This is a book review of A Philosophical Approach to Mond by David Merritt. Merritt's book is something of a curate's egg: his discussion of MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, an alternative to dark matter which involves modifying the laws of gravity and/or inertia, originally proposed by Milgrom(1)) is knowledgeable and convincingly argued. However, when comparing MOND with $\Lambda$CDM (the mainstream idea of structure formation in the Universe, $\Lambda$ being the cosmological constant and CDM cold dark matter), the approach is too imbalanced. Chapter 1 on the epistemology of science quotes Popper: ``The trouble about people -- uncritical people -- who hold a theory is that they are inclined to take everything as supporting or `verifying' it, and nothing as refuting it.'' That is actually a good summary of my impression of this book, though my target is of course Merritt and not standard cosmology. The book is well written and many references are provided for statements about the philosophy of science. It is good, well researched, and I agree with it. It is thus even more puzzling that Merritt's application of that to the MOND _vs._ $\Lambda$CDM debate is so imbalanced. While his criticism of the mainstream cosmological community is clear, I also think that it is unfair to the MOND community, as it could create the impression that that community has to resort to exaggerated claims in order to defend itself, which is essentially an admission of defeat. That is particularly sad because my impression is that there is something non-trivial about MOND phenomenology which deserves much more attention, whatever its explanation ultimately turns out to be. There is a need for a book like this, but Merritt's book sheds too much heat and not enough light on the debate.