When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People: How Philosophy Can Save Us from Ourselves

by Lawrence Shapiro, Lawrence A. Shapiro

Why the tools of philosophy offer a powerful antidote to today’s epidemic of irrationalityThere is an epidemic of bad thinking in the world today. An alarming number of people are embracing crazy, even dangerous ideas. They believe that vaccinations cause autism. They reject the scientific consensus on climate change as a “hoax.” And they blame the spread of COVID-19 on the 5G network or a Chinese cabal. Worse, bad thinking drives bad acting—it even inspired a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol. In this book, Steven Nadler and Lawrence Shapiro argue that the best antidote for bad thinking is the wisdom, insights, and practical skills of philosophy. When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People provides an engaging tour through the basic principles of logic, argument, evidence, and probability that can make all of us more reasonable and responsible citizens.When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People shows how we can more readily spot and avoid flawed arguments and unreliable information; determine whether evidence supports or contradicts an idea; distinguish between merely believing something and knowing it; and much more. In doing so, the book reveals how epistemology, which addresses the nature of belief and knowledge, and ethics, the study of moral principles that should govern our behavior, can reduce bad thinking. Moreover, the book shows why philosophy’s millennia-old advice about how to lead a good, rational, and examined life is essential for escaping our current predicament.In a world in which irrationality has exploded to deadly effect, When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People is a timely and essential guide for a return to reason.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Psychology, Audiobook, Sociology, Cultural

240 pages, Paperback

Published August 31, 2021

Reviews

[Jake · Rating 2 out of 5]

When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People is a frustrating book that left a bitter taste in my mouth. The authors, Steven Nadler and Lawrence Shapiro, fail in at least three respects: a) they compare “bad thinking” to a viral infection; b) they oversell the ability of rationality to resolve emotional and ideological problems; and c) they fail to give practical advice in the art of affective persuasion.

I will start with my first point of criticism – Nadler and Shapiro compare bad thinking to an infectious disease. The consequence of this analogy is that bad thinkers are characterized as sick-minded people. I found passages like the following incredibly troubling: “Bad thinking is like a virus. It spreads. It infects all strata of society, in domains both private and public. It is there lurking in the home, at work, in business and government. It attacks parents, children, politicians, shopkeepers, lawyers, doctors, movie stars teachers – all of us. It is potent and it is dangerous.” They continue along this trajectory elsewhere: “We can only hope that it is not too late to reverse this trend toward an apparent species-wide epidemic of bad thinking. In the end, philosophy and the examined life may be our best, and perhaps only, prospect to save us, and our planet, from ourselves.” If your goal is to persuade a group of people that think differently than yourself, I cannot see the benefit in pathologizing your target audience as diseased, infected, or mentally ill. In fact, there are good reasons to conceptualize irrationality as at least as central to the human experience as rationality. After all, we are primates with a frontal lobe – “the rational animal” – which is to say, the irrational animal as well.

This brings me to my second point – Nadler and Shapiro oversell the ability of rationality to resolve emotional and ideological problems. They do not seem to realize that you are not going to be able to convince someone who distrusts formal logic, science, and empirical thinking by appealing to the very frameworks that are distrusted. Reason may not quite be the “antidote for bad thinking” that the authors claim it is. Rather than pouring on more evidence, more rationality, more science – pause for a moment and ask yourself, why Reason? Why should someone think rationally? Can Reason ever justify itself without reference to itself? In other words, can you provide good reasons for Reason without appealing to the very thing you are trying to account for? There is a tautology at the heart of Nadler and Shapiro’s thesis, which basically amounts to arguing it is good to use Reason because it is reasonable to do so. You can see how someone who is prone to bad thinking would never be persuaded by such an argument.

I am not denying that Reason is good. I am simply arguing that it is a good, not the good. There are many different tools for thinking clearly and navigating the world, and Reason is one of those tools. This is my third and final point of contention with the book - it fails to give sound practical advice in the art of affective persuasion. It seems to me that emotional reasoning and distrust are at the base of many of these thinking errors, and as such, any solution to the problem of “epistemic stubbornness” should begin there. For instance, if John Doe does not believe in the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations, and no amount of scientific evidence will convince him, then it is probably more effective to work with John on an affective, ideological level than to bombard him with more evidence and more reasons. As an alternative, perhaps it makes sense to locate a friend that John trusts and knows personally who has been vaccinated. Opening a dialogue between John and his vaccinated friend could succeed in building trust for a framework of knowledge that he previously considered untrustworthy. Sadly, Nadler and Shapiro do not offer us any extra-rational methods for addressing these complex problems.

