How to Think Straight: An Introduction to Critical Reasoning

Rating:
Summary: Cracked Mask for Petty Politics
Review: As an introduction to critical thinking, this is not difficult reading. It is simply obfuscating, in the full parody of that word, itself obfuscating.

This is a cracked-mask political treatise. I don't have a problem with politics in the context of critical thinking. WE would love to have that! I do have a problem with the sneak attack in numerous examples from what seem to be from today's conservative Right, e.g. baiting with a gratuitous reference to Robert E. Lee. -- "If we ourselves are committed to an exterme position then we are apt to assume or to pretend - to borrow the phrase from General Robert E. Lee employed to refer to his opponents in the Union armies during the American Civil War - that "those people", our opponents, also are."

Now, do you seriously consider the quote "those people" as distinctly representative of Robert E. Lee.We may as well be happy to borrow that distinct use of the famous phrase "the country" in most of the President's addresses.

Flew also recurs to piecemeal science to support his interests. Here's an example: Flew's attempt to show the "possibility of corruptions resulting from the private interests of employees of public and semi-public organizations".

He follows with: "Employees of agencies established to combat perceived evils, for instance, cannot but have strong job-preservation interests in the continuation of at least sufficient of those evils to justify the preservation of the agency which employs them... it becomes necessary, just to maintain present levels of employment and funding"

This is the context for his criticism of The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission in the United States. Well, of course, he has identified a valid incentive and possibility for doing the unthinkable -- manufacturing cases -- but he does not make his case for critical thinking here. He seems to be saying that creating EEOC problems is THE necessary and sufficient condition for job security. This is an inordinately weak conjecture for a book with claims on critical thinking -- too many variables to consider. (See Thomas Sowell's Knowledge and Decisions for discussion on incentives and constraints). Yes, you can deal with the conjecture, technically, but it is more of a political generalization than a relevant example.

For a real treatment on critical thinking, go to one of the people he patronizes in appropriate but merely asymptotic references: Karl Popper. Further, go to Richard Feynman (The Pleasure of Finding Things Out). Or, for a rigorous but joyful critical thinking ride go to Imre Lakatos (The Logic of Mathematical Discovery). These would be a better intro.

Rating:
Summary: The book really isn't that difficult
Review: I am surprised at many of the reviews of this book. If the reviewer isn't attacking Flew's political positions, then she's complaining that the book is too difficult. First, Flew's politics are a small part of the book. I feel that he uses well chosen examples to get the reader to engage in critical thinking, especially about positions one is tempted to dismiss out of hand because they don't pass the ideological litmus test.

The purpose of this book is to get the reader to develop a habit of critical thinking; the examples Flew uses serve that purpose well.

The book is not difficult to read for anyone with a moderately decent education. I am currently a sophomore at the University of Florida, and found little trouble with Flew's writing. A few times it did seem that Flew's point was unclear, but I rarely felt this way and the point in question was usually minor. Also, rereading the relevant passage always cleared it up.

His discussion of the relationship between a person's integrity and that person's desire for the truth is well written. His use of historical examples from various thinkers and disciplines helps to bring out the importance of applying critical thinking to all areas of discourse. Flew also discusses very basic but important logical points, both formal and informal.

The difficulty people seem to experience with this book may arise from the fact that Flew appears to take for granted that people know what he's talking about. He appears to move from point to point quickly, and often uses prior developed points in later areas of the book. If the reader finds following him difficult, then any basic introduction to informal logic will make this books easier and more enjoyable.

I was scared away from Flew's book by reading the reviews on this site claiming it was confusing and difficult. I finally decided to try it and found that it really is not as bad as the people here make it out to be.

Rating:
Summary: Not a good intro to Logic!
Review: I had no choice--because of lack of these books in the category at Barnes and Noble--to check out this book and "Logic Made Easy" by Deborah J. Bennett to try to get a general overview of Logic and critical thinking and I was rather discouraged. These books are not a beginner's guide to Logic; it was intended for advanced logic readers. I never took a logic or critical reasoning class nor have read any books regarding this topic, and I never realized that this discipline of study is really, really difficult to comprehend easily. It's unfortunate that my local bookstore carries such limited books on these. According to the overall good Amazon.com rating , I will try out "Introduction to Logic" by Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen. Hopefully, this book will be more reader friendly.

Rating:
Summary: Heads up
Review: I have a great idea for Antony Flew. Maybe for his next project, he can research and write a book called "How to Write Concisely", and then go back and revise out of existence all the superfluous, distracting literary litter that ruins "How to Think Straight".

