Books on critical thinking/logical fallacies

dtfo

Hi All

I know this mightnt be directly what this forum is about but I thought it might be my best chance of finding a good book recommendation

Im basically looking for one on critical thinking and/or logical fallacies. One that appeals to a general enthusiast rather than a textbook

Thanks

oldrnwisr

dtfo wrote: »

Hi All

I know this mightnt be directly what this forum is about but I thought it might be my best chance of finding a good book recommendation

Im basically looking for one on critical thinking and/or logical fallacies. One that appeals to a general enthusiast rather than a textbook

Thanks

Hi dtfo,

As far as critical thinking goes I think that most of the regulars here would agree that Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World is probably a good starting point.

I don't know about books on logical fallacies but there are some very good websites on the subject:

The Nizkor Project

Fallacy Files

Wikipedia - List of fallacies

RationalWiki


Hope this helps

Mickeroo

Yeah, The Demon Haunted World is brilliant.

Duggys Housemate

Unfortunately it's not on kindle.

oldrnwisr

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not on kindle.

Not from Amazon, no, but you can download it for free here.

CerebralCortex

Harry Potter and the methods of rationality.

MisterEpicurus

dtfo wrote: »

Hi All

I know this mightnt be directly what this forum is about but I thought it might be my best chance of finding a good book recommendation

Im basically looking for one on critical thinking and/or logical fallacies. One that appeals to a general enthusiast rather than a textbook

Thanks

If you want a book filled with logical fallacies then buy the Bible...

dtfo

Thanks for the help

Ive decided to order http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Informal-Logical-Fallacies-Jacob-Van/9780761854333 and http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Vocabulary-Critical-Thinking-Phil-Washburn/9780195324808

Ill let you know how I find them

18AD

This is decent, short and sweet: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rulebook-Arguments-Anthony-Weston/dp/0872209547/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343346700&sr=8-1

raah!

It really is silly to go looking for guidelines like this. The only rules governing reasoning should be those basic rules of logic with which we are all endowed by virtue of being human. Any other 'rule' or 'fallacy' you could possibly learn will be less general, and therefore prone to being used outside of its range of appliciability. And if anything this will have an extremely on your capacity to reason properly, wherein certain phrases or names are substituted for actual thought or legitimate argument.

If you want to learn about simple logic then you could look into some maths proofs. If you are not already able to point out what is wrong with an argument without using some buzzword or catchphrase, then you have no business using that buzzword or catchphrase.

Duggys Housemate

raah! wrote: »

It really is silly to go looking for guidelines like this. The only rules governing reasoning should be those basic rules of logic with which we are all endowed by virtue of being human. Any other 'rule' or 'fallacy' you could possibly learn will be less general, and therefore prone to being used outside of its range of appliciability. And if anything this will have an extremely on your capacity to reason properly, wherein certain phrases or names are substituted for actual thought or legitimate argument.

If you want to learn about simple logic then you could look into some maths proofs. If you are not already able to point out what is wrong with an argument without using some buzzword or catchphrase, then you have no business using that buzzword or catchphrase.

Hardly. It's useful to call people on fallacies like slippery slope etc.

raah!

Slippery Slope? I've never heard of that, perhaps you could have inferred from my post that I don't place too much stock on such substitutions for actual logic.

As my post pointed out, those are more often than not, not useful. That is, it's not useful from a logical or argumentative sense, even though the misused catchphrases may be useful in a persuasive sense. And it's precisely this illogical misuse of the terms, which are seen as completely general and absolute (which they are not) that is not helpful.

For example, I just looked up "slippery slope" , and its certainly not a straight forward once off error. Whether or not it is applicable would rely on a lot of things. Just because it has the word fallacy at the end of it doesn't make it true, neither does it make it universally applicable, and it certainly doesn't mean you can just mention it without supporting why something is this or that fallacy.

And so, for a fallacy to be used properly, and in a non sophistical manner, you would have to use all the reasoning that you would use to demonstrate the falseness of an argument anyway. You would have to say "this is wrong because it assumes this this this, and this, and these aren't true", and then you wuold just have to name it as a "slippery slope". So all you have done there is attach a name to your string of reasoning. If however, you just say "dats fallcy slippery slope", then you haven't made an argument at all. You will have made an impression on people who don't understanding much about reasoning, but really such statements are nothing more than a bare assertion of "you're wrong" .

In that sense, when people learn off these fallacy names and then just randomly use them without saying why such and such is a such and such. It isn't an example of learning or a grasp of reasoning, but an example of the absence of both, and a reliance on the affect that certain terms have on similarly uneducated people.

In summary: To use them properly, you have to justify their use, and in order to justify their use, you would have to show why the arguments you are arguing against are wrong independently of this buzzword, this therefore makes the introduction of such a term argumentatively unnessecary, though it would have it's persuasive and sophistical uses.

