Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.
Chargement... Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic (original 2016; édition 2016)par Michael Withey (Auteur)
Information sur l'oeuvreMastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic par Michael Withey (2016)
Aucun Chargement...
Inscrivez-vous à LibraryThing pour découvrir si vous aimerez ce livre Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre. aucune critique | ajouter une critique
Your argument is valid and you know it; yet once again you find yourself leaving a debate feeling defeated and embarrassed. The matter is only made worse when you realize that your defeat came at the hands of someone's abuse of logic-and that with the right skills you could have won the argument. The ability to recognize logical fallacies when they occur is an essential life skill. Mastering Logical Fallacies is the clearest, boldest, and most systematic guide to dominating the rules and tactics of successful arguments. This book offers methodical breakdowns of the logical fallacies behind exceedingly common, yet detrimental, argumentative mistakes, and explores them through real life examples of logic-gone-wrong. Designed for those who are ready to gain the upper hand over their opponents, this master class teaches the necessary skills to identify your opponents' misuse of logic and construct effective arguments that win. With the empowering strategies offered in Mastering Logical Fallacies you'll be able to reveal the slight-of-hand flaws in your challengers' rhetoric, and seize control of the argument with bulletproof logic. Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque |
Discussion en coursAucunCouvertures populaires
Google Books — Chargement... GenresClassification décimale de Melvil (CDD)165Philosophy and Psychology Logic Fallacies; ParadoxClassification de la Bibliothèque du CongrèsÉvaluationMoyenne:
Est-ce vous ?Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing. |
I also have a problem with the "comeback" sections, where the implied scenario is a good-faith debate where the participants will accept a well-reasoned argument. There are potential issues with nearly every comeback in this book. For example, the "Anonymous Authority" entry says that
This is a weird example to use because I doubt scientists would speak in such certain terms, including Stephen Hawking. In the case of Hawking radiation, although there's a theoretical mechanism for it there's only very weak experimental evidence for it. It's far from well established that black holes emit radiation.
This is not unusual; science is full of uncertain things, with varying degrees of uncertainty. But the notion of an "authority" doesn't allow for that. This illustrates a general problem I have with focusing on fallacies as something to look for in a debate: because it removes the context of what's being talked about, it's not a very convincing way of striking down an argument. It's often used to compensate for lack of knowledge in the topic or lack of ability to formulate a proper retort.
Another example: "Appeal to the Moon" is the argument that if we've done some difficult task, then surely we can do another, also difficult, task. ("We've been to the moon, so why can't we cure cancer?") The comeback goes:
The first point is this paragraph is simply pointing out that this fallacy is a fallacy; I'm not sure this is very effective in a debate. The second point is just begging for an exploration of how hard a mission to the moon is and what the specific difficulties with cancer research are! You can't claim in good faith that one is easier than the other without getting into specifics.
This fallacy also illustrates another problem I have with classifying fallacies: most of them essentially amount to "B does not follow from A", also known as non sequitur. Often, the non sequitur fallacy is explained with such blatant examples that I can only imagine the person making the fallacious claim as acting in bad faith. But in practice, non sequitur is more nuanced: sometimes your opponent isn't able to formulate their reasoning clearly, and sometimes you just fail to be convinced. The solution to that is to debate the points until they're refined enough that it's either clear that B follows from A, or that it does not.
This might not be your goal if you just want to win the debate. But if your goal is winning then I don't see why you should be pointing to fallacies at all. It's useful to know about them, but more in terms of how you can use them to your benefit. Appealing to emotion can be quite effective, for example.
If your goal is to learn, then do not invoke fallacies in a debate. And do not read this book.
( )