I had my copy signed by him back in 2011, when I was of an different mind about things. It’s a good book for understanding how to use logic and reason in argumentation, and is thought provoking. It’s still hostile towards religion and religious thinking, though perhaps not as much as other books on my list. Some of it comes down to not understanding where the religious are being metaphorical, or (unintentional?) misrepresentations. The religious will do the same too, so I don’t mean to cast stones. Just understand that even a book on “logic and reason” will still have its biases. That’s unavoidable. ( )

After reading the title to Christopher DiCarlo’s book How to become a really good pain in the ass : a critical thinker's guide to asking the right questions I really wanted to read it, I wanted to like it. I have been working on my critical thinking skills for years so this is not my first exposure to it. I was hoping that DiCarlo’s style, judging from the title, would put a new spin on the things.
DiCarlo divided the book into three sections, the first, which until I looked back at the table of contents I felt was the shortest, looks at the nuts and bolts concepts involved in critical thinking. It was wonderful, the explanations were fresh and relevant and most important, clear. The second sections was a brief look at the founders of critical thinking, DiCarlo calls them “the best damn pains in the ass in history.” I think Socrates deserves better but I am not an undergraduate anymore and that is the audience DiCarlo is writing for. The third section, well, that is where things started to go wrong.
In the introduction DiCarlo discusses what he calls the 5 Big Questions, What can I know, why am I here, what am I, how should I behave, and what is to come of me? Interesting questions that DiCarlo examines in great detail in the final section of his book. Very soon it is obvious that the book has changed into a long, long argument against superstition. Specifically the superstitions that many people call religions. I have two problems with this tactic.
First, DiCarlo wasted both his and the readers time as well as a small forest of trees. Early in the section he said all that needs to be said, there is no evidence supporting any claims of any supernatural creator, it is strictly a matter of faith.There is no way to prove the existence of a creator and there is no way to prove that there is no creator. There you go, the argument is a logical stalemate, why waste time on it?
Second, if moving superstitious thinkers to adopt critical thinking is your goal, alienating them is not the way to do it. The book would have been much better if it had included examples of diagramming arguments and practice detecting fallacies and building strong arguments. Teach a man to fish and all that. Teach a man to think critically and one day he will turn it on his superstitions.
I find that I have to give each section its own recommendation, the first is wonderful, if you are at all interested in the topic read this. The second is an adequate introduction to the founders of critical thinking. I recommend you avoid the third, all I can say about it is that it is a waste of time. ( )

I approached this book intrigued by the concept – a discussion of how critical thinking can be used to ask better questions that will get to the root of “things”. The intro gave me a warning of things to come, but I set that warning aside, assuming that the indications of problems that might be inherent in the author’s approach were just my overemphasis of a minor point the author would be making.

The first section held great promise. I have not had a lot of exposure to the concepts behind deductive and inductive reasoning – just the cursory introduction we all get in college - and this section did an excellent job of outlining the history, premise, and the basics to logical arguing. The structure was a little…lets’ go with “cute”. (A is for Argument, B is for Biases, all the way to F is for Fallacies.) And I will hit on the problem with the illustrations later. But it laid it all out in a straightforward way that made the concepts understandable.

Then, the decline started. The second section focused on Socrates and the Skeptics. A decent history lesson, and a description of the approach they used in their logical arguments. However, it seemed a sidetrack to the main premise.

And then, the bottom fell and the hint of impending disasters came to pass. Section three - almost 200 pages on how to argue about “What can I know?”, “Why am I here?”, “What am I?”, “How Should I behave?”, and “What is to come of me?” I am not making this up – five chapters devoted to how arguments around these unanswerable questions should be debated. Well and good for professorial arguments held over whatever they drink when they are having professorial arguments – but a waste of printed page and of no use to a real discussion on “asking the right questions” (the subtitle of the book.) The author had an axe to grind – and it was ground to a nub in this section.

And now, the final nail that drags this book from poorly constructed and misleading to down-right amateurish – the illustrations. The book is peppered with unnecessary illustrations. Do we really need a drawing of Socrates to help move the discussion along? Do we have to have an illustration that is nothing but “Consistency” in block lettering? But it gets worse. Not only are the illustrations unnecessary, but they appear to have been drawn by entry level artists – first month pieces submitted for Drawing 101. I feel as though they are acquaintances of the author; there appears to be no other reason for their inclusion.

Yes, the first section is good. And, to be honest, I will probably use that part of the book for future reference. But the reset is dross and useless. ( )

This book is a good introductory text to critical thinking, covering the basics and challenging the reader to understand not just what they think, but why they think it. Although I found it a bit simplistic, I did think it would have been nice to have had around a number of years ago when I was struggling to figure out how to sort out truth claims and manuever through the tricky mine fields of conflicting claims. The author uses ordinary language, without the clutter that so often characterizes scholarly works on critical thinking, so it is accessible to people who haven't yet been inducted into the mysterious world of philosophical argumentation. He also includes graphics, though in most cases, I found the graphics distracting rather than elucidating. His examples are ones that will make sense to people, without a lot of the convoluted reasoning that can trip up a beginning critical thinker in scholarly works. This book should be a must for every library. My main complaint is that it is too long by half, and that will turn many off of reading it. ( )