|
| Crimes Against Logic: Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders | 
 enlarge | Author: Jamie Whyte
Publisher: McGraw-Hill
Category: Book
List Price: $12.95
Buy New: $6.67
You Save: $6.28 (48%)
New (34) Used (29) from $6.49
Avg. Customer Rating:  104 reviews
Sales Rank: 3608
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 176
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 6.9 x 5 x 0.5
ISBN: 0071446435
Dewey Decimal Number: 160
UPC: 639785416821
EAN: 9780071446433
ASIN: 0071446435
Publication Date: September 12, 2004
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: Brand New, Perfect Condition, Please allow 4-14 business days for delivery. 100% Money Back Guarantee, Over 1,000,000 customers served.
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Uncover the truth under all the BS In the daily battle for our hearts and minds--not to mention our hard-earned cash--the truth is usually the first casualty. It's time we learned how to see through the rhetoric, faulty reasoning, and misinformation that we're subjected to from morning to night by talk-radio hosts, op-ed columnists, advertisers, self-help gurus, business "thinkers," and, of course, politicians. And no one is better equipped to show us how than award-winning philosopher Jamie Whyte. In Crimes Against Logic Whyte take us on a fast-paced, ruthlessly funny romp through the mulligan stew of can, folderol, and bogus logic served up in the media, at the office, and even in your own home. Applying his laserlike wit to dozens of timely examples, Whyte cuts through the haze of facts, figures, and double-talk and gets at the real truth behind what they're telling us. "An incisive philosopher."
--Sunday Telegraph
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 99 more reviews...
Read it and give it to everyone you know October 28, 2004
650 out of 672 found this review helpful
This book deserves the widest possible exposure in America, especially so close to the election, because it an excellent primer on how to guard yourself against the faulty reasoning that governs so much modern political discourse - and avoid adopting it yourself. I first heard about the book because one of its points was mentioned in an essay. The point was basically that just because someone has a motive to hold a certain position doesn't necessarily mean that the position is false. This seemed pretty obvious, but as I turned to the media I was amazed at how often politicians use this method, and how easily I had accepted their claims if they lined up with my political preferences.
Any damaging report against either side, for example, would frequently be denounced as a "partisan" attack, with occasional documentation of how the person who presented the report was tied to one party or another, as if this were the issue at hand. No attempt was made to address whether the report was true or not, the assumption being that exposing a bias - a motive for the potentially false information - was conclusive evidence.
Some of the things Whyte discussed in the book - for example, sample bias in statistics - are going to be familiar to many people, but just as frequently he comes up with something that all of us have probably used in an argument. For example, in the chapter "begging the question," he quotes a common pro-choice argument: "If you believe abortion is wrong, that's fine, don't abort your pregnancies. But show tolerance toward others who don't share your beliefs."
He points out that this ignores that actual position of anti-abortionists, that abortion is murder, morally equivalent to killing a live human being. The argument for tolerance takes for granted that the fetus is not really a person, and that therefore it should be possible for everyone to only be concerned with their own behavior. But as Whyte points out, anyone that actually wishes to confront the issue will have to address the question of whether the fetus is a human being. So many pleas for tolerance between certain feuding religions, he points out, have the same problem, because they skirt the genuine issue that is giving rise to the outrage - that, by the tenets of some religions, only one of them can be true.
I suspect Whyte's positions on religion will offend the most readers. He has no sympathy for familiar arguments about the un-knowable nature of god, or that the intricacy of life on earth necessarily implies a god (already taken apart by Hume in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion); he also presents a simple and conclusive refutation of Pascal's gambit that I've never come across before. Luckily, he does not exhibit the most annoying characteristic of many rationalists, smugness; instead, he seems to have a deep desire to get at truth, which I think we are more in need of today than any amount of vague piety.
The book will only take a couple of days to read, and is very clearly written. I remember an article that dealt with similar material that I read in high school, forgotten now because it ended up as an exercise in memorizing the Latin names of various fallacies. Whyte is conscientious about calling things by their common names. Buy the book, give it to your friends, and try to get at the bottom of why you believe what you do (and whether you still should).
