, thank you. That is the kind of comforting "certainty" that has given us evils ranging from quack medicine to ethnic cleansing. Most disturbingly of all, Postman indulges in the very "agentic shift" that he rightly criticizes, saying essentially that a technology will do what it is designed to do. Who has designed it? To do what, and to whom? Such questions are swallowed up in the passive voice and Postman's anthropomorphization of technology. Amid all the talk of conquest and oppression, there is a conspicuous absence of conquerors and oppressors, a notable omission in what purports to be a historical overview of technology. I more or less agree with his final point, that elementary and secondary education should emphasize fundamental, classical disciplines like logic. Such training might result in fewer books like *Technopoly*, or at least equip more readers to spot the obvious errors.
Rating:
Summary: Postman, heal thyself
Review: For two semesters, I've taught out of *Technopoly*, and Isympathize with many of the points in it. Scientism bothers me, andI'm always going on about the Popperian criterion, that a scientific proposition must be falsifiable. So I was disappointed to see Postman fall prey to the same fallacies he criticizes. For example, he repeats the tired old error that Einstein proved "everything is relative" and so morals don't matter-- a classic example of the equivocal fallacy, as neither of Einstein's theories of relativity had anything to say about moral relativism. Postman also misrepresents BF Skinner's vision of humanity: "The automaton to be redeemed by a benign technology." Anyone who bothers to read Skinner will find that he regards human beings as feeling, thinking, flesh-and-blood creatures. More broadly, Postman proceeds on the explicit assumption that science and religion are irreconcilably at odds, when in fact, science has nothing whatever to say about religious propositions. It is only when religious authorities presume to make testable claims about the natural world that science might come to bear. To think otherwise is to give science powers that it doesn't have-- in a word, it's scientism. Postman's nostalgia for an age of religion-induced "certainty" left me totally cold. Certainty about what is most uncertain? No, thank you. That is the kind of comforting "certainty" that has given us evils ranging from quack medicine to ethnic cleansing. Most disturbingly of all, Postman indulges in the very "agentic shift" that he rightly criticizes, saying essentially that a technology will do what it is designed to do. Who has designed it? To do what, and to whom? Such questions are swallowed up in the passive voice and Postman's anthropomorphization of technology. Amid all the talk of conquest and oppression, there is a conspicuous absence of conquerors and oppressors, a notable omission in what purports to be a historical overview of technology. I more or less agree with his final point, that elementary and secondary education should emphasize fundamental, classical disciplines like logic. Such training might result in fewer books like *Technopoly*, or at least equip more readers to spot the obvious errors. END
Rating:
Summary: Well written, poorly argued and self contradictory
Review: Having read several of Postman's books I find this to be the one of his most poorly argued. The same issues are presented as in his better books ("Amusing Ourselves...," "Disappearance of Childhood") but written as a manifesto of what technology --Technopoly-- has brought to society. Unfortunately his examples end up being self contradictory, often to hilarious effect by easily being read against his message. This is shows in how argues against "experts" and "specialization" while he himself is a prime example. Many other examples are show that he's no "wiser" than technophiles since he uses many examples at "face value" --since they were in print-- as more valid than those shown presented by computers. The highest irony would be anyone reading or writing reviews such as this one --which greatly contradicts his early, and strong dismissal of computers. Such approaches are not mentioned or conceived that there would any way for people to communicate or to respond to his work such as these reviews. Anyone reading reviews "praising" his work should ask HOW of IF they could do this BEFORE computers and the internet. Many of his strongest examples are misplaced. A prime example is to raise the TELESCOPE to the same level of importance as print and mechanical (pg 28). He cites the telescope, not the facts it revealed, as undermining religious authority. Even though, on the SAME PAGE, he admits Copernicus' work was done without it. He does not suggest that circulation of that information, as with Luther's writing, had far more impact on Christianity. He seems to suggest that, if not for the telescope, the earth would remain at the center of the universe thanks to the Catholic Church. Given that this book was written before the rise of the web it is clear that he should realize, especially starting his work with the Phaedrus, that he's not in a position to crown himself a "wise king." This is most clearly that many of his concerns are misplaced and address media that are still in period of flux. Bottom line Postman is as his best when writing about the past and media effects where he can undergird his opinions with the writings of others, such as McLuhan. When doing so, his presentation is clearer and more accessible than McLuhan. Unfortunately the more he pontificates about the future the more his ignorance of technology, discomfort with change, and his desire to return to the idyllic 1800's clouds his rhetoric showing (quoting the Phaedrus, pg 4) "... the reputation for it [wisdom] without the reality."
Rating:
Summary: Well written, poorly argued and self contradictory
Review: Having read several of Postman's books I find this to be the one of his most poorly argued. The same issues are presented as in his better books ("Amusing Ourselves...," "Disappearance of Childhood") but written as a manifesto of what technology --Technopoly-- has brought to society. Unfortunately his examples end up being self contradictory, often to hilarious effect by easily being read against his message. This is shows in how argues against "experts" and "specialization" while he himself is a prime example. Many other examples are show that he's no "wiser" than technophiles since he uses many examples at "face value" --since they were in print-- as more valid than those shown presented by computers. The highest irony would be anyone reading or writing reviews such as this one --which greatly contradicts his early, and strong dismissal of computers. Such approaches are not mentioned or conceived that there would any way for people to communicate or to respond to his work such as these reviews. Anyone reading reviews "praising" his work should ask HOW of IF they could do this BEFORE computers and the internet. Many of his strongest examples are misplaced. A prime example is to raise the TELESCOPE to the same level of importance as print and mechanical (pg 28). He cites the telescope, not the facts it revealed, as undermining religious authority. Even though, on the SAME PAGE, he admits Copernicus' work was done without it. He does not suggest that circulation of that information, as with Luther's writing, had far more impact on Christianity. He seems to suggest that, if not for the telescope, the earth would remain at the center of the universe thanks to the Catholic Church. Given that this book was written before the rise of the web it is clear that he should realize, especially starting his work with the Phaedrus, that he's not in a position to crown himself a "wise king." This is most clearly that many of his concerns are misplaced and address media that are still in period of flux. Bottom line Postman is as his best when writing about the past and media effects where he can undergird his opinions with the writings of others, such as McLuhan. When doing so, his presentation is clearer and more accessible than McLuhan. Unfortunately the more he pontificates about the future the more his ignorance of technology, discomfort with change, and his desire to return to the idyllic 1800's clouds his rhetoric showing (quoting the Phaedrus, pg 4) "... the reputation for it [wisdom] without the reality."
| 