Improper use, which is extremely common, amount to no more than assertions of wrongness or correctness.

So, there are two options, you learn off these words, and use them properly, and in this situation they are unnessecary in your logical or argumentative process, or you use them improperly, in which case you have yourself made an error and will look very silly. So there is no benefit to relying on these, other than tricking idiots who don't want to read over the arguments for themselves. They are just names after all, and they should not be used as a substitute for justifying your criticisms of someones argument.

MagicMarker

I didn't read any of that.

raah!

Why did you tell me that?

robindch

raah! wrote: »

Slippery Slope? I've never heard of that, perhaps you could have inferred from my post that I don't place too much stock on such substitutions for actual logic.[...] So there is no benefit to relying on these, other than tricking idiots who don't want to read over the arguments for themselves. They are just names after all, and they should not be used as a substitute for justifying your criticisms of someones argument.

You missed the point there.

The books above discuss common cognitive errors and why one should be careful to distinguish them from logic errors -- the same distinction you haven't made.

Duggys Housemate

raah! wrote: »

Why did you tell me that?

He was politely informing you that you rant.

Pointing out a logical inconsistency is useful, it's also useful to find flaws in your own thinking. You should try it.

So for instance learning about slippery slope might help you not make that logical mistake The arguments themselves should be explained - that's slippery slope because....

To assume that you, Raah, would have come up with all the errors in reasoning on your own is a stretch.

sponsoredwalk

This video course on logic is due to be out pretty soon. Judging by the quality of all of the courses they've released (or even just a single one they're that good) this course will probably be better than 95% of the books you'll read. Books like the Demon Haunted World are really just stating the obvious most of the time (it was a pretty good audiobook) so if you read it & find yourself wanting more that link is the purest of the uncut pure (based on the syllabus & references) without being overly pure.

sponsoredwalk

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

He was politely informing you that you rant.

Pointing out a logical inconsistency is useful, it's also useful to find flaws in your own thinking. You should try it.

So for instance learning about slippery slope might help you not make that logical mistake The arguments themselves should be explained - that's slippery slope because....

To assume that you, Raah, would have come up with all the errors in reasoning on your own is a stretch.

I don't think you actually read his/her "rant" because if you had you'd surely have noticed the entire point was to make exactly this

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Pointing out a logical inconsistency is useful, it's also useful to find flaws in your own thinking. You should try it.

& this:

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The arguments themselves should be explained

point in both summary:

raah! wrote: »

In summary: To use them properly, you have to justify their use, and in order to justify their use, you would have to show why the arguments you are arguing against are wrong independently of this buzzword, this therefore makes the introduction of such a term argumentatively unnessecary, though it would have it's persuasive and sophistical uses.

& extended form. If you simply must build up a pretext of disagreement then it's always best not to practically parrot sections of the post your disagreeing with in order to show the flaws in the post you're disagreeing with & actually read what you're arguing against, not just mindlessly gang up on the out-grouper for making arguments you agree with...

Duggys Housemate

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

He was politely informing you that you rant.

Pointing out a logical inconsistency is useful, it's also useful to find flaws in your own thinking. You should try it.

So for instance learning about slippery slope might help you not make that logical mistake The arguments themselves should be explained - that's slippery slope because....

To assume that you, Raah, would have come up with all the errors in reasoning on your own is a stretch.

I don't think you actually read his/her "rant" because if you had you'd surely have noticed the entire point was to make exactly this

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Pointing out a logical inconsistency is useful, it's also useful to find flaws in your own thinking. You should try it.

& this:

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The arguments themselves should be explained

point in both summary:

raah! wrote: »

In summary: To use them properly, you have to justify their use, and in order to justify their use, you would have to show why the arguments you are arguing against are wrong independently of this buzzword, this therefore makes the introduction of such a term argumentatively unnessecary, though it would have it's persuasive and sophistical uses.

& extended form. If you simply must build up a pretext of disagreement then it's always best not to practically parrot sections of the post your disagreeing with in order to show the flaws in the post you're disagreeing with & actually read what you're arguing against, not just mindlessly gang up on the out-grouper for making arguments you agree with...

He's hardly an "out grouper" is he. He is one person in a discussion and I am another. I never post in A&A.

I did read his post. He made the point that you can point out the logical inconsistency without knowing the name, I suggested instead you name it then explain it. What he emphatically did not do was see the usefulness of knowing these logical flaws beforehand because they were "buzz words".

So he certainly didn't agree with my main point, that it is useful to know the myriad flaws in informal logic and argument discovered over the centuries, to make your own points better. He assumed that everybody knows these logical rules anyway, I don't.

CerebralCortex

robindch wrote: »

You missed the point there.

The books above discuss common cognitive errors and why one should be careful to distinguish them from logic errors -- the same distinction you haven't made.

