moorelaborate's review against another edition
4.0
Felt a little like a blog post in that it has a more approachable style but is mostly bitching out bad actors on the cultural stage. Still informative, funny and useful though.
serf21's review against another edition
3.0
Provides a nice insight for introductory logic and how those tools can be used in political and social discussions.
heytheredilara's review against another edition
5.0
This book taught me a lot about my own shortcomings in arguments and how I need to slow down and think about them longer. I think currently everything moves on 2x speed so this was a great reminder. Two very important points I took from this book are: think longer about your or your opponent's reasoning and don't make the mistake of pointing fallacies only & actually engage with people.
aquantumofgravitas's review against another edition
3.0
The first half is really good.
Chapter 4 starts good and then loses the thread for an extended digression into the history of the Trotsky and the Socialist Workers' Party. It drags.
Chapter 5 is devoted to making a lot of hay out of one hasty generalization by Nate Silver about the voting patterns of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. It's a really good illustration of the fallacy but I'd like to see a wider review of the with more examples. It also drags.
Regardless of these criticisms I found much to like as a primer on both logic and socialism. My copy is marked up and I'm looking forward to rereading chapters I to III, the Postscript and the definitions, and a bunch of other selections in-between.
Chapter 4 starts good and then loses the thread for an extended digression into the history of the Trotsky and the Socialist Workers' Party. It drags.
Chapter 5 is devoted to making a lot of hay out of one hasty generalization by Nate Silver about the voting patterns of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. It's a really good illustration of the fallacy but I'd like to see a wider review of the with more examples. It also drags.
Regardless of these criticisms I found much to like as a primer on both logic and socialism. My copy is marked up and I'm looking forward to rereading chapters I to III, the Postscript and the definitions, and a bunch of other selections in-between.
georgewhatup's review against another edition
4.0
This breaks down logic in a way that I really respect but also struggle to understand.
I think I need to reread it.
I think I need to reread it.
cer15712's review against another edition
3.0
This book was a rollercoaster. Its premise is excellent, and the first few sections follow an educational, easy to understand pattern: introduction of a fallacy or logical term, real life examples, conclusion. His takedown of Ben Shapiro, especially his dissection of Shapiro's debate advice, is where Burgis is most in his element.
Bafflingly, however, Burgis inserts a four page meander into Soviet history and Trotskyism in the middle of the book, and never quite recovers his initial message. One chapter uses Nate Silver as a case study, but comes off more as a hit piece against him. The book ends suddenly with little conclusion, which was a letdown.
While this book has a lot of promise, Burgis could stand to tighten up his message, get a better copyeditor and tone down the "Chapo Trap House" style of writing. If made more accessible, "Logic For The Left" could be a powerful tool.
Bafflingly, however, Burgis inserts a four page meander into Soviet history and Trotskyism in the middle of the book, and never quite recovers his initial message. One chapter uses Nate Silver as a case study, but comes off more as a hit piece against him. The book ends suddenly with little conclusion, which was a letdown.
While this book has a lot of promise, Burgis could stand to tighten up his message, get a better copyeditor and tone down the "Chapo Trap House" style of writing. If made more accessible, "Logic For The Left" could be a powerful tool.
rwcarter's review against another edition
4.0
For me, Give Them an Argument was like a gymnastic vault that started perfectly, stumbled a bit on the landing, but recovered and ultimately was a pleasure to watch.
The impetus for this book seems to be that "logic" as such has been relegated purely to the right. We have people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson who seem to be hyperlogical intellectuals that are seen "owning the libs" and shutting down left-wing arguments in a fiery display of wit and rhetoric. Ben Burgis argues that this is not really what's happening. He urges the left to take up the mantle of logic again and use it better than the right. While he does do a bit of introductory formal logic and lists some logical fallacies, Burgis' point is that logic isn't a weapon meant to be shoved in the face of everyone who disagrees with you. It's a powerful tool that can be used to recognize poor arguments, a tool that should be used with the goal of getting to the best answer, not beating an opponent.
The first three chapters were excellent. Burgis introduces us to some basic concepts in both formal and informal logic and uses them to bring haughty intellectual right-wingers and centrists down to earth. The writing is clear, often funny, but certainly tinted with a not-so-subtle whiff of Marxism (Burgis self-identifies as such).
