Rating: 
Summary: Invaluble for everyday life, not just the classroom...
Review: Although I gathered that this book was written primarily as a text for logic and critical thinking courses, it helped me immensely in terms of learning how to make sense of argumentative quality in everyday life, not only the classroom. I did not read this book for a class as I have graduated college, but I found it to be a real help in determining the strengths and weaknesses in arguments and other forms of persuasive speech that we encounter daily.
The book uses clear and familiar everyday examples to make the points, instead of presenting things in an abstract and think-tank way, and most people will find themselves realizing that they have had arguments or debates exactly like those described in the book. The book clearly demonstrates how much reason and critical thinking can be diminished or overlooked by laziness or unwillingness on the part of people to care enough to think well.
The chapters follow a clear course and almost every logical fallacy I have ever encountered in the classroom or the real world is covered in the book. It explains the fallacy, gives examples, and shows how to expose the fallacy for being a poor argument, as well as demonstrating ways to combat and point out to the other person (in a nice way) the flaw in the reasoning. The tone of the book is pleasently informal, as it attempts to create familiar dialouge and situations to which the reader can easily identify. I highly reccommend the book and think that anyone who cares enough to want to think more maturely would benefit greatly.
Rating: 
Summary: Practice Safe Reasoning
Review: As a college logic teacher, I recommend this book. I divide my course into two major areas: formal and informal. Damer's book is perfect for the informal section. I find students are weary after learning about syllogisms (and "Barbara Celarent"). Informal arguments are much more common, and this book addresses 60 of the most common errors. The book is suitably brief for class use, with plenty of exercises to reinforce the detection and correction of the errors. After reading this book, watching political debates will never be the same!
Rating:
Summary: The antidote for contradiction and controversy.
Review: Damer pulls off a next to impossible task-naming, describing, exampling, and attacking 60 fallacies while structuring them neatly within four criteria of a good argument: relevance, acceptability, sufficient grounds and rebuttal. The last chapter discusses the specifics of "A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion." I used this test as a key element of my Ph.D. research and continue to use it in my later work. This should be required study for every politician and philosopher. A simpler version should be required study for every middle school and high school student. Discovering what is true would be so much easier with good arguments absence of fallacy. Be the first to rid your "neighborhood" of polemics. Study this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Argument Karate
Review: I found this book to be well written, but it is more a book of argument karate. It is written with the idea of both ends of an issue following a logic and rules. "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" is certianly thorough, however academic. I found Nicholas Capaldi's "Art of Deception" much more practical- critical thinking street fighting.
Rating:
Summary: Argument Karate
Review: I found this book to be well written, but it is more a book of argument karate. It is written with the idea of both ends of an issue following a logic and rules. "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" is certianly thorough, however academic. I found Nicholas Capaldi's "Art of Deception" much more practical- critical thinking street fighting.
Rating:
Summary: Best critical thinking book out there
Review: T.Edward Damer's book explains the specific fallacies people use to convince us of a claim.These claims are fallacious because they violate one of four criterion. The four criteria are separated into their own chapter.This allows for a clear vision of why the claim is unreaonable. I highly recommend reading this book if you want to improve your skills in what you should believe.It may madden you to see how our elected officials use these techniques to hoodwink us. What this book can not do,despite Mr. Damer's belief,is enlighten an unreasonable person. We too often encounter those who only see what they believe,not believe whay they see.
Rating:
Summary: Liberal bias?
Review: This book is readable and thorough, and probably the best introduction to critical thinking around.With such a large number of fallacies demanding multiple examples, the author must be forgiven if some of them seem a little off the mark, even while being technically correct. For example, the proposition (I'm paraphrasing) "Our baseball team was 1 and 11 this year, but with a new coach we'll do better next year." is in fact false. However, if the proposition were that "we'll probably do better" it would be true, because the probability is that we would get an average coach and an average coach has a record of 0.500, while assuming that coaching has a positive effect. Another example has former Predident Bush answering the question, "Did Dan Quayle's parents help him get into the national guard?" with words to the effect that "At least he served patrioticly and didn't run to Canada or burn the flag." The answer while technically irrelevant is a politician's way of saying, "Whether his parents helped or not is unimportant, at least ...blah, blah." Such an answer invites a rejoinder along the lines of "It really is important, because ..." The fault of the example is that it implies it is OK to rest on the technicalities even when you have a very good idea of what your opponent is really saying. So if some of the example are a little off-base, perhaps that is all to the good as a learning experience. The small bits of uneasiness are left to the student as an exercise to resolve. The author provides the tools for doing so.
Rating:
Summary: Good book except?
Review: This book seems to cover the topic well and has been helpful. I would tend to agree with the other positive reviewers. However, while the core of the book is good, the author's liberal biases show blatantly in his choice of examples of bad reasoning and also his own rebuttals to the examples. While the examples of bad reasoning are indeed bad reasoning, it would seem (from the book) that it is almost always conservatives who are guilty of this. It would not have been hard to come up with at least as many examples of bad reasoning on the liberal side. While the core of the book is good, it does seem that it has also been used as a vehicle to disseminate the liberal world view. This is unnecessary and degrades its overall quality. I suspect that a little more balance would help readers from both sides to overcome their biases and present better arguments.
Rating:
Summary: liberal biases?!?!?!
Review: This is a good text to use as a suppliment for a Critical Thinking class. I would tend to rely more heavily upon a text that taught not only fallicious arguments, but the construction of good arguments. And to help set the record straight, those who have talked in various other reviews about a "liberal bias" are obviously in need of such a course as Critical Thinking: for it remains beyond the author's responsibility that the conservative right so often commits the informal fallacies addressed in this book.
Rating:
Summary: A Unified Theory of Fallacies and Arguments
Review: This is one of the first texts on critical thinking to incorporate traditional logical fallacies in a unified theory of fallacies and arguments. Damer lists four criteria of a "good argument," then defines a "fallacy" as a violation of one or more of these criteria. He then groups all of the traditional fallacies by the criterion that they violate. Thus, the readers are not just learning a list of fallacies in an intellectual vaccuum; they are learning a holistic system that makes sense intuitively and logically, and will enable them not only to critique flawed arguments, but to construct logically sound arguments of their own.
Damer also includes "A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion," twelve principles for civilized, intelligent discussion of issues. These twelve principles include the four criteria of a good argument, thus connecting all the ideas of the book in one logical and easily understood structure. It's noteworthy that the author includes a discussion of ethics, and the "right" and "wrong" way to argue. He even has strategies on how to point out flawed arguments without being judgemental or intellectually condescending. Knowledge is power, after all, and intellectual might doesn't necessarily make right.
It's refreshing to see a critical thinking text acknowledge the ethical responsibility that comes with superior critical thinking skills. Damer takes this responsibility very seriously, and encourages readers to seek truth over victory. This is apparent in the Code of Conduct, which includes "The Fallibility Principle," "The Truth-Seeking Principle," and "The Principle of Charity."
The author includes numerous, excellent examples of the fallacies, taken from a wide variety of contexts. He also gives examples of three different methods for attacking fallacies: logical deconstruction, counterexamples, and absurd examples. The absurd example is a particularly powerful method which is easy to understand and effective with even the most subtle fallacies. Damer excels in demonstrating this method with many effective examples.
If you only buy one book on critical thinking, make it this one! This is the closest thing I've seen to a critical thinking "Bible," incorporating ethical principles, and a practical definition of a good argument, and wrapping it all up with the traditional fallacies in a sensible and intuitive logical structure.
|