An Excellent Summary Despite Its Tone March 31, 2005
320 out of 370 found this review helpful
There is much about this book that I like very much. Mr. White's ability to see the logical flaws in an argument is impressive and there are few things that would benefit this world more than if more people had the ability to see if they were being misled by their politicians, pundits and religious leaders. A serious reader of this book would certainly gain more tools in this difficult task.
On the other hand, in my opinion this book does have one weakness: its dismissive tone. There is a subtle air of superiority that Mr. White projects in his prose that I find disheartening. Though he pays lip service to the fact that it can be very difficult to spot certain logical fallacies, particularly as we are bombarded by opinions disguised as fact 24 hours a day through the media, he does not seem very sympathetic the fact that many people do try their best to work there way through the morass of opinions despite being hampered by media overkill, prominent positions demanding action, their own strongly held opinions and the lack of a prestigious education. Mr. White has much to teach but it is difficult to swallow when the student is made to feel small and foolish.
I am particularly disappointed by Mr. White's dismissiveness towards religion. Though I agree completely with his assertion that religious tenets (like the existence of God, etc.) cannot be proved logically and that many religious leaders misuse logic severely, I do not agree that this is sufficient to dismiss religious experience out of hand. Granted, I am a person of religious belief, but I am also a mathematician and I would argue that there are things that are true that cannot be proved. But I'm sure Mr. White, chuckling sadly and looking down his nose at me, would disagree.
Still, this does not change my opinion that this is a very powerful book that should be widely read. Much of his analysis--begging the question, coincidence, statistical analysis--I have seen expounded upon more widely in other books but Mr. White's book is concise and ranges much more widely. Anyone trying to get a handle on our world today would benefit from reading it.
 Entertaining, Enlightening, Even Handed -- Almost February 10, 2006
51 out of 54 found this review helpful
Whyte has written a book that, but for one serious flaw, would deserve six stars. He explores the world of informal logic and deconstructs the defective arguments of partisans on all sides of every issue. He gives entertaining names to standard logical missteps and sophistries, and strikes a much-needed blow for clarity of thought.
He has a blind spot, however. On the issue of religion, he slips from syllogism to enthymeme, from analysis to rhetoric. And his arguments commit many of the very logical missteps and sophistries he decries in other parts of the book.
For example: A standard sophistry is the straw man maneuver. Either 1. seize upon some minor slip in your opponent's case, refute it, and thereby pretend to have refuted your opponent's entire case; or 2. Misinterpret an aspect of your opponent's case, refute the misinterpretation, and thereby pretend to have refuted your opponent's entire case. As a trial lawyer of 30 years experience, I've seen this move employed countless times. Whyte employs it against Christianity in the following fashion. The doctrine of the Trinity is a much-debated concept which is variously interpreted by different denominations of Christians. Some Christian denominations reject it entirely. Whyte takes the most logically indefensible interpretation of the Trinity, ascribes it to all Christians, constructs a logical refutation of that interpretation, and thereby claims to have discredited all Christianity.
In another place, he attacks Pascal's Wager. (Pascal's Wager runs like this. I'll bet you there is a Christian God and you bet me there is no god. If I'm right, I live and you die. If you're right, we both die. You're betting on a sure loser whereas I at least have a chance of winning). His first line of attack is to criticize Pascal's motive for making such a wager. God couldn't be very proud of someone who became a Christian for such selfish reasons. This is an attack that he justly condemns in another part of his book. That a person has a bad motive for maintaining a proposition does not necessarily make the proposition false. His second attack points out that by Pascal's reasoning, Islam and Judaism are also superior bets to atheism. Once again, the fact that Islam and Judaism are also superior bets to atheism doesn't change the fact that Christianity is a better bet than atheism. I'm not saying that Pascal's Wager can't be refuted. I'm saying that Whyte has used the very flawed reasoning he elsewhere condemns in attempting to refute it.
