Let me through my two cents in.
I have not finished ND (although I've had it for a while), but I had three general impressions:
1. Its style seems very casual - not the style to impress those really working in science. His repetitive use of little graphs showing a flat line with one spike became tiresome. Many sections covered topics that are true, but not very interesting.
2. The logic of each section leaves something to be desired. He seems to assume his conclusion rather than really prove it. Each section would need to be a book in itself. I don't remember the foot notes being very helpful either.
3. There were just too many small mistakes in math or matters of fact. Small mistakes are usually just carelessness. It seemed that the book was written way too fast to be serious. (I took some notes and could give you some examples.)
I was disappointed so far.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 06 2001 - 13:37:55 EDT