Reasoning that does not blindly accept available arguments and conclusions illustrates

5.0 out of 5 stars All around great experience.
Reviewed in the United States on January 21, 2021

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 images

Top 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.
'Slowly,' said Syme. "I'm on the adjectives. It's fascinating.'
He had brightened up immediately at the mention of Newspeak ...
'The Eleventh Edition is the definitive edition,' he said. ' We're getting the language into its final shape -- the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we've finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We're destroying words -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We're cutting the language down to the bone. The Eleventh Edition won't contain a singe word that will become obsolete before the year 2050 ...
'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words' ...
'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.' "
- George Orwell, 1984

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."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy

[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."
-Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition

[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."
-Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic [1985]

[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."
-Aristotle, Rhetoric

[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."
-Thomas Jefferson

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.
Every man prefers belief to the exercise of judgment, says Seneca; and it is therefore an easy matter if you have an authority on your side which your opponent respects. The more limited his capacity and knowledge, the greater is the number of authorities who weigh with him. But if his capacity and knowledge are of a high order, there are very few; indeed, hardly any at all. He may, perhaps, admit the authority of professional men versed in science or an art or a handicraft of which he knows little or nothing; but even so he will regard it with suspicion. Contrarily, ordinary folk have a deep respect for professional men of every kind. They are unaware that a man who makes a profession of a thing loves it not for the thing itself, but for the money he makes by it; or that it is rare for a man who teaches to know his subject thoroughly; for if he studies it as he ought, he has in most cases no time left in which to teach it...
There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted. Example effects their thought just as it affects their action. They are like sheep following the bell-wether just as he leads them. They will sooner die than think. It is very curious that the universality of an opinion should have so much weight with people, as their own experience might tell them that it's acceptance is an entirely thoughtless and merely imitative process. But it tells them nothing of the kind, because they possess no self-knowledge whatever...
When we come to look into the matter, so-called universal opinion is the opinion of two or three persons; and we should be persuaded of this if we could see the way in which it really arises.
We should find that it is two or three persons who, in the first instance, accepted it, or advanced and maintained it; and of whom people were so good as to believe that they had thoroughly tested it. Then a few other persons, persuaded beforehand that the first were men of the requisite capacity, also accepted the opinion. These, again, were trusted by many others, whose laziness suggested to them that it was better to believe at once, than to go through the troublesome task of testing the matter for themselves. Thus the number of these lazy and credulous adherents grew from day to day; for the opinion had no sooner obtained a fair measure of support than its further supporters attributed this to the fact that the opinion could only have obtained it by the cogency of its arguments. The remainder were then compelled to grant what was universally granted, so as not to pass for unruly persons who resisted opinions which everyone accepted, or pert fellows who thought themselves cleverer than any one else.
When opinion reaches this stage, adhesion becomes a duty; and henceforward the few who are capable of forming a judgment hold their peace. Those who venture to speak are such as are entirely incapable of forming any opinion or any judgment of their own, being merely the echo of others' opinions; and, nevertheless, they defend them with all the greater zeal and intolerance. For what they hate in people who think differently is not so much the different opinions which they profess, as the presumption of wanting to form their own judgment; a presumption of which they themselves are never guilty, as they are very well aware. In short, there are very few who can think, but every man wants to have an opinion; and what remains but to take it ready-made from others, instead of forming opinions for himself?
Since this is what happens, where is the value of the opinion even of a hundred millions? It is no more established than an historical fact reported by a hundred chroniclers who can be proved to have plagiarised it from one another; the opinion in the end being traceable to a single individual."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy

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
9/11 Missing Links
Dr Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the U.S.Army War College
On youtube

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.
As a positive, I do think the descriptions and definitions of the logical fallacies were fairly accurate and presented well enough for smart children to grasp. So I will say that. It is in the examples where the bias and breakdown of logic occurs.
A few examples:
In the very first section on Arguments from Consequences, the author refers to Dostoevsky's assertion, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted." First, the author presents this as a quote, which it is not. It is a paraphrase of two different sentences within a dialogue that cannot be construed to be a complete, self-contained logical argument. Second, the statement quoted in the book is actually perfectly valid and useful as a rigid logical concept when debating any atheist who claims that morality is objective. Without the context of the argument, the author misleads the reader into thinking that that statement is always fallacious. That's simply wrong. There are numerous, more basic and completely self-contained examples of an Argument from Consequence fallacy the author could have used.
On the opposite, illustrated page, we find another example of an Argument from Consequences. The argument, "Well, if I get rid of our cows, then we will have to walk everywhere, and that would be terrible for morale. Therefore cow emissions are not killing the planet." What is this nonsense? First, this is not an example of any argument I've ever heard anyone give, and it unnecessarily drags in a political topic and bias where none is necessary. The very next page covers the Straw Man argument, which the author might have studied a bit more before coming up with this ridiculous example. Has the author ever even ridden a cow? It’s not that easy.
The very next page continues the religion/science theme with the Straw Man argument, which centers on evolution. The presentation here I have no complaints about. The argument presented is a straw man, but is another example of the bias that exists within the book, where numerous other neutral examples could be used.
The following page is odd, covering the Appeal to Irrelevant Authority fallacy. Any appeal to authority is fallacious, but it appears the author takes a minority view here that if many scientists say something, it must be true. We can’t all understand General Relativity or quantum mechanics, but we believe in these principles generally because they work, not because of who came up with them. Not so long ago on a cosmic scale, many scientists believed the Earth was the center of the universe.
The next page again exhibits the author’s anti-religious bias while covering the Equivocation Fallacy. The example provided is, “How can you be against faith when you take leaps of faith all the time: making investments, trusting friends, and even getting engaged?” Wow. I’ve never heard of a more ignorant concept of faith, or a more convoluted example of the Equivocation Fallacy. How about the classic kids’ example, which is self-contained and clear: “Eating spinach is better than eating nothing. Nothing is better than eating a pizza. Therefore, eating spinach is better than eating a pizza.” That’s a great, self-contained example of equivocation that doesn’t depend on cherry-picking numerous available definitions of “faith”. This is just more anti-religious bias creeping into the examples in an infantile manner. The illustrated example on the opposite page is actually great.
The author does decently well, if not presenting cloudy, unclear examples of fallacies through page 28, where he manages to provide some balance by pointing out the Genetic Fallacy, “As men and women living in the twenty-first century, we cannot continue to hold these Bronze Age beliefs.” Well done, although in fairness, it would likewise be nice if the author steered clear of religious and political topics.
And that takes me halfway through the book. In summary, had the author lost the anti-religious and political bias presented in the book, and provided more clear-cut, self-contained examples of fallacies, I think this book would be a great teaching aid. As it stands, I cannot recommend the book, will not pass them out to the students, and will be forced to return the lot that I bought.

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.

What is reasoning that does not blindly accept available arguments and conclusions?

What are the 3 key elements of the scientific attitude?

What critical thinking most clearly involves?

How can hindsight bias make research findings seem like common sense?