In fairness, I feel that Mr. Flew is in the same bind as other writers of a scientific or academic bent: they feel, probably correctly, that their subject matter may be kind of dry for the average reader; they try to mitigate against this by including attempts at humor, interesting anecdotes, pop culture or historical allusions, etc.; and then, end up ruining the book because their jokes aren't funny, their anecdotes aren't interesting, their pop culture/historical allusions are ridiculous and distracting, and they all combine to obscure the core substance of what the book was supposed to be about, rendering it worthless.

I'm sorry to use this review as an opportunity to speak to all the many well-intentioned scholars out there trying to write for a popular audience, but here goes: The odds are overwhelming that, contrary to what your colleagues and wife tell you, you are not really that funny, and never will be; you're cutesy references to current events most likely will make you sound like the high school Dungeons and Dragons Club President trying to talk ball with your school's football coach, and your historical/pop culture examples will most likely come across not as illustrative, but as pedantic. What I'm trying to say, is that by definition, you are not a normal human being. Trying to pretend you are only gets in the way of what you're trying to discuss. All we want from you is a clear, concise exposition of your book's subject. After all, that's why we're trying to read it.

One peculiar thing about this book is that Flew, while obviously trying (unsuccessfully) to connect to the layman, does not seem to have a sense of how absurd his prose is. Imagine the contorted, long-winded stylings of English writers of the Victorian era - now imagine a modern writer that makes those guys sound like Lil Abner - and now imagine Antony Flew. It is not too much to say that the only comedy in this book is the unwitting comedy of a man, writing a book with this title, who can hardly construct a single intelligible paragraph in his native tongue.

Here's a small example of the pedantic bloviating I'm talking about, from the man Flew himself, from pages 22-23:

Quote:

"Especially in the context of thinking about the French Revolution of 1789, the first great social revolution of the modern period, Edmund Burke (1729-1797)* is often seen as representative of the second approach. This approach is sometimes believed by English people to be characteristically English, although Burke himself was born and educated in Ireland. By contrast, the Abbe Sieyes, who contrived to survive when so many of the other revolutionaries were killed, is seen as representative of the first approach, an approach which is in the same circles seen as characteristically French. Neither of these approaches is as such either logical or illogical, although particular spokespersons on one side or the other may well be logical or illogical. But when confronted with the argument of the Abbe Sieyes against legislative second chambers, his supporters are apt to applaud his famous apothegm as a fine specimen of Gallic logic while his opponents decry it upon exactly the same ground. What he said was, If the second chamber agrees with the first, it is superfluous, whereas if it disagrees with it, it is obnoxious. It is not for us here to decide whether this statement is especially Gallic.

Author's Footnote - *Burke was a member of the UK Parliament, most famous for his hostile and horrified Reflections on the Revolution in France. (He had been and remained sympathetic to the very different American Revolution)".

Unquote

My translation:

"Edmund Burke's thoughts on the French revolution epitomize the first approach, while the French revolutionary Abbe Sieyes's thoughts epitomize the second."

Why take 300 words to make a point that only requires 20 or so? Why cloud a core point with a dozen other totally irrelevant points? Can you imagine 145 pages like this? Buy the book, and you won't have to.

It may even be worth buying for would-be writers, to serve as an example of everything not to do when you're writing a book in this genre.

In any case, if you want to learn how to think straight, my advice is to ignore the college sophomore reviewer on here who feels thrilled she's been able to muck through this silly thing, and get a book on thinking straight by an author who actually CAN think straight, and communicate what he has thought effectively. Two I highly recommend are "A Guide Through the Theory of Knowledge" by Adam Morton, and for those wishing to dig more deeply, the more technical "Informal Logic" by Douglas N. Walton.

Good luck

Rating:
Summary: I have to agree with Michael Small
Review: I must admit that getting into this book is like hitting a brick wall. While probably very clear for a philosophy graduate, it is, for us mere mortals, very difficult to read and hence unclear.

To check this, I had a look at some of Flew's other books ("Thinking about Social Thinking", "Rational Animal") and found them just as difficult.

The writing style is like you would expect from an old English grammar teacher and really not typical of modern British writers (even philosophers).

I found the content very disorganised and often found it hard to understand what point he is attempting to convey.

I can recommend "Clear Thinking" by R F Holt published by Pitman. It is easy to understand, clearly classified and provides illustrations on how to analyse arguments. Unfortunately this book is no longer available new, but may be purchased second hand.

Can other reviewers recommend better books on this subject that are in print?

Rating:
Summary: Tendentious and Opaque
Review: I must agree with several of the previous reviewers: This book is politically tendentious and stylistically opaque.

First, every example of poor reasoning comes from a liberal point of view, while every example of sound reasoning comes from a right-libertarian point of view. This leaves the reader with the impression that only liberals engage in flawed thinking and that conservatives always think rigorously and clearly. This is a blatant political bias on the part of Professor Flew.

