Philosophy : Crimes Against Logic Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians Priests Journalists and Other Serial Offenders
SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance | 
 | 80% Recommended by our customers.
Catalog:
Manufacturer: McGraw-Hill
Release Date:
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
List Price: $14.95
Our Price: $5.93
Used Price: $4.99
(all prices are subject to changes)
More Details
Amazon international :
| |
- ISBN13: 9780071446433
- Condition: New
- Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
|
|
 All Emotion, Logical Errors Abound
This book starts out with some logical problems, then it seems to grow as the book goes on.
First, he says you don't have a right to your own opinion, which you really do. He confuses tastes with facts and blinded ignores the differences.
Most frustrating is his attack on using motives as a way of telling whether someone is possibly right or wrong. He says it should make no difference. In reality, knowing a motive helps us to understand how someone came to say or act how they do. Usually, though not always, someone acting with pure motives will be acting better then someone who does not. This is obviously not a sure fire approach, but should be added into consideration.
Finally, his attacks on religion seem to be nothing but silly. He says religious people have no evidence to back up their faith, and therefore they really don't believe it. He then goes on about Quantum Mechanics and tries to equate the two somehow. It seems he is attacking a single strange individual he once met, not the majority of believers of any faith.
Overall, this book simply has lots of emotion, and not much clean logic to attach to.
P.S.:He mentions his sisters Thighs aren't fat. I thought there was no such thing as an opinion, so how does he come to that "factual" conclusion?
Disappointingly illogical
I ordered this book with a great deal of hope. Yes, I am one who rants against misstatement, misuse of English, irrationality and deception by omission. Unfortunately, Mr Whyte fails his own test in applying logic.
In his chapter on "Motives", the Mr Whyte suggests that in reporting on a study by a think tank, the fact that journalists report that the authors are "right wing" is irrelevant to the authors' findings. He fails to recognise that knowing someone's history tells us something about them and the perspective in which they view the world. This happens to be of some importance in the social sciences where, despite Jamie Whyte's best endeavours, there is not necessarily just one "right" answer. In this particular example, one would find the think tank's report remarkable and worth investigating if it went against the think tank's preconceived ideas - otherwise it's just more noise in an already noisy political environment.
The book continues in such a vein. As mentioned by another reviewer, its discussion of Pascal's Gambit starts promisingly but ends most disappointingly. Very simply, even given an infinite number of religions as proposed by the author, the person who believes one of them (even if they believe that the Universe is run by a small duck named Egbert) has one chance in that infinity of being right where the person who believes nothing has no chance.
One final comment - Whyte fails to recognise that in some cases when people state that "it is obvious" they are not necessarily trying to hide the weakness of their argument. He should perhaps find it obvious, as a lecturer and philosopher, that this phrase is also used as a put-down to suggest that people are perhaps not quite as smart as they may think.
I like to finish a book once I've started, but the author's failure to live up to the promise of his title makes that highly unlikely in this case.
 just read it
The book has some unnecessary pedantry, but the arguments presented are flawless - the problem lies a step before. The author "forgets" that logic is simply a method of inference based on hypothesis it doesn't convey. Logic doesn't warrant the existence of a truth to be found through logic nor does it assure that reality itself is logic. These are hypothesis the author works with but doesn't tell us, he just takes them as unquestionable. That said, feel free to disagree with any conclusion the author presents regarding religion. In any case, just read the book.
Great, however....
A great treatise on the ways people and organizations use to persuade, dissuade, confuse, and otherwise hide true reasoned discourse. However, this is appears to be a word for word reprint of "Bad Thoughts - a Guide to Clear Thinking" with a shiny new title. Don't do like I did and get this book because you were so enamored with the author's original points that you wanted more....
Brilliant Illustrations of Rational Thinking (and lack thereof)
If Crimes Against Logic was mandatory reading in schools the populace would surely be better for it. The book encompasses a comprehensive overview of rational thinking complete with examples of fallacies, innumeracy, and plain stupidly that is so abundant in all areas of life.
It is surprising that the ability to reason properly doesn't garner more interest given that it represents a prime element of what separates humans from all other animals. Jamie Whyte illustrates repeatedly how most peopleignore proper modes of thought and often act as if a rational basis did not even exist; an absurd yet depressingly true observation.
Whyte is witty, humorous, and thoroughly clear making this book effective and easy to read. You will never look at news, advertisements, business, and even normal conversations the same way again, and you will be better for it.
|
|
|