When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People touches on a number of vital contemporary social issues, and it does succeed in showing the potential uses of formal logic within those contexts. However, I am not convinced that Nadler and Shapiro have shown how Pure Reason can guide the fly out of the bottle. I agree in large part with David Hume, who suggested that Reason is a slave to the passions. Reason can tell you how to satisfy your desires, but not what to desire. Reason is a decision-making faculty. It is reflective and secondary, and it follows after our bodies dictate our needs up to the higher levels of cognitive functioning. Therefore, emotions are intimately connected to any rational thought process. Any attempt to sort through errors in reasoning must appeal to the emotions first and empathize with their all-too-human source.

[Jonathan Nash · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good general introduction to epistemology that ultimately fails to deliver what it promises. Of course the world would be a better place if those suffering from "epistemic stubbornness" would only see the error of their ways and realize they need "good" reasons to believe something. Unfortunately, those people are never going to read this book and they would likely disagree with it if they did. The book believes that one of the good reasons for believing things is results from well-done peer reviewed science. I of course believe this also. But if you think science is a rigged game for the benefit of liberal elites who look down on you and want to poison your kids with critical race theory, you may not agree with this epistemological nicety.

[Safa Furkan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Birkaç felsefe dersinde bu kitaptan çok daha ayrıntılı şekilde kitaptaki konuları gördüğüm için kitap benim için çok zayıftı. Kitaptan başka bir konuyu anlatmasını beklemiştim ama ilk sayfadan itibaren başlığı yanlış anladığımı fark ettim. O nedenle kitabin da pek suçu yok. ama felsefeye ilginiz ve azıcık da olsa bilginiz varsa kitap size çok basit gelecektir. Zaten bildiğim şeyleri en basit haliyle okumak çok sıkıcı bir deneyimdi.

[Zach Allison · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved this. Despite finding problems with this book, I loved it. Please give it a read. Here are my thoughts on why you should:

When I was in grad school people used to ask me, “WhAt aRe YoU gOnNa Do WiTh a pHiLoSoPhY dEgReE?” And I would confidently respond without missing a beat, “Save the world, of course.”

It was a quick and light-hearted quip that served to get a chuckle of appreciation without me having to go into a more fleshed out answer, but there was a degree of sincerity there. I genuinely think the world needs people who are trained to think well, which is what philosophy teaches. And that’s exactly what this book discusses.

Amanda Weiss, who designed the jacket cover for the book, knocked it out of the park. It immediately caught my eye in the bookstore and, after reading the synopsis, man I was enthralled. This is the book I have always thought about writing and it pleases me to know that true professional philosophers took the time to write a relatively accessible philosophy book talking about (what I believe to be) one of the most important problems facing humanity: what Nadler and Shapiro call “today’s epidemic of irrationality.”

They did a great job of trying to break down what tools the study of philosophy teaches you and how those tools are the antidote to that epidemic. You shouldn’t hold beliefs because they’re convenient or benefit you financially. Because you heard someone exclaim it or because it’s just what you’ve always believed. You should hold the beliefs you do *because you can justify them.* And the authors do a great job covering what constitutes a justified belief. If this is your first encounter philosophy, this will be one of the biggest takeaways for you for sure.

I think the greatest accomplishment of this book though is how they didn’t shame those people in our society who are guilty of bad thinking. And the title reflects that. We all know good people in our lives who are guilty of holding some of the most ludicrous ideas. But when criticizing a group and attempting to offer a solution, one of the surest ways to turn them off is to shame them. Putting your opposition on the defensive props up unnecessary hurdles, and Nadler and Shapiro expertly navigated identifying the problem without alienating those they’re accusing.

It’s worth mentioning though that most people will be disappointed with the ending of this book. And that is likely because they misunderstand its aim. I suspect most folks will arrive at the end hoping for some prescription for how society can change the course we’re on - an explanation of why bad thinking happens and how we can fix it. But it’s also worth mentioning that Nadler and Shapiro flat out say right at the end that that isn’t their expertise. That task lies with professional psychologists.