Exactly.

raah!

robindch wrote: »

You missed the point there.

The books above discuss common cognitive errors and why one should be careful to distinguish them from logic errors -- the same distinction you haven't made.

I'm afraid I wasn't aiming at that point so I didn't miss it. I was addressing the OP's request for aids in critical thinking and knowledge of logical fallacies, and the subsequent lists of fallacies which were produced.

If you make a logical argument, then it doesn't matter whether or not any kind of brain disorder motivated that. Logic on it's own can ensure whether or not an argument is correct. To think that we have to learn all about cognitive errors before we address logical ones, or that those are even relevent to the logical structure of an argument is to commit the "genetic fallacy". (putting that term there adds so much weight to my argument, but why should it?)

If you have a spastic brain attack and you come up with a logical argument, then the argument is still logical. Whether or not something is logical depends only on logic.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

He was politely informing you that you rant.

Perhaps the post was a bit long winded. My purpose was to acheive a more rigourous demonstration, rather than to vent my spleen, even though I did use some polemical language.

To assume that you, Raah, would have come up with all the errors in reasoning on your own is a stretch.

I don't believe that a person finding all the logical errors in their thinking is a stretch at all. As I said at the start, and have said previously, the basic laws of logic are pretty much how we think. Every (properly functioning) human being has the capacity to be 100% consistent in their beliefs, as long as they think enough.

Now, mind you, finding errors as the come, and memorising and naming errors you may never have encountered are two different things. The latter is rather unneccessary if you have a grasp of the basics of reasoning. Which everyone does

raah!

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I did read his post. He made the point that you can point out the logical inconsistency without knowing the name, I suggested instead you name it then explain it. What he emphatically did not do was see the usefulness of knowing these logical flaws beforehand because they were "buzz words".

So he certainly didn't agree with my main point, that it is useful to know the myriad flaws in informal logic and argument discovered over the centuries, to make your own points better. He assumed that everybody knows these logical rules anyway, I don't.

It's not that everybody knows the rules, but that everybody knows how to think (I could start shouting "strawman strawman" at this point, but lets assume I don't need to). As to their usefullness, especially their usefullness in improving ones critical thinking, I very concisely addressed this in the summary. The rules are either superfluous or damaging to the developement of a persons argumentation. I've also stated they do add a persuasive weight, but they do not add one snipet extra of logical or argumentative weight, to think that they do would be to make an "argument from authority" or the "fallacy that says naming something makes it more true" etc.

If you are not able to work out the reasoning behind a rule, then you have no business using it. As I said, the only rules to your reasoning should be logic.

I really don't understand how you can talk about properly using fallacies that you couldn't work out yourself.

18AD

But raah!, someone pointing out some logical fallicies could save you a sh*tload of personal "thinking time" and frustration. Namely someone who has studied logic for a lifetime. I'd never assume to know as much about logic as a logician, not because they have fancy names for what I already know, but because they actually know more than I. A useful companion and guide, imo.

Also, this is surprisingly similar to the musicians argument, that you don't need to know theory, after all it's just names for stuff you already know. But in reality it's extremely useful to know the names of things and be able to talk about music in common terms instead of having to give specific examples of music.

I think you are correct, that ideally, we should be able to notice these fallacies with the use of our reason alone.

raah!

18AD wrote: »

But raah!, someone pointing out some logical fallicies could save you a sh*tload of personal "thinking time" and frustration. Namely someone who has studied logic for a lifetime. I'd never assume to know as much about logic as a logician, not because they have fancy names for what I already know, but because they actually know more than I. A useful companion and guide, imo.

I would agree that you or I would not know as much, but I would say that we are no less versed in its use. We don't have to know that something is called a "fallacy of something" to see that it's an error, and we can see that by basic reasoning. As I have said previously, if we don't know that it is such a fallacy, or why it is that fallacy (and after all, this just means 'why it's wrong') then we shouldn't be using it. [Edit: woops, I see you have addressed this below]

So I agree that using the term for a fallacy is useful for a short term with people who both understand what it means. But you still have to argue why something is a fallacy. And if you are starting out on the path of a more rigourous style of reasoning, the names of the various mistakes should be the last thing you consider really. In my opinion, for those reasons given.

Also, this is surprisingly similar to the musicians argument, that you don't need to know theory, after all it's just names for stuff you already know. But in reality it's extremely useful to know the names of things and be able to talk about music in common terms instead of having to give specific examples of music.

I would agree that fallacies and names for music share the same benefits, but they do not share the same pitfalls. And the pitfalls associated with the overuse of logical fallacies, or the use in situations where it is not clear can be very bad.

As I pointed out earlier, the use of a fallacy without explanation is the same as just asserting the rightness or wrongness. Yes, the fallacy comes with a certain level of description, but in the interests of rigour, one should always be careful to point out why a certain fallacy applies.

