Scan barcode
oinkopig21's review
funny
informative
lighthearted
fast-paced
4.5
I bought this for my parents so they would stop using logical fallacies against me during arguments
it didn’t work
mahmoud_radi's review
3.0
وجبة دسمة قليلًا على أطفال في مقتبل العمر، وقليلة الكمية لمن يبحث عما هو أكثر من المقدم هنا، لكنه في المجمل يصلح تمهيدًا مبسطًا لمن يحب القراءة عن المنطق والمغالطات المنطقية.
erine's review
3.0
The descriptions of logical fallacies were relatively easy to grasp. The illustrations, while attractive, did not enhance my understanding, and frequently were confusing.
Overall, loved the concept and got a fair amount out of the book, I just wanted the illustrated bits (and their captions, really) to be more connected to the text.
Overall, loved the concept and got a fair amount out of the book, I just wanted the illustrated bits (and their captions, really) to be more connected to the text.
shokoshik's review against another edition
Like the back cover says - this is a good book for people with opinions.
It'll definitely help you argue better, so if you do have opinions, and you like to finish a discussion having the advantage, this little thing will get into your subconscious and help you realize when your argument buddy is BSing.
Also, illustrations are dope.
It'll definitely help you argue better, so if you do have opinions, and you like to finish a discussion having the advantage, this little thing will get into your subconscious and help you realize when your argument buddy is BSing.
Also, illustrations are dope.
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.
...