Scan barcode
soylee22's review against another edition
2.0
Unfortunately what might have been a good book (and is certainly a good premise) is undone by the author’s strong axiomatic take on modern societal issues which is peppered throughout the book. These examples are quite distracting and highly charged, but, where you might expect a book about logic to be wielded equally against all views, the author comes down hard on her side. Frustrating because I hoped this book would be a precursor to “better debate” but it’s more likely to inflame those who don’t share her view, or preaching to the converted for those that share her views. It felt in the end that all the logic she presented was pointless as it is applied post hoc to the axiomatic lens in which you view the world.
so64's review against another edition
4.0
Math: a subject that is often misunderstood. Seen by many as a nuisance in school: full of rote memorization of methods and theory. Divorced from the real world. Only caring about the answer, not how the answer was derived. But what if this view, a very common and tradition view, was wrong? Or at the very least shallow? In her book, The Art of Logic in an Illogical World, mathematician Eugenia Cheng explores the concept of mathematical logic. From the principles that underlie mathematical logic to its application and limitations with real-world issues, the author seeks to show that mathematical logic can provide much needed elucidation on complicated issues that plague humanity. And for the most part, she succeeds.
One of the most impressive aspects of this book is how it is written. The biggest obstacle when it comes to popular science books is that they must maintain a balance between entertaining and informing the reader. Lean too far towards informing, and one risks boring the reader and not imparting any information. Lean too far towards entertainment and one risks not only not imparting any information, but imparting poor information which may set the reader even further back. This book manages a deft balance between the two extremes, managing a tone that while is semi-formal is also nonetheless conversational. Any mathematical term or concept is thoroughly explained in simple English. And the author when applicable uses her own experiences with using logic to explore her beliefs. All these aspects together create a work that never speaks down to the audience or tries to condescend. Rather, it feels like a work that understands its audience and tries to engage with the audience on a mutual level of understanding.
Another thing to appreciate about the book is the fact that it explores the limitations of logic and not just paradoxes, though those are discussed in the book. Rather, the book explores the role of emotions and intuition in shaping one’s logic. She notes that even if one tries to dissuade themselves of a belief they know is harmful through logic or information, without engaging one’s emotional reasoning, it can be difficult to change. Segueing into conversations over difficult issues, she notes that while it can be gratifying to try to overwhelm an opponent through facts and information it does little to actually promote understanding. That to truly convince someone of one’s position, you have to not only engage their logic with your own, but their emotional reasoning with your own emotional reasoning. Or in other words, to have some compassionate empathy for the person you are debating. Without that component, she argues that even if you manage to convince them of the logical aspects of your goal or position, there will always be a shred of doubt due to not engaging the emotional aspect of the reasoning. I feel that this is an important concept for the book to explore due to the fact that it does feel like a lot of conversations, as they take place both in person and online, tend towards posturing oneself as being the most rational of the debaters. Trying to score brownie points in a game that has no winners or losers, or end. Thus to find a way to circumvent that aspect of conversations is a noble endeavor.
In short I truly adore this book. I feel that it has a lot of useful applications for those interested in math or want nothing to do with math.
One of the most impressive aspects of this book is how it is written. The biggest obstacle when it comes to popular science books is that they must maintain a balance between entertaining and informing the reader. Lean too far towards informing, and one risks boring the reader and not imparting any information. Lean too far towards entertainment and one risks not only not imparting any information, but imparting poor information which may set the reader even further back. This book manages a deft balance between the two extremes, managing a tone that while is semi-formal is also nonetheless conversational. Any mathematical term or concept is thoroughly explained in simple English. And the author when applicable uses her own experiences with using logic to explore her beliefs. All these aspects together create a work that never speaks down to the audience or tries to condescend. Rather, it feels like a work that understands its audience and tries to engage with the audience on a mutual level of understanding.
