Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking

by D.Q. McInerny

An essential tool for our post-truth world: a witty primer on logic—and the dangers of illogical thinking—by a renowned Notre Dame professor

Logic is synonymous with reason, judgment, sense, wisdom, and sanity. Being logical is the ability to create concise and reasoned arguments—arguments that build from given premises, using evidence, to a genuine conclusion. But mastering logical thinking also requires studying and understanding illogical thinking, both to sharpen one’s own skills and to protect against incoherent, or deliberately misleading, reasoning.

Elegant, pithy, and precise,  Being Logical  breaks logic down to its essentials through clear analysis, accessible examples, and focused insights. D. Q. McInerney covers the sources of illogical thinking, from naïve optimism to narrow-mindedness, before dissecting the various tactics—red herrings, diversions, and simplistic reasoning—the illogical use in place of effective reasoning.

An indispensable guide to using logic to advantage in everyday life, this is a concise, crisply readable book. Written explicitly for the layperson, McInerny’s  Being Logical  promises to take its place beside Strunk and White’s  The Elements of Style  as a classic of lucid, invaluable advice.

Praise for Being Logical

“Highly readable . . . D. Q. McInerny offers an introduction to symbolic logic in plain English, so you can finally be clear on what is deductive reasoning and what is inductive. And you’ll see how deductive arguments are constructed.” — Detroit Free Press

“McInerny’s explanatory outline of sound thinking will be eminently beneficial to expository writers, debaters, and public speakers.” — Booklist

“Given the shortage of logical thinking,
And the fact that mankind is adrift, if not sinking,
It is vital that all of us learn to think straight.
And this small book by D.Q. McInerny is great.
It follows therefore since we so badly need it,
Everybody should not only but it, but read it.”
—Charles Osgood

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Logic, Self Help, Psychology, Personal Development, Science

160 pages, Paperback

First published August 3, 2004

About the author

Dennis “D.Q.” McInerny is a scholastic philosopher and brother to the late Ralph McInerny. He is a graduate of St. Thomas College (now St. Thomas University) and holds two PhDs.

He first taught at Bradley University in Illinois in 1970, then at St. Thomas College in St. Paul, MN. In 1994, he joined the faculty of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter’s Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska. He has also taught at Notre Dame and the University of Kentucky.

Reviews

[Fahim · Rating 3 out of 5]

منطق به تفکر روشن و مؤثر مربوط می شود.
منطق مقوله ایست گه تمام مقوله های دیگر ، از قبیل تاریخ، علم، ریاضیات و مانند آنها، بر آن اتکا دارند. در منطق، آنچه آشکار است بیشتر مورد تأکید قرار میگیرد، چون چنین چیزهایی به آسانی از کانون توجه ما دور می شوند.
منطقی بودن موجب می شود ما نسبت به زبان و توانایی در کاربرد مؤثر آن، حساستر باشیم ، برای اینکه منطق و زبان از یکدیگر جداناشدنی اند. همچنین باعث می شود در باب فهمِ کیفیتِ پیوندِ (واقعیت های موجود در جهان) با (آنچه ما واقعیت می پنداریم) ، از آگاهی و هوشیاریِ قابل توجهی برخوردار باشیم.

نویسنده در این کتاب سعی کرده موضوعات مورد نظرش را با اسلوبی ساده و به دور از پیچیدگی های معمول، بیان کند و در عین حال تلاش کرده از فرو افتادن در ساده انگاری های غیرمعمول نیز‌ بپرهیزد...
این کتاب کم حجم که جزء کتابهای مقدماتی منطق محسوب می شود در پنج بخش تنظیم و نوشته شده:
۱- آماده سازی ذهن برای منطق
۲-اصول و قواعد اساسی منطق
۳-استدلال،زبان،منطق
۴-خاستگاه های تفکر غیرمنطقی
۵-اَشکالِ عمده ی تفکر غیرمنطقی

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

I gave this book 2 stars at first. But after I finished I found (and continue to find) myself turning back to the book to look something up. Because it was so brief, and lacked numerous examples of real life logic, I found it lacking. After having read other books on informal logic, I now turn back to Being Logical and enjoy the brevity of it all. It sums up informal logic in one handy little book.

The examples of good and bad logic seemed too obvious the first time I read it. But after encountering faulty logic in the "real world" I kept thinking "this reminds me of something I read in that little blue logic book," and having returned to the little blue book, it all makes sense now. The examples of good and bad logic are all around me. When I find myself questioning something, this book has been handy to turn back to.

I find myself thinking - "What my buddy just said was illogical- I remember that from that little blue book- There's a term for what he just did...."

After hearing so many nonsense arguments and assertions based on vague premises, I realized that the difference between "objective" and "subjective" IS important. Yes it is simple, yes it seems obvious, but in the course of a dialog these things can quickly be forgotten, and all opinions are treated as important or valid based solely on the mistake that all opinions are valid by virtue of their "opinion-ness." Which isn't the case. Opinions can be wrong. The opinion that the earth is made out of cheese is wrong. The opinion that the holocaust didn't happen is wrong. The defence of "That's just like, my opinion, man," does not work.