Chapters four and five take a departure from what I expected, but aren't necessarily bad because of it. Burgis gives us a history of Trotsky's break from Communism and subsequent intra-communist debates. Fine. The last chapter is basically this: Burgis says that logic and reasoning is a valuable tool for the left because if/when we get the social democracy we've been asking for, we're gonna need to know how to sort out some of the logistics we can't predict. There hasn't been a socialist state like the ones contemporary socialists are arguing for, so there's a lot we won't know. But the idea is that this risk is worth the benefits that a socialist state would give us that a capitalist state does not. By having logic as a tool in our toolbox, we can most effectively navigate the pitfalls that will be inherent in this new society. Whether or not you support a socialist state, this idea is fantastic and clear. We need logic because X. No strings.
On a broader level, one thing Burgis made me think about was proposals like Obama's "grand bargain (mentioned in the book) where pundits on one side exhort us to try and put our differences aside and make peace with each other to come to a better solution. Burgis says that this would only be an effective method for two sides arguing for a common interest, but with different techniques; Burgis cites the liberal debate over Universal Income or Universal Jobs. Here, both sides acknowledge a need to address the rampant poverty in the US and agree that money is something all people should have at least a basic level of, but they disagree on how to get there. That said, Burgis argues that the same cannot be done for certain debates between the left and the right. In the case of the wealth gap, the right does not see a problem with the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few elites while the left does. The right is thinking about the rights of the wealthy while the left is interested in the rights of the people. Because they have different vested interests, trying to debunk one another's claims may be less helpful than we expect. At some point, a level of incivility is necessary to bring change. I think the tricky part is figuring out when that is. I thought it was impressive how, in a book dedicated to logic, Burgis is still willing to concede that sometimes logic just isn't enough.
Finally, I thought the conclusion was clear and well stated (see above) and the index at the back of the book of the logical tools he outlines was extremely helpful. Overall, highly recommend. At the very least, it will give you some handy tools and hopefully make you think.
The impetus for this book seems to be that "logic" as such has been relegated purely to the right. We have people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson who seem to be hyperlogical intellectuals that are seen "owning the libs" and shutting down left-wing arguments in a fiery display of wit and rhetoric. Ben Burgis argues that this is not really what's happening. He urges the left to take up the mantle of logic again and use it better than the right. While he does do a bit of introductory formal logic and lists some logical fallacies, Burgis' point is that logic isn't a weapon meant to be shoved in the face of everyone who disagrees with you. It's a powerful tool that can be used to recognize poor arguments, a tool that should be used with the goal of getting to the best answer, not beating an opponent.
The first three chapters were excellent. Burgis introduces us to some basic concepts in both formal and informal logic and uses them to bring haughty intellectual right-wingers and centrists down to earth. The writing is clear, often funny, but certainly tinted with a not-so-subtle whiff of Marxism (Burgis self-identifies as such).
Chapters four and five take a departure from what I expected, but aren't necessarily bad because of it. Burgis gives us a history of Trotsky's break from Communism and subsequent intra-communist debates. Fine. The last chapter is basically this: Burgis says that logic and reasoning is a valuable tool for the left because if/when we get the social democracy we've been asking for, we're gonna need to know how to sort out some of the logistics we can't predict. There hasn't been a socialist state like the ones contemporary socialists are arguing for, so there's a lot we won't know. But the idea is that this risk is worth the benefits that a socialist state would give us that a capitalist state does not. By having logic as a tool in our toolbox, we can most effectively navigate the pitfalls that will be inherent in this new society. Whether or not you support a socialist state, this idea is fantastic and clear. We need logic because X. No strings.
On a broader level, one thing Burgis made me think about was proposals like Obama's "grand bargain (mentioned in the book) where pundits on one side exhort us to try and put our differences aside and make peace with each other to come to a better solution. Burgis says that this would only be an effective method for two sides arguing for a common interest, but with different techniques; Burgis cites the liberal debate over Universal Income or Universal Jobs. Here, both sides acknowledge a need to address the rampant poverty in the US and agree that money is something all people should have at least a basic level of, but they disagree on how to get there. That said, Burgis argues that the same cannot be done for certain debates between the left and the right. In the case of the wealth gap, the right does not see a problem with the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few elites while the left does. The right is thinking about the rights of the wealthy while the left is interested in the rights of the people. Because they have different vested interests, trying to debunk one another's claims may be less helpful than we expect. At some point, a level of incivility is necessary to bring change. I think the tricky part is figuring out when that is. I thought it was impressive how, in a book dedicated to logic, Burgis is still willing to concede that sometimes logic just isn't enough.
Finally, I thought the conclusion was clear and well stated (see above) and the index at the back of the book of the logical tools he outlines was extremely helpful. Overall, highly recommend. At the very least, it will give you some handy tools and hopefully make you think.