Another thing to appreciate about the book is the fact that it explores the limitations of logic and not just paradoxes, though those are discussed in the book. Rather, the book explores the role of emotions and intuition in shaping one’s logic. She notes that even if one tries to dissuade themselves of a belief they know is harmful through logic or information, without engaging one’s emotional reasoning, it can be difficult to change. Segueing into conversations over difficult issues, she notes that while it can be gratifying to try to overwhelm an opponent through facts and information it does little to actually promote understanding. That to truly convince someone of one’s position, you have to not only engage their logic with your own, but their emotional reasoning with your own emotional reasoning. Or in other words, to have some compassionate empathy for the person you are debating. Without that component, she argues that even if you manage to convince them of the logical aspects of your goal or position, there will always be a shred of doubt due to not engaging the emotional aspect of the reasoning. I feel that this is an important concept for the book to explore due to the fact that it does feel like a lot of conversations, as they take place both in person and online, tend towards posturing oneself as being the most rational of the debaters. Trying to score brownie points in a game that has no winners or losers, or end. Thus to find a way to circumvent that aspect of conversations is a noble endeavor.
In short I truly adore this book. I feel that it has a lot of useful applications for those interested in math or want nothing to do with math.
tamara_joy's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.75
This is a beautiful setting out of logic, clear and immediately applicable.
squirrelfish's review against another edition
4.0
It's an enjoyable book about logic and math. Yes, that's a little weird. It's approachable although probably one of the hardest to 'read' as an audiobook since my public library doesn't include the pdf supplement and there's diagrams and symbols referenced pretty frequently.
She's got a very British way of bringing humor to the topic, for example when explaining "all mathematicians are awkward" vs "mathematicians exist that are awkward" and how since she doesn't consider herself awkward, she finds this offensive. Either people saying that are saying she is awkward, saying she isn't a mathematician or the most offensive, that she's awkward and not a mathematician. She uses similar language and easily relatable explanations to cover a variety of logical concepts. One of the clearest and most in depth explorations was false negatives vs false positives concept and how this helps people to understand their disagreements over social services and other concepts.
She demonstrates how logic can help you to create a better argument and have a better and slower conversation that might help mutual understanding and forward movement on a topic. I definitely gained clarity on why some of my own arguments had felt ineffectual. She discusses how to use analogies effectively, where they go wrong, and how even that can be useful to furthering mutual understanding. There's a lot of book here and well worth reading if you find yourself regularly having complex discussions, deploring the state of modern conversation, working with math and logic people or just enjoy an excursion into a little explored branch of basic concepts.
Read via audiobook from the SF Public Library and the Libby app for Android.
She's got a very British way of bringing humor to the topic, for example when explaining "all mathematicians are awkward" vs "mathematicians exist that are awkward" and how since she doesn't consider herself awkward, she finds this offensive. Either people saying that are saying she is awkward, saying she isn't a mathematician or the most offensive, that she's awkward and not a mathematician. She uses similar language and easily relatable explanations to cover a variety of logical concepts. One of the clearest and most in depth explorations was false negatives vs false positives concept and how this helps people to understand their disagreements over social services and other concepts.
She demonstrates how logic can help you to create a better argument and have a better and slower conversation that might help mutual understanding and forward movement on a topic. I definitely gained clarity on why some of my own arguments had felt ineffectual. She discusses how to use analogies effectively, where they go wrong, and how even that can be useful to furthering mutual understanding. There's a lot of book here and well worth reading if you find yourself regularly having complex discussions, deploring the state of modern conversation, working with math and logic people or just enjoy an excursion into a little explored branch of basic concepts.
Read via audiobook from the SF Public Library and the Libby app for Android.
drakonreads's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.75
The book presents an interesting frame from which to think about the typical political divide (which one is more important to them: false positives or false negatives). Overall the book discusses the way that value judgements play in logic. the author uses emotion to help the reader understand the points that she is making, which, as she stated, is often more important than knowing the smaller things (like in her analogue of the multiplication tables: understanding the principles underlying the multiplication table instead of relying on memorization to know the answer).
anujnathoo's review against another edition
3.0
Very inspiring book making you see the world in a different perspective
afterthestorms's review
3.0
Stopped reading half-way through. I like her general thoughts and ideas but I feel like it doesn't contribute much to the general discourse. We don't need maths to explain social science.