Scan barcode
A review by so64
The Art of Logic in an Illogical World by Eugenia Cheng
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.