Attacking Faulty Reasoning

by T. Edward Damer

Not only is ATTACKING FAULTY REASONING the most comprehensive, readable, and theoretically sound book on the common fallacies, it is also a well-designed primer for the construction and evaluation of arguments. Addressing over 60 fallacies and featuring a wealth of timely examples and exercises, this text will help students hone their skills in rational, argumentative discussion.

Genres: Philosophy, Logic, Nonfiction, Reference, Self Help, Education, Science

109 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1980

Reviews

[Albara1435 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the best critical thinking books that I have ever read.
It begins with an informative introduction about types of arguments, what is fallacy?, why should fallacies be studied?...etc.
Every chapter explains the fallacies with useful and daily examples, and it ends with good exercises.
I believe that it would be better if the writer dwelt a little bit on explaining the difference between representative and unrepresentative sample since both of them are not very intuitive and common.
Footnote: I used the 2nd edition of the book which was freely available for me. I don't whether the advanced editions have been modified.

[Paul · Rating 2 out of 5]

A decent introduction to informal fallacies. Author begins by extolling such desiderata as charity in evaluating opponents arguments, rooting out biases, avoiding straw men, etc., and then seems to use the rest of the book as, in part, a soap box from which to attack theism and "conservative" values. The problem is exacerbated in that most of his examples using these groups or ideas are based on the most uncharitable, and ridiculous construals of what they have argued or what their position on matters really is. This made the book unneccessarily annoying.

[Stacey Douglas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Damer's outstanding book is suitably subtitled "A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments." I have is the 2nd edition (1980) and have used subsequent editions with great satisfaction. It is now in its 7th edition (2012 though the copyright page says 2013!). Using common, everyday situations and conversations, Damer explores and exposes the fallacy-ridden thinking to which we all fall prey. He shows us how to correct our own reasoning and to produce better "arguments" as well as detecting and understanding the fallacies in the arguments of others. One could wish for examples from all points of view rather than using conservatives and theists are his examples, particularly since the arguments he attacks for those points of view are not genuinely held by any but the uninformed and unlearned. Still, a great book to help people understand the errors/fallacies we often commit. Answers are given to select exercises for each chapter in the book - a bonus for autodidacts.

[S.M.Y Kayseri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite a satisfactory book introducing the logical fallacies and the way to attack them. The author provides clear definitions, explanation and plenty of examples (albeit those that exposed his political leanings) in elaborating the fallacies.

The study of logic is indispensable because it provide a robust foundation in carrying forward a discussion. Only a well-formed and logical argument could satisfy both parties in a discussion, because the presentation of evidence and facts could only flow from a well-founded logical foundation. For whatever reason, there's truncation in the learning and the application of logic and the study of its fallacies. Many people (including me) are prepared to dive in a discussion with only our confidence and beliefs at tow. But as much as driving straight all the way would never bring us to the destination how assured we are, so does our belief in our belief and infallibility would bring us to nowhere.

For an example, consider these two real-life statement that was given to me as their theses. "I reject religion because based from what the preachers are saying, religion could only bring backwardness to the society" and "I reject secularism because based from how these people carry themselves, secularism would bring about a total moral collapse in society". Both statements committed more or less the same fallacies. They committed the ad hominem fallacy; how a person behaves does not affect his reasoning. Both committed the fallacy of hasty generalization or argumentative leaps because there surely more things beyond only how the content of the preachings and the lifestyle of the secularists in the issue. Both also committed the fallacy of composition; that the whole is false because of the parts.

What's more surprising is that when we exposed the fallacies they immediately resorted to "Come on...it's common sense!". But what is common sense in the place of discussion other than an intellectual laziness? If we are to follow "common sense", or merely the "voice of the people", then it is the Sun that revolves around the Earth instead of the other way around. Resorting to such special pleading does not add any weight or fruitful addition to the argument.

[Mat · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's written like a text book, but still enjoyable. It Teaches about the proper way to debate and what arguements are considered 'faulty logic'. The only issue is now when I watch the news or debate with friends I am constantly frustrated by their use of faulty logic. If only I could everyone to read this.

[Barack Liu · Rating 5 out of 5]

414-Attacking Faulty Reasoning-Edward Damer-Debate-1980

Attacking Faulty Reasoning was first published in 1980. It is the most comprehensive, accessible, theoretically sound book on common fallacies. It is designed to help a person structure and evaluate an argument. Its primary purpose is to help students identify good and bad arguments.

Edward Damer is a Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Visual and Performing Arts Department at Emory and Henry College. He began teaching at Emory and Henry College in 1967 and retired in 2012.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 A Code of Intellectual Conduct
Chapter 2 What Is an Argument?
Chapter 3 What Is a Good Argument?
Chapter 4 What Is a Fallacy?
Chapter 5 Fallacies That Violate the Structural Criterion
Chapter 6 Fallacies That Violate the Relevance Criterion
Chapter 7 Fallacies That Violate the Acceptability Criterion
Chapter 8 Fallacies That Violate the Sufficiency Criterion
Chapter 9 Fallacies That Violate the Rebuttal Criterion
Chapter 10 Writing the Argumentative Essay

In life, we cannot avoid discussing various things with others. During the discussion, in order to prove our point of view, we will inevitably have to demonstrate our point of view in various ways and provide evidence to support it. How we express these views, and how we support them with favorable arguments and a reasonable process of argumentation, greatly affects the audience's judgment of the reasonableness of our views.