See, the role of the philosopher is often akin to that of the cartographer. The philosopher can take a bird’s eye view of the land and map out the path forward, identifying which obstacles will prove treacherous and deadly, and advise why a particular path is the best one to take. But to actually traverse the terrain, he’ll need the help of other experts with different specializations. That’s exactly what they accomplished in this book.

However, I did feel one important piece was missing from their argument. It would be great if every irrational person this book is aimed at read it, realized the error of their ways, and fixed their behavior. But that’s not how life works. The people who distrust the scientific community, the laws of logic, and professional opinion in general are not going to believe in a solution that is part of the system they have a problem with. A very important piece to this story is the emotional and ideological frameworks those guilty of bad thinking are embedded in. On the one hand, there is no way to connect with bad thinkers using reason (the primary tool of philosophy Nadler and Shapiro champion in their argument as the solution to the problem). The main problem with their argument is the same problem The Socratic Method faces: they assume their target values reason at all. We all know people in our lives that, even after being rigorously reasoned with, will do whatever they want to do anyway because it benefits them in some way. Reason is a powerful tool and I agree with Nadler and Shapiro that it is one of the best ways to guide a well-lived life, but it is merely a piece to the puzzle of the human psyche and the problem of bad thinking requires much more than the use of just one tool.

All that said, I’d encourage everyone to read this. Whether you have professional training in philosophy or have never taken a philosophy class in your life. Whether you’re conservative or liberal. You will gain a great deal from these 200 pages and maybe even start forming more well-founded beliefs. And, perhaps, even help “save the world, of course.”

[John Martindale · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thank goodness, they actually acknowledge that anti-vaxxers and climate deniers have justifications for their beliefs (Other authors seem to assume the victims of these mind-viruses, believe what they in fact know is not true--that they have no justifications at all, but just believe in the face of irrefutable proof to the contrary). Now, of course, the authors think their evidence is so bad and the contrary evidence so strong, that they are not justified and do not have knowledge.

Why do the authors harp on these issues the most? They are moral in their consequences, as these beliefs can lead to personal and societal ills, and thus there is a greater responsibility to form true beliefs. Like the ship owner in Clifford’s parable, they are morally culpable for believing what they do, since it goes against the best available evidence.

It is curious to me, that numerous anti-vaxxers have likely delved into the literature on the issue and don’t think themselves to be basing their thinking on poor evidence. It may begin by their being moved by a tragic story from a celebrity or by being pointed to certain anomalies, problems in the common narrative, and some seemingly related facts proving unintended consequences from vaccines in history; it all seems persuasive, and their further investigation is fueled by fear for their own and other people’s children. They don’t want to cause harm and it looks like society is buying into something that is disastrous.
Vaccines are not something that many of us think about on a normal basis; activists may be the first to bring it to their attention, or maybe, their child got autism, and this was shortly after vaccinations, and upon getting online, they see multitudes of others noticed the same correlation of events. So, the first time they really think about the vaccine issue is from a certain angle, meaning an anchoring bias will likely come into play thereafter.
Now they know there are many people out there who support their newfound position. While researching contrary claims, they are ever aware that there are “two sides” to every major issue; regardless of their stance, someone would hold another view and think them irrational, deluded, and wrongheaded. If they are going to choose, they should go with the view that seems most true to them. The Anchoring bias means that claims aligned with the anti-vaxxer message have more truthiness to them; they seem more reasonable and sounder, and what is out of alignment with the message has the ring of falseness in their heads. Many of us have a sense of obligation to believe what seems “true” and we feel morally compelled to affirm the unpopular and counter-establishment message. Also, there is an army of Anti-vaxxers who debunk the debunkers; or point out the flaws in the pro-vaccine majorities argument; Also, the fact that the pro-vaccine party often expresses such contempt for them, and express such fervent dogmatism and how they address none of their concerns, makes the conversation seem impossible. It is the pro-vaccine majority who suppress and twist the evidence, and the anti-vaxxers have truth, reason, and evidence on their side. Since this is a serious matter, affecting the health of children, emotions can flare and full-blown myside bias can make it near impossible to change their position.