Second, the style is dense, the structure meandering, and the terms non-standard (Flew invents his own non-intuitive names for common fallacies), which makes the subject seem more difficult than it actually is.

A previous reviewer wanted to know if there are better books on critical thinking than this one. Indeed there are:

The Art of Reasoning, by David Kelley. Although Kelley is a libertarian, his bias isn't blatant. He makes an attempt to be non-partisan. His book is well-written and well-organized.

Introduction to Logic, by Irving Copi and Carl Cohen.

Critical Reasoning: A Practical Introduction, by Anne Thomson.

Reasoning, by Michael Scriven.

Reason and Argument, by Richard Feldman.

Any of these books would be better than Flew's tendentious and opaque book.

Rating:
Summary: The Title is Accurate
Review: I read this book at a time when I was having difficulty thinking straight--or just thinking, period. I managed to force myself to concentrate. I realize it's not everyday, Readers Digest prose, so I don't expect it to be a mega-bestseller. But, for me, it turned out to be just what I needed: a self-help book that isn't even advertised as such. And unlike typical self-help books, this one actually works--for me, anyway.

Rating:
Summary: Controversial yes, but also brilliant
Review: In recent years a large number of books devoted to informal logic and critical thinking have been published. This is a good thing, of course, but unfortunately they are all pretty much alike -- except for Professor Antony Flew's book. Like some other reviewers, I was initially skeptical because the book has been roundly criticised on Amazon for its pretentiousness and right-wing slant. Upon spending serious time with this book, I found that the accusation of pretentiousness is untrue: the paragraphs are numbered in a way that is reminiscent of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, and this may make it appear stilted, but if you will turn to the back of the book, you will find that this is actually an aid to locating pertinent passages pertaining to the various ideas and themes in logic. I agree that the prose is almost razor-sharp, although not stilted -- but what of it? This is a book on critical thinking, is it not? And yes, Professor Flew has strong sympathies with the libertarian point of view, but he has never openly declared himself a libertarian. He does sometimes criticize liberal or moderate stances in this book. For example, his criticism of the moderate's position is trenchant; there is no inherent superiority in always assuming a moderate position on everything, and in fact it is an impossibility, since there is no true middle ground: it is like trying to halve an irrational number. Flew is sharp and very astute in his ability to reason critically and disect various claims of reason, and he is not afraid to contradict and correct what passes for conventional wisdom. This is the main reason why this book stands out from the crowd. If you have already read one of those other books in the current crop of informal logic, and you want to sharpen your wits even more, then this is the book for you. Don't let the negative reviews deter you from this fine work. This book is very well written and organized, and it will refine your critical thinking. Yes, it is controversial, but it is also brilliant.

Rating:
Summary: DON'T BUY THIS BOOK!
Review: Overly complicated! I believe Flew is British and it is reflected in the writing style. Nothing wrong with that except many Americans will spend too much time trying to get past the cultural narrative and very little time digesting the concepts. I have made several attempts at this book and have decided that I will never be able to read it!

Rating:
Summary: Turgid, Dull, Needlessly Obscure
Review: The negative reviews here are accurate. Professor Flew, aping the long-winded, meandering, lamely facetious lecture style of an Oxbridge don, writes very turgid, dull prose, which needlessly obscures what are actually rather simple concepts. (Flew would do well to read Strunk & White's "Elements of Style" and make it his bible.) And even though I am sympathetic to his political point of view, his examples of good and bad reasoning are so one-sided as to be embarrassing. To read Flew, you would think that only libertarians can reason correctly about anything.

Skip this book and look elsewhere for a good guide to clear thinking. An identically titled, similarly intended, but vastly superior book is Robert Thouless's "How to Think Straight," which seems to have been the model for Flew's unsuccessful imitation. It's out of print, but you can easily find a used copy through internet book dealers (try Advanced Book Exchange). Jamie Whyte, in his short, pithy "Crimes Against Logic," says everything Flew has to say, and says it with considerably more clarity, concision, and wit. If you are a complete beginner to this subject, you might want to start with introductory textbooks by Irving Copi, Daniel Bonevac, or Robert Fogelin: These are far more systematic and comprehensive than Flew's book, which, despite its subtitle, is definitely not an "introduction" to logic and critical thinking.

Other books that help hone your critical-thinking skills are Darrell Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics," John Allen Paulos's "Innumeracy" and "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper," Keith Stanovich's "How to Think Straight about Psychology," and Thomas Gilovich's "How We Know What Isn't So." You might also want to check out David Zarefsky's taped lecture course "Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning." There are some useful resources on the internet, too: Try Googling "fallacies" or "critical thinking."