Reasoning that does not blindly accept available arguments and conclusions illustrates
Show
5.0 out of 5 stars All around great experience. Book is cute and an easy read even for kids. Seller did a fantastic job at pricing and description. I highly recommend them. Reviews with imagesTop reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.Reviewed in the United States on November 7, 2014 " ' How is the dictionary getting on?' Said Winston,
raising his voice to overcome the noise. Effective deception almost always requires that the audience be made to believe premises which are untrue (and thus, not properly supported by solid verifiable evidence), and that relevant evidence somehow be suppressed. This is the essence of good deception. And this is the information that is of course conspicuously missing from this little book about logic and rhetoric. The author of "An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments", Alli Almossawi, does not inform his readers that logic requires that premises must be verifiably true (i.e. well supported by evidence or the argument is fallacious). And he never once mentions the logical fallacy of suppressed evidence. These omissions are Important because they effectively gut logic. They render it nearly useless. You see, everyone knows naturally that we must not reason from untrue premises. The real problem is the faulty criteria by which we decide that a premise is true. And we rarely carefully consider what evidence should be available if an argument has been honestly presented to us. We have all been conditioned from childhood by state controlled schools and media to accept premises as true based entirely upon the source from which they come and the emotional responses that they produce, rather than the verifiable evidence and logic that supports them. Here's an interesting quote from the book, "An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments", that is completely consistent with its author deliberately stripping logic of its of its significance: "In closing, the rules of logic are not laws of the natural world, nor do they constitute all of human reasoning. As Marvin Minsky asserts, ordinary common sense reasoning is difficult to explain in terms of logical principles, as are analogies. He adds, "logic no more explains how we think than grammar explains how we speak" [Minsky]. Logic does not generate new truths, but rather allows one to evaluate existing chains of thought for consistency and coherence. It is precisely for that reason that it proves an effective tool for the analysis and communication of ideas and arguments." From the preface of "An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments" by Alli Almossawi So, correctly applying the rules of the science of correct reasoning (logic) does not allow us to "generate new truth"? Perhaps incorrect reasoning does? What does a criminal jury do when they logically evaluate evidence in order to decide that a defendant is not guilty, or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Doesn't their verdict, if correctly rendered, represent new truth. How can the rules of correct reasoning be so lightly dismissed? What is the point of reading a book about logic if it can not "generate new truth"? People that are effectively educated in the science of Aristotelian Logic are difficult to deceive. They won't accept premises as true which they know are deliberately incomplete or poorly supported by evidence. That's why state controlled public schools haven't taught true Aristotelian Logic for many generations. If you doubt this, just ask any number of average people how to determine if an argument is both valid and sound, or what the difference between a formal and informal logical fallacy is (these are both very basic logical concepts that are covered in this book by the way, minus the word "evidence" of course). You'll find that virtually none of them know what you're talking about. Here are a few logical definitions regarding verifying the truth of premises and suppressed evidence that I have found useful: (A)"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems
correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory." (B)"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we
know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently." (C)"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such,
it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains." (D) "We ought in
fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." (E) "The truth or falsity of a statement depends on facts, not on any power on the part of the statement itself of admitting contrary qualities". - Aristotle, Categories (F) "Similarly with any other art or science. Consequently, if the attributes of the thing are apprehended, our business will then be to exhibit readily the demonstration. For if none of the true attributes of things had been omitted in the historical survey, we should be able to discover the proof and demonstrate everything which admitted of proof, and to make that clear , whose nature does not admit of proof". - Aristotle, Prior Analytics (G) "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". - Aristotle, Posterior Analytics (H) "Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong." Schopenhauer had some interesting thoughts regarding our natural tendency to blindly follow authority figures. "This is the argumentum ad verecundiam. It consists in making an
appeal to authority rather than reason, and in using such an authority as may suit the degree of knowledge possessed by your opponent. If you would like to know why the vast majority of the general population has virtually no understanding of formal logic, here's a good place to start: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Reviewed in the United States on September 6, 2019 I bought these books to coach a debate team as a parent. Imagine my surprise to find that a book on logical fallacies commits numerous examples itself, and displays clear anti-religious and political bias. Reviewed in the United States on September 7, 2022
I know this is my own fault, and I should have paid more attention to the description. But this book is small, and short, and does not have that much writing on the pages. I wanted to learn more about fallacies, and I thought the illustrations would be an amusing addition. And they are; but this book features a relatively small number of fallacies, and frankly an internet search for each one offers better information for free. I would say, save your money. Reviewed in the United States on September 12, 2022 Can't wait to get Loaded Language.
Top reviews from other countries2.0 out of 5 stars Excellent blurb selling the book, not so excellent content Reviewed in the United Kingdom on November 5, 2019 Quite disappointing. It says it's aimed at "newcomers to the field of logical reasoning," yet many entries are too complex, technical, and jargon-ridden in their explanations of a particular fallacy. Lack of clarity is a big obstacle for any newcomer to a field. Despite the beautifully drawn (but often unfunny) illustrations, this is not a book for a child or young person. It really needed a good professional editor to persuade the author to shape it into the book it purports to be. 5.0 out of 5 stars Great Introduction for Young Readers Reviewed in the United Kingdom on November 3, 2016 I bought this for my daughter who just discovered her interest in logical riddles, paradoxes and the likes and thought it's a nice introduction to logical fallacies for teenagers. Having read it, I would say it's a great introduction for adults as well. 3.0 out of 5 stars Okay Reviewed in the United Kingdom on October 20, 2018 The explanations are short changed by the two page format (one page of explanation and one page of comic). The author could well have provided two pages of explanation with more examples -- it's sorely lacking examples -- and one page of cutesy comic. 5.0 out of 5 stars Beautifully illustrated book of knowledge Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 4, 2016 Good book, delivered on time. Lovely illustrations and easy to understand. Bought for general reading and would recommend - easy read which educates. Makes a potentially confusing topic easy to understand in a memorable way. 5.0 out of 5 stars What a lovely idea. Reviewed in the United Kingdom on May 3, 2016 This book clearly explains some of the most common logical fallacies with some delightfully quirky illustrations and lovely examples of their usage. A book aimed at the teen to adult market no doubt, but so well written and put together, it can be used to teach any interested pre-teen to avoid falling into bad thinking habits. What is reasoning that does not blindly accept available arguments and conclusions?Critical Thinking Defined
It is a way of thinking in which you don't simply accept all arguments and conclusions you are exposed to but rather have an attitude involving questioning such arguments and conclusions.
What are the 3 key elements of the scientific attitude?Scientific attitude has three basic components: belief, feeling and action. Belief is the cognitive basis of scientific attitude, which provides a learner several scientific information of scientific phenomenon, eminent scientists, scientific inventions etc.
What critical thinking most clearly involves?Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.
How can hindsight bias make research findings seem like common sense?Hindsight bias is the tendency to believe, after learning an outcome, that we would have foreseen it. Thus, learning the outcome of a study can make it seem like obvious common sense. Scientific inquiry and critical thinking can help us overcome this tendency to overestimate our unaided intuition.
|