Also, more generally, when having an argument with someone, it is best to use as simple a language as possible, that is , not to use any terms which are culturally specific, or which have different connotations to different people. This is only a small side criticism. But an example which comes from an atheist theist debate would be, say, they are arguing about what is good, but the christian just keeps using the word christian to mean good, or something. This understanding of the word christian is specific to christians. Likewise, using the epistemological term "rationalist" to mean atheist is specific to atheist. The use of both of these will only cause confusion.

18AD

So would I be correct in saying you're not actually against knowing logical fallacies (knowledge is power etc...) but just the misapplication of them and using their nominal value as an argument, when it's actually not?

If so, I'm in agreement. (Edit: I'm sure these kinds of things would be abundantly clear in an informal logic guide)

I think it would be a step too far however to suggest that they are misleading in themselves, which I think you were leaning towards in your initial posts.

Duggys Housemate

Raah! Your assumption that humans are logical is empirically false. I'll post some books later when home which show the fallacies we all, unless trained and even then, are subject to. You yourself sound like a mathematician, your advice is to learn mathematical proofs. Most people can't.

(And as for that I know mathematicans who are into Uri Geller and leylines)

For the most part though we've been fooled by the fact that science is all pervasive that we are in a logical age. In reality the 13th century lives beside the 21st, a quote I got from the books recommended here.

Logic is not inate except for the very few, it has to be taught. Learning fallacies is good for the rest of us.

raah!

18AD wrote: »

So would I be correct in saying you're not actually against knowing logical fallacies (knowledge is power etc...) but just the misapplication of them and using their nominal value as an argument, when it's actually not?

If so, I'm in agreement. (Edit: I'm sure these kinds of things would be abundantly clear in an informal logic guide)

Yes exactly!

I think it would be a step too far however to suggest that they are misleading in themselves, which I think you were leaning towards in your initial posts.

I do think that there is something about summing up like 60 sentences in one term that is just asking for a misapplication. It's like if you had an electrical circuit, and you wanted to find an error in it, but you only looked at the bulk things. Or if you had a piece of code and you never looked at the functions, but just used them with the assumption that they were correct. But no, inherently they are not misleading. Just that when used without explanation they are not helpful.

But I feel the strongest point in my argument was that, if you use them correctly, then they are superfluous, and if you use them incorrectly, then it's really quite bad. So it nearly seems to me that people are better off not using them at all, in actual arguments.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Raah! Your assumption that humans are logical is empirically false. I'll post some books later when home which show the fallacies we all, unless trained and even then, are subject to. You yourself sound like a mathematician, your advice is to learn mathematical proofs. Most people can't.

All I can say is that I disagree. I think that up to a certain point any person could follow the reasoning in a maths proof. You would just have to be sure that they understood all the associated semantics, remembered the meanings and the operators and things like that.

(And as for that I know mathematicans who are into Uri Geller and leylines)

For the most part though we've been fooled by the fact that science is all pervasive that we are in a logical age. In reality the 13th century lives beside the 21st, a quote I got from the books recommended here.

And again I can say it is not the proliferation of science that has led me to the belief that logic is innate in people, but the very process by which I (and I assume others) think. It's impossible to knowingly believe a contradiction. And while we are quoting books, I do have a book which said something along these lines... By Wilfred Hodges.

Anyway, it's important to note that I am saying not that it's impossible to make mistakes of reasoning, but that these mistakes are mostly due to semantics and things like that. All the fallacies you can list in the world will be at a higher level than the basic logic people use every day. They might apply their reasoning in strange ways, but the fundamental way in which people reason is by using logic.

I found a quote there, which is this same book "logic" being quoted by some one on some blog, after a few quick keyword searches.

"It is simply impossible to believe, fully and without reservation, two things which you know are inconsistent with each other."

Now it doesn't take much thinking about this to see that it's true. The example hodges gives in the book is "try to believe that you have 3 arms" (or somethign along these lines). We can all see pretty quickly that this is something which is impossible to believe. The reason being that our belief that we have 2 arms (or however many we have) is so easy to access. The problems of reasoning people have is that sometimes they don't see that two things are inconsistent just because they never look at them both at the same time.

Another example is that pretty much everyone can see the logical connection between the meanings of 2 and 4, and the statement 2+2=4. Now that is like a small unit of logical thought. If you can break a mathematical problem down into as many of those units as exist, then anyone can understand it. While I'm fairly confident in this proposition, I look forward to seeing if there is anything about it which might change my mind.

Edit: There it is on page 3 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Wilfrid-Hodges/dp/0141003146#reader_0141003146. In fact he says there pretty much exactly what I've been saying.

18AD

I'm no logician (as such I'm not at liberty to discuss the veracity of these claims), but there is a lot of work on Dialetheism and Paraconsistent logic. Some of which appears to allow for contradictions to be true.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/