Scan barcode
rachelbret13's review against another edition
4.0
overall i really loved this book! i found it humorous, illuminating, and precise. not at all pedantic. which is not the same as precise. (the girls that get it, get it). it was a really fun read and got me thinking a little out of my comfort zone! it's always good to take inventory of the way you think, and this book really helped me get tools i think i'll be able to use in the future to investigate the logical flow of my own arguments and those of others.
i unfortunately had to knock it down a point bc i did not vibe with her seemingly endless commentary about how she didn't want to gain weight. it's like we get it. but it's still worth a read just kinda skim over those parts.
i unfortunately had to knock it down a point bc i did not vibe with her seemingly endless commentary about how she didn't want to gain weight. it's like we get it. but it's still worth a read just kinda skim over those parts.
mystifiedbulb22's review
2.0
Hm. When picking this book up from Oxfam, I was quite sceptical of the promise emblazoned on the back cover: "Politicians and companies master rhetoric to mislead us. What if one book could help us make sense of it all?" And unfortunately, this question still goes unanswered.
I did really want to like this book, especially as I resonate with the politics it espouses. However, the connections between abstract logical principles and their applications to socio-political issues felt flat and unnuanced. That lack of nuance combined with a slightly muddied collection of mathematical principles ultimately made this quite dissatisfying.
I think there is real potential in this kind of work. But, perhaps, trying to do it all within one book without allowing room for nuanced discussions about the various issues it tries to solve is a logical mis-step.
I did really want to like this book, especially as I resonate with the politics it espouses. However, the connections between abstract logical principles and their applications to socio-political issues felt flat and unnuanced. That lack of nuance combined with a slightly muddied collection of mathematical principles ultimately made this quite dissatisfying.
I think there is real potential in this kind of work. But, perhaps, trying to do it all within one book without allowing room for nuanced discussions about the various issues it tries to solve is a logical mis-step.
nayaab's review against another edition
4.0
The book started with a little refresher on fundamental concepts of logic, and then proceeded to bash the hell out of the idea that thinking logically will give you all the answers to life. I particularly liked the involvement of feelings and emotions, which usually end up being pushed to the back seat in "respectable" conversations.
Makes me want to take another logic class.
Makes me want to take another logic class.
scribblesandsuch's review
challenging
informative
slow-paced
I found the book really dry and was dragging myself through on the sheer personality of the author. Unfortunately, said author has a fixation with her weight and this got Really ramped up towards the end to the point where I found myself really uncomfortable having her bring up how much she doesn't want to be fat again and again. To the point where she acknowledges it, largely dismisses it and those that might oppose it, then includes a throwaway line about how it might actually reflect some unacknowledge fatphobia- she doesn't use the word fatphobia ofc. I'm deeply disappointed in the book because it was so soured by this, and wouldn't in good faith recommend it to anyone unfortunately
Content Warnings
Moderate: Fatphobia and Body shaming
Minor: Eating disorder
danyal_saeed's review against another edition
4.0
To get an idea of what this book is about, there is a Royal Institution talk by Dr Eugenia Cheng. I believe if more people would understand basic logic and probability, and not just understand it in the sense of applying it in the classroom, but understand in the sense of believing that mathematics is truly the truth, and if they'd have a commitment to be accurate to a reasonable degree, we'd probably have less hate.
A very simple statement that the world seems to forget (or turn a blind eye to) these days: if all A are B, that does not mean that all B are A.
I do disagree with a few statements by Dr Cheng. An example that comes to mind is: if you think calling a man a woman is an insult, then you must think that women themselves are inferior to men. I don't think so. It's an insult because we are calling them something they are not. Just like this, calling a woman a man is also an insult. It's not about something being inferior to something else, it's about something not being something it is supposed to be.
A very simple statement that the world seems to forget (or turn a blind eye to) these days: if all A are B, that does not mean that all B are A.
I do disagree with a few statements by Dr Cheng. An example that comes to mind is: if you think calling a man a woman is an insult, then you must think that women themselves are inferior to men. I don't think so. It's an insult because we are calling them something they are not. Just like this, calling a woman a man is also an insult. It's not about something being inferior to something else, it's about something not being something it is supposed to be.
bartmac's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
nnnaaattteeee's review against another edition
4.0
Simply and humorously explanations of how beneficial understanding logic can be despite how inherently illogical the world is. This book explores the limits of logic what to do if logic isn’t possible