And yet, anti-vaxxers, the authors suggest, must consort to a form of conspiracy-type thinking, in order to dismiss the large number of scientific studies that suggest that there is no causative link between autism and vaccines. The popular claim that vaccines cause autism is related to poor causal reasoning. Correlation does not prove causation. While correlation is grounds for a hypothesis, serious research is needed to determine if there is perhaps a causal relationship on a complex matter like this. It is also the cause that problems with one study showing no causal link between vaccines and autism, which is not proof that all research on the matter is flawed, this would be a weak generalization.

Learning the principles of induction can come into play. Surely understanding the difficulties of determining causation, can give one pause with aspects of arguments from the ant-vaccination camp, and understanding that pointing out some rot in the pro-vaccine camp doesn’t prove it is systemic. Someone still might lean towards them, but maybe with less certitude? Science is an ever-adjusting enterprise, a tweak in a research design could reveal something not before seen. In this case, because causation in some matters is so hard to ascertain, the anti-vaxxers could at least lower the degree of certainty; and even those pro-vaccine, who have “science” on their side, should be humble enough to know some new findings could completely overturn what was once declared to be fact.

Now, this is interesting. He mentions undercutting defeaters (underminers) vs rebuttals
While discussing underminers; they highlight the importance of considering all of the available evidence. Suppose, the fingerprints of person X, are all over the house of the murder victim. This could be considered evidence that Person X committed the crime; however, if the suspect was a friend and regularly came over, it weakens this piece of evidence. While it is still a possibility that his friend was the killer, it is a little less certain. Now, what if it was person X’s gun that killed the victim? That is very strong evidence, and yet if it was learned that person X loaned his gun out to someone else prior to the murder and that person stated the borrowed gun was stolen from his house; well, this undermines it somewhat.

Rebutting: Now if it was proven the suspect was in another country when the shooting happened or was in a coma due to a car accident, this rebuts the claim. (this is the first time I’ve heard rebut used in this strong sense, I would prefer to use the word “defeater” and yet, the authors use this in connection to undercutters).

Conflicts of interest are underminers, if anti-vaxxers could demonstrate that the ones who ordered the research were funded by the companies making billions of dollars selling mandatory vaccines, this is an underminer, it weakens the evidence, however, it does not rebut it.

Now, just consider the folly of ONLY looking for evidence that someone is guilty, without considering the undercutting defeaters, or whether there is a clear rebuttal. They really demonstrate the importance of this with their examples.

And yet, I highly, highly doubt these authors would be even open to considering any undercutters or possible rebuttals of the mainstream claim that global warming is caused by human activity. I wish for just one book on this topic of critical thinking, in which the authors could demonstrate the ability to do so; it is clear from their contempt for “climate deniers” that they, take global warming being anthropogenic as an article of faith and it cannot be a question or rationally appraised. To do so, would threaten humanity since if we don’t stop using fossil fuels now, we will soon reach the point of no return and all of humanity will perish.

It is clear to me, that tragically, even with a clear rebuttal, or conclusive evidence to the contrary, people will resist it. For example, body camera footage that is contrary to the “lived experience” of someone claiming injustice. It is always possible to double down, to claim the body camera is a simulation and a deep fake. The authors would likely, without any investigation, claim that any nuanced claim questioning the degree of human activity on climate change, is just funded by big oil and must be dismissed without investigation. They have the knowledge, everyone else has a mental disease.

We are supposed to consider all the evidence, but as they acknowledge, everyone considers different things to be evidence or no evidence, we all have a different sense of what is strong or weak, and major degrees of ignorance are there for us all.

They discuss how knowledge is justified by true belief.
Interestingly, Sally, without any additional evidence can believe that Sam killed Fred, simply because she knew Sam didn’t like Fred. And if this was true, she would have an unjustified true belief. And Tim, based upon the fingerprints and the gun used, could instead, believe it was Fred’s friend Bill who did it. In which case, he has a justified false belief.

The author then moves into the topic of probability. Things move towards justified belief, when it seems more probable that the claim is true, given all the available evidence. Yet no one can agree when this scale is tipped, people weigh things differently.

Interestingly, they confidently assert that global warming is caused by human activity is “knowledge,” while claiming that the many scientists of the past, who believed things based upon the best available data (which was later overturned), did not actually have the knowledge, while they thought they did. The cause of climate change is remarkably complicated, multitudes of factors work together in hard to predict manners, and it is conceivable that scientists will uncover additional causal factors. Considering the long chain of false predictions made by climate scientists, there is very, very good reason to think we don’t yet have “knowledge” on this subject. Global warming alarmists may have a justified belief, but only time and additional research will tell whether it is a justified TRUE belief.

