Scan barcode
trevoryan's review
5.0
I think I followed about 82% of the ideas in this book, which makes me proud of myself. My favorite quote: "You can't threaten an atheist with hell. It doesn't make any sense. It's like a hippie threatening to punch you in your aura".
saaraa96's review
3.0
کتاب یه کتاب بسیار گوگولی و خوبی بود در زمینه مغالطه های مختلف. حالا همه مغالطه ها رو نداشت ولی اصلی ها و مرسوم تر ها رو داشت. برا کسی که حوصله خواندن متن سنگین و بحث سنگین نداشته باشه ولی بخواد آشنا بشه خوبه.
هر قسمتی که اومده بود اسم مغالطه رو آورده بود زیرش با یه عکس هم یه مثال کمیکی از مغالطه زده بود و بعد خیلی روون و راحت توضیح داده بود چیان.
برا اینکه گیر مغالطه ها نیوفتیم و حواسمون باشه استفاده‌شون نکنیم یه کتاب خلاصه خوبی بود دیگه. آشنایی اولیه بده بود.
تو حین خوندنش آپدیت می‌ذاشتم از چیزایی که توش بود. یکمم اینجا بیارم.
هر قسمتی که اومده بود اسم مغالطه رو آورده بود زیرش با یه عکس هم یه مثال کمیکی از مغالطه زده بود و بعد خیلی روون و راحت توضیح داده بود چیان.
برا اینکه گیر مغالطه ها نیوفتیم و حواسمون باشه استفاده‌شون نکنیم یه کتاب خلاصه خوبی بود دیگه. آشنایی اولیه بده بود.
تو حین خوندنش آپدیت می‌ذاشتم از چیزایی که توش بود. یکمم اینجا بیارم.
▪ To “put up a straw man” is to intentionally caricature a person’s argument with the aim of attacking the caricature rather than the actual argument. Misrepresenting, misquoting, misconstruing, and oversimplifying an opponent’s position are all means by which one can commit this fallacy. The straw man argument is usually more absurd than the actual argument, making it an easier target to attack
▪ Misrepresenting the idea is much easier than refuting the evidence for it.
◆ Appeal to Irrelevant Authority
▪ An argument is more likely to be fallacious when the appeal is made to an irrelevant authority, one who is not an expert on the issue at hand
▪ One type of appeal to irrelevant authority is the appeal to ancient wisdom, in which a belief is assumed to be true just because it originated some time ago
▪ There are all sorts of reasons why people might have slept longer in the past. The fact that they did is insufficient evidence for the argument that we should do so today.
◆ False Dilemma
▪ A false dilemma is an argument that presents a limited set of two possible categories and assumes that everything in the scope of the discussion must be an element of that set
◆ Not a Cause for a Cause
▪ This fallacy assumes a cause for an event where there is no evidence that one exists.When two events occur one after the other (or simultaneously), this may be by coincidence, or due to some other unknown factor. One cannot conclude that one event caused the other without evidence. “The recent earthquake was because we disobeyed the king” is not a good argument.
▪ In various disciplines, this is known as confusing correlation with causation
◆ Appeal to Fear
▪ Blatant threats or orders that do not attempt to provide evidence should not be confused with this fallacy, even if they exploit one’s sense of fear
▪ Hasty Generalization
This fallacy is committed when one forms a conclusion from a sample that is either too small or too special to be representative.
◆ Guilt by Association
▪ Guilt by association is used to discredit an argument for proposing an idea that is shared by some socially demonized individual or group.
▪ “We cannot let women drive cars because people in godless countries let their women drive cars.”
◆ Slippery Slope
▪ A slippery slope argument attempts to discredit a proposition by arguing that its acceptance will undoubtedly lead to a sequence of events, one or more of which are undesirable
▪ Appeal to the Bandwagon
Also known as the appeal to the people, this argument uses the fact that many people (or even a majority) believe in something as evidence that it must be true.
◆ Ad Hominem
▪ An ad hominem argument (from the Latin for “to the man”) is one that attacks a person rather than the argument he or she is making, with the intention of diverting the discussion and discrediting their argument.
◆ Circular Reasoning
▪ A circular argument may at times rely on unstated premisses, which can make it more difficult to detect.
▪ You can’t threaten an atheist with hell, Peg. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s like a hippie threatening to punch you in your aura
▪ I heard a professor introduce deductive arguments using a wonderful metaphor, describing them as watertight pipes where truth goes in one end and truth comes out the other end.