The author proposes that in the process of our discussions and debates, we should follow two standards, one is the standard of the process, and the other is the standard of ethics. The standard on the process means that our discussion process must follow a certain process, and the rules are an external specification. The moral standard requires us to avoid the discussion of the matter, by extension to the personal attack on the opponent of the debate.

I am often called stubborn. I need to reflect on this shortcoming, why does it exist? A big reason was that I had a hard time accepting that I was wrong and refusing to admit my shortcomings. Surely when I do it consciously or subconsciously, I actually become a defense of refusal to admit I'm wrong and must tend to be aggressive rather than persuasive.

When I started the discussion, I made sure to remind myself over and over that my purpose was not to defend my position but to seek the truth. I think if I want to do this, I must first force myself to learn to listen, I have to be patient enough for the other person to fully express their point of view and have enough wisdom to understand each other.

Socrates said, the only thing I know is my ignorance. If we can't admit our shortcomings, or we can't face up to who we really are. There is no way we can improve. Yesterday's me is immortal, and today's me is hard to live.

When expressing opinions, avoid ambiguity as much as possible and take into account any doubts your audience may have as much as possible. If our descriptions were as precise and clear as possible from the outset, we could avoid a lot of misunderstandings and disputes. Likewise, we have to learn to ask questions after understanding a clear but potentially lengthy argument.

An argument is a set of statements that are grouped together from one or more arguments to support a conclusion. After clarifying this element, we must always remind ourselves to be careful when choosing arguments and be prudent in the process of argumentation.

Just because the argument and the argumentation process are the two most important factors that affect the validity of the conclusion, we are most important in the process of making our own arguments and refuting the arguments of others from these two aspects. We need to discern whether other people's arguments are valid and whether the argumentation process is logical.

If we only say what it is, then it is just an opinion. If I still find enough arguments to support my conclusion, explaining why then it's an argument. The so-called rational thinking and logical thinking are to provide a reasonable and sufficient explanation for one's own point of view.

The basic structure of an argument is, "Because of (premise), this is the conclusion supported by (sub-premise); and (premise), this is the conclusion supported by (sub-premise); and (premise); [and (implicitly) premise)] and (rebutting premise); thus, (conclusion)." That is, a good argument should be a pyramid model, and the smallest bricks should all be self-evident.

[Alberony Martínez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Como bien lo describe el autor de texto, T. Edward Damer, lo que pretende con este texto es crear una precisión de sus definiciones de falacias y explicarlas con tomas clarificante. Con esta nueva edición procura aportar todos los argumentos que ha sido reconstruidos en forma estándar y hacerle recordar los elementos estructurales de una discusión.

Lo que proporciona este libro a lector, y mas que al lector, a los estudiantes, objetivo primordial, es perfeccionar su pensamiento critico y redefinir las habilidades de discusión racional y argumentativa. Es un manual que teóricamente aborda mas de 60 falacias comunes con la ayuda de mas de 200 ejemplo memorables y oportuno.

Con la propuesta de Damer, nos encamina a construir, entregar y evaluar lógicamente argumentos con mas de 350 ejercicios probados y oportunidades de practica. Es un texto que va mas allá de lo que plantean otros libros de pensamiento critico, pues proporciona sugerencias y consejos sobre como atacar o responder ante un argumento falaz de cada tipo

Es un texto sin muchas complicaciones a la hora de leerlo, sin muchos rebuscamientos para darte una explicación argumentativa respecto a una falla, pues como dijimos anterior, lo que procurar ese que tu puedas tejer tu propia defensa.

Tabla de contenido

Prefacio.

Introducción.

1. Un Código de Conducta Intelectual.
2. ¿Qué es un argumento?
3. ¿Qué es un buen argumento?
4. ¿Qué es una falacia?
5. Falacias que violan el criterio estructural.
6. Falacias que violan el criterio de relevancia.
7. Falacias que violan el criterio de aceptabilidad.
8. Falacias que violan el criterio de suficiencia.
9. Falacias que violan el criterio de réplica.
10.Escribir el ensayo argumentativo.

Glosario de falacias.
Respuestas a las tareas seleccionadas.
Índice.
Menos...

[Mimi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally finished this after three years of on-and-off reading!

Without a doubt, the single most enlightening book I've read in the past five years. Logic and debate should be a required course in high school, or at least incorporated into the English curriculum. They're essential to understanding how to evaluate claims and support your own ideas, especially in an age where journalism standards are doubtful at best, and it's hard to know who or what to trust.

The majority of it is bite-size introductions to different common fallacies people commit when forming arguments, along with easy to follow examples. The fallacies are grouped by type, and there are challenging review exercises at the end of each chapter. Learning about each fallacy, I felt pretty sheepish at how many of them I was cluelessly falling prey to. I only wish I'd read this sooner!

If you want a book that will sharpen your mind, I hands down recommend this.

[Olivia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well structured frame and crystal-clear explanation. I like it.

[Carmen Dampf]

Really good and easy to understand!

[Mike Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I couldn't follow the thread 100%, but I think that I was able to fine-tune my ability to detect faulty or misleading arguments and attempts at persuasion.

[Lime Street Labrador · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rather dry and painful to read

[Neowuf · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is great, have good examples, e great start of the beginner but it cover all to the advanced thinker. It´s a book to study, learn, read and re-read. Very organizer book I sure will go back time from time to consult when I need make a good argument and decision in my life.

[Uniqunion]

good

[Kyle Worlitz · Rating 2 out of 5]

Blah.

[surfurbian · Rating 2 out of 5]

So far? It has 209 pages.