[Nate Pearson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nadler and Shapiro present a systematic diagnosis and effective cure for the epidemic of bad thinking in the western world. Now if only they could get your climate-denying-Q anon-preaching-we-didn't-go-to-the-moon-believing uncle to read it.

[Ben Rothke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Basing its title from the 1981 book When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Rabbi Harold Kushner, Drs. Steven Nadler and Lawrence Shapiro, both professors of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, do not deal with theodicy in When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People: How Philosophy Can Save Us from Ourselves (Princeton University Press). Instead, they attempt to deal with the alarming problem of bad thinking, which is permeating society. From flat earth to anti-vaxxers and more, irrational thought is another epidemic we are now facing.

They write that there is something seriously wrong, and that is that an alarming number of people in the US and around the world are embracing crazy, even dangerous ideas. Perhaps the most egregious of these ideas is manifests in the anti-vaccination movement. For many of these anti-vaxxers, they do not even know what vaccines are and how they work. But that does not stop them from irrationally pontificating on YouTube or writing countless letters to the editor arguing with medical doctors who know what they are talking about, and more.

From a scientific perspective, there is nothing to substantiate these beliefs. Furthermore, readily available evidence can show that these ideas are, in fact, false. But, often, educated, intelligent and influential people continue to believe them. And that is the conundrum the book deals with.
The book explains why bad thinking happens to good people and shows how to identify flawed arguments and unreliable information. The authors get into the concept of epistemology, which is the study of belief and knowledge.

Many of these false notions feed into conspiracy theories. Abbie Richards has a conspiracy chart of disinformation and conspiracy theories. While some of these are unequivocally false but harmless (bigfoot, crop circles, Elvis lives, etc.). Those whom poor thinking capabilities will often progress with these ideas into more dangerous ones. They eventually lead to what she calls the anti-Semitic point of no return, where people are forced to believe ideas that are dangerous to themselves and others.

The authors show how people can think responsibly. Because as we have seen, band thinking is like a virus as it infects all strata of society. However, the antidote for bad thinking is philosophical inquiry, with its associated tenets of good thinking, proper and critical reasoning, and how to form scientific beliefs rationally. And unless things turn around and there is a return to rational thought, all of us are in great danger.

The irrationality that is pervasive today can have deadly consequences. The authors do a great job of showing how we got to this state and how we can return to rationality and reason via a return to philosophical and scientific inquiry.

[Derek Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

Fizzles out. Starts off with a decent narrative, but then basically turns into a textbook with poor examples.

[John Fredrickson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was a disappointment. The authors discuss the process wherein we make (bad) judgements and decisions, but they do so predominantly from an academic standpoint. While they cover a variety of issues of thinking 'well', there is little present in the book (other than to continually challenge your own assumptions) as to how to do better. There is also really no coverage on how to cope with people who fall into the camp of 'good people with bad thinking habits', which I considered an implicit promise of the title and opening chapters.

The book opens with some current examples of bad thinking (climate change denial, linkage of vaccines & autism, linkage of 5G & Covid, ...). It describes many of the pitfalls that can occur in our thought processing. This includes problems of deductive arguments (they use Sherlock Holmes arguments as examples) and how the forms of arguments can themselves mislead. One part of this book that I did particularly like was the presentation of the 'base rate fallacy' - the rational deductions one can make in some scenarios can be very tricky indeed .

There is also discussion of what it means to be a moral decision maker, but it was not clear to me exactly what the point of this discussion was meant to convey. The authors do caution against assuming our own positions are 'right', but where and how this becomes a moral issue is never made clear.

The book's wrap-up chapters discuss numerous of Plato's dialogs of Socrates and the approaches of Descartes to glean truth from their environment, but again, it is not clear how to apply this, which, again, felt like an implicit promise of the book.

[Jim Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terrific, timely book. Made me nostalgic for my Philosophy classes and long coffee-fueled debates with other students.

This is sort of a mix of "theory of knowledge" and "ethics," with lots of references to the Big Greeks (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) and a bit of reference to Descartes (I can't stand Descartes, but this made me want to go back and reread some of his stuff).

