opens with “We good Americans,”nthe reader can only wishnthat more Americans deservednto be included with James in hisnpronoun. DnRaraAvisninTerrisnMax Black: The Prevalence ofnHumbug and Other Essays;nCornell Univeisity Press; Ithaca, NY.nOne of the moderately interesting—andnultimately mostnannoying—things that one canndo with a home computer is tonput it into a GOTO loop. That is,na program is a series of steps. Tonmake a loop, the final instructionnis to go back to the first step. Thisnwill happen over and over andnover again. Similarly, childrennoften get into a GOTO loop, butnin their case it takes the form ofnthe repetition of “Why?” Giventhem one answer, and they’ll asknit again and again and again.nFinally, just as one punches thenQUIT button on the keyboard,none is forced to say, “Because Insaid so, that’s why!” One of thenmore trying questions that cannarise in putativeiy adult discoursenand lead to computer ornchild-like looping is “Why shouldn1 be rational?” Certainly, thenuniverse doesn’t seem to benexactly rational—at least that’snwhat quantum physicists, Einsteinnnotwithstanding, tell us—nand on a more microscopic level,nthat of individuals fiinctioning innsociety, it seems that those whonact selfishly, meanly, sybaritically,nand otherwise nonrationallyn(calculatingly, yes, ofncourse) often have their cake,ncaviar, champagne, etc., and getnto consume them, too. MaxnBlack, Cornell University’s sensiblenphilosopher (and thus a rarenbird ), has a suitable answer to thenquestion, one that essentiallynsays: because rationality is andefining characteristic of anhuman being, and if you don’tnwant to be one, then that’s yournbusiness. Black also delves intonsimilarly vexing matters withnsuch a verve that he makes onenready to consider looking atnWittgenstein through his companionnto the Tractatus. DnThe Reel World & the Real OnenMichael Chester: Robots:nFacts Behind the Fiction;nMacmillan; New York.nby Peter FrippnAn associate, a PR representativenfor a leading manufacturer ofnindustrial robots, did whatnfathers are wont to do when theirnchildren come home fromnschool with projects, in this casenfor a science fair: he gave hisndaughter some assistance. Givennhis vocational interest, hensuggested that they build anmock-up of an industrial robot.nThey made use of the swivelingnbase of an old bar stool for thenbase of the robot, attached annordinary cardboard packing boxnto act as the “body,” then used annempty wrapping paper tube fornMr. Fripp is a technical journalistnin Detroitnthe arm. The result resembled ancrude cannon more than R2D2.nThe piece de resistance to thenfourth-grade affair was the rollingncaster from a secretarialnchair. It was placed at the end ofnthe tube, where the”hand”nwould be located. Thus, thencontraption could swivel 360°non its base and it had axes ofnmotion where, as it’s known innrobot jargon, its “end effector,”nor tool, would be affixed. Thenfather gained tears for his efforts:nthe little girl came home fromnschool, snivelling, and chokednout the message that her teacherntold her that it wasn’t a robotnbecause it didn’t look like (yes)nR2D2. In facilities not far, farnaway but as near as the closestnindustrial park, there are real,nlive robots whirring and whooshingnand working. They resemblencannons and prayingnmantises and prostheses. Thenanthropomorphic ones are, bynand large, confined to thosenbuildings known as toy stores.nRobots by Michael Chester is,naccording to the publisher,nsupposed to be for humans fi^omnages 10 to 14. That is somewhatndeceptive. When it comes tonmatters concerning high technology—whethernit be associatednwith sophisticated weaponsnsystems or run-of-the-mill (in thennnBlakean sense of mill) robots—nthere are vast numbers of personsnwho have mental ages innthat range: the elementarynschool teacher, for one. (Thenimage of what she told her classnthe day after The Day After airednon TV makes my flesh crawl:n”According to our leading scientists,nthe consequences of annuclear attack would be ….”)nMr. Chester’s approach is correct:nhe attempts to provide anprimer for those who will inheritna world rife with automation.nHowever, he doesn’t seem tonhave done his homework, for hengives a great deal of attention tonwhat are relatively insignificantnproducts in the real world andnscant notice to the computerizednmuscles that are now makingna difference. Remarkably, innthis book of Facts Behind thenFiction, he doesn’t even mentionnthe Henry Ford of robots, JosephnF. Engelberger (the purists callnGeorge Devol the real father ofnthe industrial robot, but he’snmissing, too). What’s more, henasserts that the “creative andnplayful urge just to see what cannbe done has alw^ays been one ofnthe main forces—perhaps thensingle most important force—nbehind progress in science andnengineering,” which reduces thenscientific and engineering communitynto a bunch of dotty oldntinkerers who play at Pinocchion—and from there it’s one step tonR2D2. However, some portionsnof his book—the “Twenty-One-nStatement List on ComputernTechnology,” in particular—^arenvaluable. Adolescents have beennknown to sneak a peek at taboon^2^29nApril 1984n