I don't feel bad for initially writing this book off. Having gone off and read other logic books, I think it will be this one that I turn to most often when I need to "check myself."

[Dante · Rating 5 out of 5]

Being Logical is a practical book that aims to help readers think and reason well.

It is divided into five parts. Part One (Preparing the Mind for Logic) talks about the preparations we need to make in order to think and reason well. These preparations refer to attitudes and ways of thinking that we need to adopt and the concepts that we need to remember in order to ready our minds for good thinking and reasoning.

These are the concepts we need to remember:

1. Facts (that is, objective facts of the external world, like things and events),
2. Ideas (which are the "representations" of the objective facts),
3. Mind (ours and those of others),
4. Words (which are the linguistic expression of ideas and the building blocks of language),
5. Statements/ propositions (which are the building blocks of logic),
5. Knowledge (which consists of objective facts, ideas and words).

Part Two (The Basic Principles of Logic) talks about the laws of logic. They govern logical thinking. They are the foundation upon which organized and good thinking is based. We ignore these principles at our own peril. If our beliefs (or ideas) about the world violate any of these principles, they are necessarily false.

In particular, these four first principles in logic are important:

1. The principle of identity.
2. The principle of the excluded middle.
3. The principle of sufficient reason.
4. The principle of contradiction or non-contradiction.

Two important things to remember when it comes to first principles/ laws:

1. They are self-evident, and
2. They cannot be proven.

Part Three (Argument: The Language of Logic) talks about arguments.

What is an argument? An argument is basically the linguistic expression of logical thinking. It is a claim that is justified by reasons and/or evidences.

It has two elements:
1. Premises
2. And a conclusion

So, basically, an argument is composed of statements or propositions. It has a conclusion and it is supported by premises.

There are basically two kinds of arguments:

1. Deductive arguments, and
2. Inductive arguments

Deductive arguments, if successful, yield necessarily true conclusions.

Inductive arguments, if successful, only yield conclusions that are probably true.

A good argument has to fulfill these requirements:
1. Its premises (or contents) are true and relevant, and
2. Its form (or structure) is valid
3. In the case of inductive arguments, the premises must also be strong enough to support the conclusion

Arguments have two purposes:

1. To produce true conclusions (that's why it's a "science")
2. To persuade people (that's why it's an "art")

Part Four (The Sources of Illogical Thinking) talks about the attitudes that we must avoid because they can be sources of irrational thinking. These attitudes and mindsets negatively affect the way we think and the way we reason.

Part Five (The Principal Forms of Illogical Thinking) talks about logical fallacies. They are the different ways in which an argument can go wrong.

There are basically two categories of logical fallacies, the formal and the informal logical fallacy.

Formal logical fallacies are mistakes that involve the "form" or "structure" of the argument. For example, in a conditional argument, the only valid inferential moves are affirming the antecedent (modus ponens) and denying the consequent (modus tollens). Therefore, if you instead make the inferential move of denying the antecedent and/or affirming the consequent, you are committing a formal logical fallacy.

Informal logical fallacies are mistakes that a person commits when, instead of addressing his opponent's argument, he divert's his or the audience's attention by, for example, appealing to emotions (ad hominem, red herring, etc.), or by simply distorting or caricaturing his opponent's argument in order to easily demolish it (straw man fallacy). There are many more examples of the informal logical fallacy.

The author proposes that in order to think and reason well and effectively, the reader must master all the concepts and principles contained in this book, and moreover, he or she must practice them constantly.

I really love this book because it explains in clear and concise language the basics of logic. It is relatively easy to understand. Now, I can move on to more advanced logic texts.

[Bart Breen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pithy, Targeted and Right to the point

Essentially, this book is to logic what "The Elements of Style" is to writing.

The benefit of this book lies both in what it is and what it is not. If you're looking for an advanced book laying out Logic as an academic study which is thorough and hits all the points, then this is not the book for you. If what you are looking for is a very readable, simple and fast moving read that hits about 90% of what you will commonly need to know in this realm, then this is exactly that book.

Moreover, if you want a book you can refer to quickly as a reference in the course of your everyday life as you begin to examine and detect those logical errors and inconsistencies that we brush up against in the course of everyday life, this is a book worth owning and keeping in your personal library.

McInerny does a very good job in putting logic within the grasp of the average reader who with just a little effort and familiarity with the standards outlined in this book can jump beyond sloppiness of thought that characterizes far too much of our society. Logic indeed is sorely lacking as a foundation even within our academic communities. This book is a wonderful little gem for use in remedying that situation.

5 stars. A near essential read for any who are not already intimately familiar with the subject and a good launching point to realms beyond.

Bart Breen

[Angela · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was really hard to digest.

[D. Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, D.Q. McInerny attempts to convey to the reader a sense of the importance and utility of logic in daily life without taking too many risks in terms of tackling controversial issues. This is wise for an introduction to practical logic and ends up being effective. A short and easy read, one very noteworthy quality of the author's writing is the impeccable grammar used throughout, a pleasant departure from typical reading.