Sadly, the people who most need a book like this are the people who are never, ever going to pick up a book like this, so it's a bit of preaching to the choir, but it's still useful, helpful, insightful.

Will certainly end up on my "best of" list this year.

The gist:

"Epistemic stubbornness" (refusing to accept facts when you really ought to, or clinging on to nonsense when you really ought to let it go) and "normative stubbornness" (following the letter of the law in all cases, refusing to think through any unique situation) are bad thinking, and because bad thinking leads to bad actions, bad thinking has a significant moral (or rather, immoral) dimension. As in, it's not "okay" to believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, or that climate change isn't real, or that vaccines cause autism, or that Obama was born in Kenya, or that COVID is all a big conspiracy.

And so on.

[Brit · Rating 2 out of 5]

idk this one was a bit of a dissappointment.

This book is supposed to discuss possible causes as to why people believe certain things even though they were proven false (like that vaccines cause autism or that Barack Obama was not born in the US), and ways that we can not get stuck in those traps and how to do better. And while it does kind of touch on that, this mostly just reads as an intro to philosophy course and says the way to fix it is more education... Kinda just felt like a "well duh" conclusion without any recommendations on how to administer the education of philosophy. It feels like an incomlete and ill thought-out conclusion when making a claim so bold that the world is in "grave danger" from this "bad thinking."

As someone who took one philosophy course in uni and dabbled a bit in trying to learn more about philosophy personally, this didn't teach me anything I didn't already know and didn't give me any grand insights into myself or the world that I wasn't already aware of. That, I think, is the biggest let down when reading non-fiction.

[Batumar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sono una affezionata lettrice di Nadler e corro sempre ad accaparrarmi copia di una sua ultima uscita. Mi intrigava molto l'idea di analizzare da un punto di vista filosofico la questione della "non ragionevolezza" di persone anche ben attrezzate intellettualmente. Quelli che lui descrive come "testardi epistemologici". Ma il libro soddisfa troppo debolmente l'obbiettivo che si era prefisso, cioè dare uno strumento filosofico per capire e combattere questo male.
Come ben puntualizzato in altri commenti, i moderni studi confermano vecchie illuminate teorie, e cioè che le passioni, le emozioni, condizionano fortemente i nostri pensieri e di conseguenza le nostre azioni. La spinoziana "emendazione dell'intelletto" non è purtroppo un obbiettivo realistico a livello di umanità intera.
Lettura comunque interessante che conferma il legame tra il pensiero di ieri e quello di oggi.

[Ioannis Apostolopoulos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Βιβλίο χρήσιμο. Φιλοσοφικό βιβλίο στοχεύει στην «θεραπεία» της ΚΑΚΗΣ ΚΡΙΣΗΣ η οποία εν είδει «πανδημίας» μεταδίδεται στον σύγχρονο κόσμο και απειλεί ακόμα και την ίδια τη φυσική ύπαρξη του ανθρώπου που είναι παρεπιπτόντως και το μόνο Ηθικά δρών υποκείμενο του κόσμου μας. Η φιλοσοφία, όχι μονη αλλά στα πλαίσια των Ανθρωπιστικών Επιστημών,διδάσκοντας τους Κανόνες Ορθής Κρίσης, μπορεί να βοηθήσει ουσιαστικά στην διαμόρφωση ωφέλιμων πεποιθήσεων σε ατομικό και εν τέλει κοινωνικό επίπεδο. Η Ορθή Κρίση μπορεί να θωρακίσει περισσότερο απέναντι στην αιώνια ύπαρξη παγιωμένων ανθρώπινων πεποιθήσεων(πχ ύπαρξη θεού, ιδεολογίες) τουλάχιστον αποκαλύπτοντας την έδραση και τους μηχανισμούς τους.
Αν ο ΑΝΕΞΕΤΑΣΤΟΣ βίος, κατά Σωκράτη, είναι ΑΒΙΩΤΟΣ, το βιβλίο αυτό βοηθά στην κατεύθυνση του ΕΥ ΖΕΙΝ αλλά όσο και να ξενίζει εκ πρώτης «ματιάς» και του ΖΕΙΝ.