Finally, he addresses the Problem of Evil, and in a few sentences he dismissively proves that there is no god because an all powerful, all good god would not allow evil to exist. He makes this argument almost immediately after a section wherein he criticizes broad general statements using "hooray" and "boo" words. His examples of "hooray" and "boo" words are "justice" and "injustice," synonyms of "good" and "evil". He has just disproved the existence of any god by making a broad general statement using "hooray" and "boo" words. Suffice it to say that St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, grappled with the same problem applying greater depth of analysis than Whyte and came up with a different result. Once again, I'm not saying that the Problem of Evil doesn't present a huge conundrum for believers--it does. I'm saying that Whyte isn't using good logic by blowing it off in a couple of sentences.
Many religious leaders have said many dumb things. Whyte could have found (and in some places did find) some genuinely dumb things espoused in the name of religion and criticized them logically. In those places where he did, I have not taken him to task.
It is disappointing that Whyte can have been so logical everywhere else and so illogical when he writes on religion. Why did he find it necessary to mar his otherwise excellent book by engaging in such logically flawed attacks on such highly debatable religious topics as the Trinity, Pascal's Wager, and the Problem of Evil? Philosophers and theologians have debated these three issues for decades with many good arguments being made on all sides of the issues.
A FOOTNOTE: After writing this review, I went looking for other books by Whyte. Despite his flawed critique of religion, I enjoyed and learned much from his book and wanted to read more of his writings. I found another book, "Bad Thoughts," and read the reviews. In addition to learning that "Bad Thoughts" is "Crimes Against Logic" under a different title, I also came to realize that Whyte didn't confine his fuzzy thinking to religious topics. One of the reviews astutely pointed out several other examples of logical missteps on Whyte's part. Once they were pointed out, they were obvious. I forgive Whyte, however. As St. Paul said, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Whyte has still written an excellent book. Just be very careful in analyzing his arguments. He sometimes strays from sober analysis into logically flawed polemical rhetoric.
EXTENDER OF LONG TRADITION OF LOGIC FLAW DENOUNCERS September 9, 2006
38 out of 39 found this review helpful
Jamie Whyte follows in a long tradition of writers that focus on flaws of logic that most people seem to fall into. His predecessors include Richard Dawkins (of a more scientific tone) and Gary Becker (of a more economics tone). Dr Whyte, by training a philosopher, focuses on pure reason and the ways people violate it.
The book is divided into major types of logical flaws to which the author gives specific names, such as Morality Fever, Right to Your Own Opinion, Mexploitation and Prejudice in a Fancy Dress. Examples include using words with bad conotations to contaminate an argument, staking moral high ground and drawing ridiculous parallels to make an argument and cultural relativism about things that are either true or not; these are some of the strategies employed to support arguments oftentimes devoid of logic.
The tone of the author is sometimes sarcartic and arrogant, which may put off a few readers at time, but overall it is well written and clear, a good entertaining read. It does leave one with the lingering "Aha" memory whenever one meets the fallacies presented here. Unfortunately, they are much more common than logic would expect.
Good, but uneven April 17, 2005
34 out of 35 found this review helpful
Whyte brilliantly exposes the Motive Fallacy in Chapter 2, then occasionally slips into using it throughout the rest of the book, He doesn't descend to using it to refute arguments, but does use it to undermine credibility, e.g. "It gives them a thrilling fit of the cosmic heebie-jeebies."
Others did not detect smugness. I did, but am not bothered by it. It comes with the territory when writing about unclear thinking. As he invites the reader to share in it if one can but follow along, I doubt many people will be put off by it. He chooses some surprising examples to illustrate his points; some groups will be pleased at encountering a rare acknowledgement of their reasonableness.
There is a second weakness. Some questions are decided according to different standards of proof, as in the varieties of legal evidence: "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs. "clear and convincing" vs. "preponderance of the evidence." Whyte notes this accurately in some places, but neglects it in others, requiring proof where reasonableness might be enough.
Still, it's good. Amusing, instructive, and clear.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
