Rating: 
Summary: A good start at self-review
Review: A good book to read that examines the flaws in traditional reasoning. The only problem I see, is that what you will learn from this book will not apply to the way those around you think and react. People and their ideas die hard (don't pick up this book if you take great comfort in feel-good pseudo-sciences). I not only recommend the book, I plan to read it myself several more times over the next five years.
Rating:
Summary: Sloppy thinking has its price
Review: A well-written book that focuses on the common errors human beings make when trying to comprehend the world around them, and form opinions. Central ponits: that we try to make order out of chaos, even when there is no order; that we filter what we hear according to our own biases; and that wishful thinking can distort reality. He sets up the cases in a very readable way, and then gives examples of a few erroneous beliefs and their consequences. This is where you may find some disagreeing with him. The case studies include ESP and Homeopathy. If you subscribe to those fallacies, you will probably be challenged during that section of the book. Since there are NO reputable studies that support them, that is to the good. Finally, he gives us a clue into how we can better evaluate what information we are presented with. While not a scholarly work on "Critical Thinking" (such as "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking") it would be a wonderful companion book to "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" by Shermer and Gould. You owe it to yourself to read this and consider it fairly.
Rating:
Summary: Best Critical Thinking Book Out There
Review: As a professor of social psychology I can say that this book is great. I wish I could assign it in all my classes. Students in my Senior Seminar always find it interesting and it sparks much discussion. The book is very clearly written and full of anecdotal evidence, although one of my students commented that she could clearly see it was written by a man because the book contains a lot of sports as well as "nagging about the chores" examples. Overall this is the best critical thinking book out there. It's a must read for anyone who wants to be an educated thinker
Rating: 
Summary: Author falls prey of the same bias he cleverly denounces
Review: Good book. I recommend. It is interesting to notice that the author himself consistently falls prey of the fallibility he so cleverly brings to our attention. He interprets many things according to his needs. Many things could be said about they way he criticizes those who oppose the "germ theory", holistic
medicine, etc. He tends to imply that "holistic" is the same
as "quackery". Of course, quackery is quackery, no matter what a quack calls his "medicine", be it "holistic", be it "orthodox", be it whatever you chose. At least what I know about "holistic" medicine has nothing to do with quackery and nothing to do with Gilovich's description. The same thing can be said about his condemnation of those who oppose to the "germ theory" that is dominant since Pasteur. As far as I know real doctors who oppose it do not say germs are not important factor. What they say is that germ is only ONE factor and very often not the most important one. That explains why you can subject hundreds of people to the same germ and most of the time only a few will get sick.In page 6 he refers to Rhea Sullins. Her father may have killed her, as the author implies. Nevertheless, this is far from certain based on what he says. Would she be cured using conventional medicine? Did her father use a proper natural medicine? Statistically, is her case important? He mentions a single occurrence of a victim and a perpetrator and expects us to believe this is enough to prove "Natural hygiene" is bad or that hygienists are all dumb and irresponsible.
When he goes to Homeopathy he applies every single technique he denounces in others. He implies homeopathy is quackery and has no scientific soundness. Far from this. Homeopathy does not pretend to understand why it works. Nobody knows. But it follows the same scientific methodology other sciences follow. Like the so much beloved "double blind", for instance. Also, homeopathy practioners tend to make much better prognosis then orthodox medicine, like the course of a remission. With very objective measures, like changes in body temperature, weight modification, skin alterations etc. Also, homeopathy is used in animals with great success. And in emergency rooms too. Also -- in Brazil at least -- in order to practice homeopathy a person must first go to a regular medicine school for about 6 years. After that 3 years more are needed to become an homeopathist. It is hard to believe a homeopathist is less educated and trained than a "regular" doctor. The reverse seems to be true.
By the way, I have no affiliation whatsoever with Homeopathy. I am among those (also more or less rediculed by Gilovich) who believe our health should be in our own hands, doctors being only helpers. So I try to understand what we should expect from our mind and body (not two separate entities), from our food, from the doctors and from the drugs (in this order of precedence). The final chapters are a little boring. It seems the author wanted to put as many things in as few pages as possible in order to support his views. It is quite miscellaneous and clearly shows the author has an axe to grind. Again, this is a good book that deserves to be read. The fact that the author is himself victim of the failures he sees so clearly in our reasoning does not belittle his work.