[Cheyenne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'll give this more of a 3.5/5

I did enjoy it but I agree with other reviews that it is more effective as an introduction to epistemology. It is a good way to understand maybe our own thought processes and how to understand where our beliefs come from and whether they can be supported as a form of "good" thinking. I believe there is a downplaying of how influential emotions are to our decisions and beliefs, which are difficult to separate (and really, we cannot many times, emotions are very human). We may understand where "bad thinking" comes from and what influences it, but how do we handle it when it comes from those around us?

[Max Forstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

I got this book in January, finally getting around to reading the entire thing after the end of the semester. I don’t know if it was my high hopes for the book, but I was slightly disappointed by what became of it. It gives great insight into the epistemological aspects of the issue, but I guess I was more hoping it would tackle contemporary topics for longer than it did. I wasn’t expecting it to be entirely philosophical——more like “How To Be Perfect” by Michael Schur——and it certainly holds value in that department, but expect a more thorough epistemological analysis than that of contemporary issues in the world.

[Alice Ferris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, I enjoyed the walkthrough how to make philosophy principles real in today's world. I appreciated the blend between classical Greek stories and current topics. I rated this three stars because I felt that the examples were redundant by the last third of the book. Ironically, it felt like the authors were spoon-feeding the concepts instead of letting the reader explore the questions and make the personal comparisons in our "examined lives." Overall, though, I appreciated the thought model and have already encouraged others to read this.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a rotten start point. So these are bad thoughts happening to good people. As there are bad people as well. The emotional subtlety of a toddler, of course with some high diplomas and a good life paid in full by the taxpayers. And what are bad thoughts? To this guy, bad thoughts equates pretty much with the concept of heretic thoughts.

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book that everyone needs to read. Unfortunately, the people who need to read this the most won't. I think that the authors tackle the subject of bad thinking well, offering a very neutral approach. It also doesn't sugarcoat the issues plaguing society in the United States. I wish I had the money to buy every person in the US a copy of this book.

[Kyle C · Rating 5 out of 5]

The subtitle should be: "Practical Epistemology"...but that probably wouldn't cause it to rocket up the Amazon best sellers list.

Readers looking for a book that "debunks" popular conspiracy theories may be disappointed. But this offers more lasting value. A well rounded explanation of Epistemology, thinking tools, Rationality, and good judgment that readers can put to practical use.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very unevenly paced book. It starts with an attempt at a hook, talking about current issues, then wanders off into 100-pgs of dense high-level philosophy, before closing in the last 40 or so pages with some more interesting discussions about applications. The book could probably be cut down to 60 pages and it would be much more readable and impactful.

[Robert E Griffin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Roadmap for good thinking

A detailed outline on good thinking. Concrete reasons why bad thinking happens. And outlines the ingredients of good thinking. And challenges us to examine our life

[Paolo Piccolo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ineccepibile e rigoroso dal punto di vista filosofico, quanto teorico e per nulla applicabile come gli autori vorrebbero suggerire. Gli studi in psicologia, neuroscienze e sociologia hanno definito un quadro nel quale la ragione vive a rimorchio dell'emotività arrivando spesso in ritardo

[Brittany · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this book less than I was expecting; I just don't think I vibed with the author's explanation style. If you happen to yourself, you're likely in for a treat.

The authors have the goddamn friendliest smiles I've ever seen.

[Daniel Dendler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like this book is a good intro to philosophy and philosophical thinking. I did find myself struggling to stay focused or having to reread sections due to complexity as someone new to these types of books. But overall really enjoyed and was worth the read!

[Tc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some truly fascinating and horrifying statistics mentioned early in the book. Some amazing analogy and logic demonstrated to show the meanings behind some of the more academic and philosophical principles. A bit of a guide book on how to be a better and wiser thinker.

[Thaipaw · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first few chapters were really good, talking about logic and errors of thinking. Then the second half of the book just droned on and on about Socrates, etc, so I skipped it.

[Josiah Solis · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you’re looking for a crash course in epistemology this book is fine. Otherwise I wouldn’t recommend it for most.

[Kris Demey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Entry level logical thinking and fallacies book.
Quite comprehensive and well written

[Scott Lines · Rating 3 out of 5]

More so a philosophical and historical review of how to think, a bit different from my expectations.

[Gwen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book to clarify myriad of ideas, but first chapter is insulting. It would be hard for those it's intended for to get past.