...
wooknight's review
5.0
An outstanding book listing common logical fallacies . I loved the fact that the author has actually created a tree structure
elainewlin's review
5.0
This book is cute light reading on stupid arguments. For example, there are strawman arguments which misrepresent and attack people, and there are slippery slope arguments which repeatedly jump to conclusions.
mystimayhem's review
3.0
Some fallacies are explained really well and the funny illustrations help as concise little examples. But there are a lot of fallacies that aren't explained very clearly at all. Also, it could have been better organized, maybe with a sectioned added here and there for comparing and contrasting similar fallacies. It seemed like a lot of the entries went like this: here is an example of fallacy x. It's actually an example of fallacy y with elements of x. Neither of which should be confused with fallacy z, which this particular example makes nearly indistinguishable.
It's not terrible. It's a good little refresher guide if logic and fallacies are something you're already fairly familiar with, but as an introduction to the subject, I think it would make it hard to distinguish between fallacies with commonalities.
It's not terrible. It's a good little refresher guide if logic and fallacies are something you're already fairly familiar with, but as an introduction to the subject, I think it would make it hard to distinguish between fallacies with commonalities.
bengriffin's review
3.0
Looks beautiful but doesn't quite work. The images don't really help the explanations and the explanations themselves aren't quite fleshed out enough. A nice idea though.
jamesknight's review against another edition
3.0
Cute, clever, and not particularly in-depth. It’ll be a fun book to pick up every now and then for a charming reminder of the faults in logic we can fall into.
beths0103's review
2.0
The text felt more like it was coming straight from a dry textbook on rhetoric than an entertaining illustrated guide to logical fallacies. I felt like I should have been taking notes or writing flashcards because there would be a quiz on Monday.
helpfulsnowman's review
4.0
I wish everyone would read this before the upcoming election. Because my god, this thing reads like a preventative guide for most, and a tactics manual for political debates.
Here's my impression of presidential debates:
Moderator: Candidate Buttface, tell us about your opinion on immigration.
Candidate Buttface: I'll tell you all you need to know, which is that my opponent, Candidate Fartface, has the same opinion on immigration as our current president, President ButtButt. And look at the state of family values!
Moderator: Candidate Fartface, your response.
Candidate Fartface: Abortion am bad! Guns! I have a feeling about those that agrees with a tiny minority who, unfortunately, vote in numbers! Death panels! How do they work? Right to life! Gays are getting married and what are the effects on pizza parlors who hate gay people! Small business! I worked on a farm one summer!
Moderator: Stirring words indeed.
[cut back to Fox News studios]
And now we have this fuckface who pops the collar on his stupid polo shirts and interviews women with their boobs out.
Fuckface: Thanks, Bill! You, you have your boobs out and are celebrating Mardi Gras. Can I ask you a question about Obamacare and then wink at the camera like, 'See this drunk idiot? With her boobs out?'
Boobs Out Lady: Um, [says something frustratingly stupid that makes me mad every time because it's like, can't ONE drunken party person tell this guy he's an asshole]
Fuckface: [winks at camera] Back to you, Bill.
Bill: Back to the debate.
Moderator: Thank you candidates, for listening to me ask a question, hearing the Charlie Brown teacher voice, and then basically talking about whatever the fuck you felt like talking about. What a rich and wonderful tapestry we have.
*distant sound of gunfire as I end my own life*
FIN
Here's my impression of presidential debates:
Moderator: Candidate Buttface, tell us about your opinion on immigration.
Candidate Buttface: I'll tell you all you need to know, which is that my opponent, Candidate Fartface, has the same opinion on immigration as our current president, President ButtButt. And look at the state of family values!
Moderator: Candidate Fartface, your response.
Candidate Fartface: Abortion am bad! Guns! I have a feeling about those that agrees with a tiny minority who, unfortunately, vote in numbers! Death panels! How do they work? Right to life! Gays are getting married and what are the effects on pizza parlors who hate gay people! Small business! I worked on a farm one summer!
Moderator: Stirring words indeed.
[cut back to Fox News studios]
And now we have this fuckface who pops the collar on his stupid polo shirts and interviews women with their boobs out.
Fuckface: Thanks, Bill! You, you have your boobs out and are celebrating Mardi Gras. Can I ask you a question about Obamacare and then wink at the camera like, 'See this drunk idiot? With her boobs out?'
Boobs Out Lady: Um, [says something frustratingly stupid that makes me mad every time because it's like, can't ONE drunken party person tell this guy he's an asshole]
Fuckface: [winks at camera] Back to you, Bill.
Bill: Back to the debate.
Moderator: Thank you candidates, for listening to me ask a question, hearing the Charlie Brown teacher voice, and then basically talking about whatever the fuck you felt like talking about. What a rich and wonderful tapestry we have.
*distant sound of gunfire as I end my own life*
FIN