Rating:
Summary: Useful and fun
Review: I don't remember how I came across this book. I think it may have had something to do with a search I was conducting for books that explain why there's so much misinformation out there about the stock market, and how I can better avoid being [pulled] in by it. I'm not sure that I'd recommend reading it for that purpose, but that's not a criticism. In fact, it's a much more generally applicable book. There were many, many times when I thought to myself as reading, "Yeah, I make that mistake." For instance, I'm great at picking apart evidence in support of ideas and arguments that I don't agree with, yet I frequently accept evidence for ideas that I do support with little questioning. But since reading chapter 3 of this book, I have at least become conscious of when I am doing this. So this book wasn't only informative, but it actually has had an impact on the way that I think. And there's plenty of fun statistics in here too. Guess what the chances are of two people in a room of 23 randomly selected people sharing a birthday. Would you believe 50%? I'm still trying to come to terms with that one. The only caveat I would offer on this book is that occassionally, it is a bit technical. I found that I did need to be in a quiet place where I could focus when I was reading it. But you don't need to be a scientist or have more than a basic understanding of statistics to be able to follow along. I'm very glad I read this. It was both fun and useful.
Rating: 
Summary: Narrow focus - others are better
Review: I found the book narrow in focus and rather old fashioned. It seemed to reflect a few of the author's personal betes noires eg alternative medicine. I found little that was new in it. There are lots of better books on this topic around eg "Influence : The Psychology of Persuasion".
Rating:
Summary: Avoids the pitfalls of most sceptics
Review: I've read a lot of books on logic, argument, and critical thinking. This is the best one I've read for explaining the psychological reasons behind faultly logic. This book is going on my list of books to read every few years so as to inoculate myself from the described fallibilities in human reasoning. I will be recommending this to everyone I know. Unfortunately, the ones who need to read it the most probably won't.
Rating:
Summary: Hit the nail on the head
Review: I've read a lot of books on logic, argument, and critical thinking. This is the best one I've read for explaining the psychological reasons behind faultly logic. This book is going on my list of books to read every few years so as to inoculate myself from the described fallibilities in human reasoning. I will be recommending this to everyone I know. Unfortunately, the ones who need to read it the most probably won't.
Rating:
Summary: Avoids the pitfalls of most sceptics
Review: i.e. "these people must be stupid &/or crazy to believe this nonsense". Fact is, many of our fallacies are based on strategies that work or have worked in other situations. Many scientific advances are because someone found a pattern -- that others scorned laughed at back then. (Warning: they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.) People who are most involved and best informed are just as, or more likely to be deceived. Obstetric nurses and cops believe they see more action during a full moon; not true. Coaches believe in 'hot streaks'; not true. Look at the numbers.
We humans are so good at finding patterns that we can find them when they aren't there.
Rating:
Summary: Spurious reasoning beware!
Review: In this book, How We Know What Isn't So, Thomas Gilovich takes us through the facts behind spurious reasoning, anecdotal evidence, and incomplete analyses. In the current climate of fad diets, herbal remedies, and other pseudoscientific claims, it is an important book, laying bare the faulty reasoning that can lead to errors in judgement or to falling for some con artist's story.
The primary focus of the book is an analysis of how the human mind tends to bring order from randomness. For example, early chapters deal with random events, and Gilovich points out how seemingly ordered random events can be. For example, when flipping a coin, you should expect to see 4 or 5 heads (or tails) in a row at some point when flipping the coin 100 times. This seems obvious, but he then moves to "real life" examples to show how such randomness can lead to a belief in hot streaks when gambling, for example.
Similarly, he tackles and explains studies that clearly show the importance of anecdotal evidence - we'll take information at face value if we hear it from someone we trust, even if we don't know where that person got the info. Likewise, people tend to more closely scrutinise evidence that contradicts their beliefs in an attempt to find a fault with the evidence. However, they are also likely to "mindlessly" accept anything that seems to support a belief. This is human nature, of course, but it means that it's human nature to not evaluate evidence objectively, and that is what leads to spurious reasoning and belief in concepts that have no scientific evidence (the efficacy of many herbal medicines, belief in ESP, etc.)
In a year with a particularly acrimonious election, this book seems doubly important. With the mudslinging and misrepresentations taking place in both the Kerry and the Bush camps, it's tough for the average person to sort it all out. Gilovich's book points the way to how to ask the right questions on the way to finding the truth, which is something everyone needs to be able to do in a democracy.
|
