|
Jamie Whyte: Crimes against logic.Jamie Whyte has written a very interesting and engaging book about logic and fallacies. If you are interested in philosophy, linguistics or just thinking about conversations this is a great book. Ahhh, the analysis of the inter-change is the real stuff of logic.
I was particularly impressed with Whyte's ability to use examples to which most people can relate. I thought that his development of provocative labels was a master stroke. In an inexpensive, easy-to-read text he has managed to provide a topical and pertinent coverage of issues that influence everyday conversations.
In bringing an essentially dry subject (logic) to the ordinary folk, Whyte uses a variety of successful strategies. His father's repetitive after-dinner statement in New Zealand- "You won't get food like this in England", although probably correct, was clearly grating to others. Then his Mum interjected with a question about Bistro gravy mix.
Hooray words, weasel words, and boo words are now accepted in conversations.
I loved this book. It helps you learn to spot some common kinds of faulty logic and reasoning (a bit like watching "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" in that respect). The style is a little pedantic and preachy in places, so whether you like it will depend on how tolerant you are of people who are a little pedantic and preachy.
The book tended towards rants against organized religion, and the author's persistent use of emotionally charged verbiage revealed quite a negative bias. It is unfortunate as there are a plethora of examples the author could have used to make his points, which in a few cases were worthy of note. Overall not worth the effort or the price.
These anectodtes on occassion "prove" to the claim, but most times I felt like the author didn't fully prove his argument. I think this book has a place for a certain niche, but I unfortunatly am not a part of it. The tone is angry almost whiney, I think that there are certain claims in the book that are valid but they are often substaintiated with a single anectodte. He repeadtly looked at only the side of the argument he see's failing to understand why others may hold a different point of view. Not a page turner, which is unfortunate becuase I was excited about this book.
Unfortunately, there are tons of such people on the internet. This book is neither about Iraq nor about Christianity.
Rather than presenting abstract, made-up examples ("Anne claims that Bernard is wrong because he has BO"), this book takes some real-life examples such as the concept of the Holy Trinity or Bush's decision to invade Iraq. This is a neat little book that addresses a number of logical fallacies, that is, bad types of reasoning.
By doing so, such critics are committing a sort of logical fallacy of their own: they argue about the details instead of the substance. This not only brings the topic more to life for me, it also reveals how almost any public figure or institution commits these 'crimes against logic'.The book is pretty self-contained: it doesn't explain _why_ people apply these false lines of reasoning, let's say the psychology behind it.
I think that's a subject all its own, and I'm not sure that the author would be the ideal choice for writing such a book.Interestingly, a number of negative reviews both here and elsewhere take issue with the examples chosen, accusing the book of an anti-Christian bias or of pandering to the neocons. But it is about people who let their preconceived opinions about these topics affect the quality of their reasoning.
The whole point of detecting and avoiding these kinds of logical fallacies is to discover why you believe what you believe, and maybe even (*shudder*) change your mind.
|
