[www.skeptic.com]

Interesting quotes (sorry I don't know how to change fonts on the text here):
---------------------------------------------------------------
His title, Blink, is apt, for we humans have a remarkable—and heretofore unproven—capacity for making judgments in the metaphorical blink of an eye that are often superior to those we might have made had we taken the time to assess all possible variables.

and:

There are, roughly speaking, three levels of science writing in our culture: (1) technical (peer-reviewed papers, monographs, and university press books written by and for professional scientists); (2) popular professional (essays and articles in popular magazines and trade press books written by scientists for both scientists and moderately informed general readers — Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Jared Diamond come to mind); (3) popular general (essays, articles, and books by journalists and science writers for >completely uninformed readers).

We live in the Age of Science, and all three levels are vital for the dispersal of scientific knowledge to an educated democracy. Sadly, too many professional scientists think level one is the only legitimate form of science writing, and that anything else is simply “dumbing down.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably a natural reaction to the proliferation of "pseudo-science", bleeding from level 3 to 2 to 1. I am not a scientist, but really enjoy science. I love watching and reading well done "popular professional" and "popular general" pieces, but it seems like a huge percentage of the work done is ill concieved drivel or agenda driven propaganda. It's a fine line between the book reviewed here (imperical evidence that intuition works) and, say for example the Kansas putting AD on equal footing with the theory of evolution.

Peski