This book is effective in introducing the concepts of critical thinking and gives a good overview. However, I felt that the author struggled a bit with breaking down some of the concepts of formal logic into manageable chunks of information. This problem is intrinsic to formal logic as it is to mathematics - there just isn't any way around using symbols and the specific, rule-governed and purpose-built grammar of the propositional calculus. McInerny doesn't delve too deeply into this topic, going over the basics of conjunction, disjunction, implication and the various forms an argument may take based upon those concepts. I felt that, throughout this section, the author worked very hard for not quite enough payoff, but again, this is understandable considering the topic.

Finally, his section on fallacies started off strong and ended somewhat abruptly, as if this section were either written very last and McInerny was eager to cross the finish line, or written very first as his means of motivating himself to start the book and simply placed into the appropriate section of the outline. You'll note that the grammar in this section isn't quite so precise and intricate, a glaring but forgivable inconsistency.

In the end, I would definitely recommend this book to anybody taking an interest in critical thinking or interested in a refresher in logic, but I would not recommend this as anything other than supplemental for a formal study of logic itself.

[Charity · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic. I loved this book. The auther has organized and explained logic in a clear and, imagine this, logical fashion. I kept having to stop because I would think of examples of whatever was being cited. After finishing, I wanted to re-read and this time take notes and memorize. Fun, fun, fun!

[Yumeko (blushes) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very helpful if applied, and informative to someone who isn't very familiar with informal and Argumentative logic.
Unapologetically, I claim that it's stupid to define the excluded middle and bivalence in terms of being and non being.
(Why would you do that?
Pls stop.)
Pov? You start building up on these principles and they seem to make more sense, though you can work with them less. Perhaps it's fine if it's informal logic
But would you not reach the same results (if not being able to build on and understand actual works in logic) if you define these in terms of truth values? As a bonus you would also be aware (possibly) that it's not necessarily the only way to go abt things (even though it still seems more or less intuitive to understand smth as either true or false), this position, atleast in my opinion, leaves you able to understand the elementary concepts in non classical logic.
Fr though, they would sound like they're babbling nonsense if someone claimed that there are very good examples of things that kind of exist and kind of dont, analogously that is, neither being true nor not true, but that makes more sense to me.

[Ahmad Hossam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyable overall, but what it falls short of being to logic what 'The Elements of Style' is to writing. It was a bit difficult to get my head around why denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent are two forms of invalid arguments. It would have become clearer had the author provided more examples instead of theoretical explanation. The best part of course was the last one which deals with fallacies.

[Đạt Tiêu · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a gentle introduction to Logic 101. Some interesting notes:

1. Some basic stuff
- Arguments are the language of logic.
- Arguments are made of statements.
- There are 2 types of statements: the premise provides some facts or information and the conclusion, which is inferred from the premise.
- A statement basically has two parts: the subject and the predicate. Predication is the process of linking concepts.
- Statements are made from words.
- Words represent ideas and concepts.
- Ideas/concepts are our subjective projection on facts of the objective world.
- Facts have two types: things and events. A thing is an existing entity and an event is made up of things or actions of things.
- Things and events both objectively exists but facts can be thought of as objective or subjective.
-> Be careful when assessing a situation, try to match concepts with their objective facts and avoid using vague concepts.

2. Basic logic principles
- Principle of identity: A thing is what it is. If it's A, it's not B.
- Principle of excluded middle: no middle state between being and non-being
- Principle of sufficient reasons: there is a sufficient reason for everything
- Principle of contradictions: it's impossible for something both to be and not be at the same time in the same respect.

-> There are always grey areas which truths are not easy to determined but we should overcome.
-> There will be an explanation for everything, eventually. There are several types of reasons that affect a situation.
-> Should define terms and concepts more carefully and specifically to avoid vagueness in arguments and communication.
-> Statements should be categorical (not speculation or subjective valuation).
-> Statements can be universal or particular generalizing.

3. Argument foundation and assessing
- Conjunctive arguments: Both A and B happen together, can't be isolated.
- Disjunctive arguments: Either A or B happens, can't be both.
- Conditional arguments: If A, then B.
- Syllogistic arguments: a.k.a 3-statement arguments, which reflect human common thinking.
Every M is P, Every S is M. Then Every S is P.
M is called middle term, P is major term and S is minor term.
-> When assessing an argument, must consider: the truth of premises, the relevancy of premises and argumentative form.
-> Conclusion must reflect the quantity(universal or particular) and the quality(negative or positive) of the premise.

4. Some sources and manifestations of illogical thinking or fallacy
- Come from skepticism, cynicism and naive optimism, narrow-mindedness, evasive agnosticism, uncontrollable emotions...
- Some common fallacy:
+ Denying antecedent: A -> B. Then -A -> -B.
+ Affirming consequence: A -> B. B happens then A.
+ Undistributed middle term: the middle term must be universal at least one to have a proper scope to connect the major term and the minor term.
+ Begging the question: no argument here, just repeat the premise with another way of saying, using words.
+ False assumption
+ Democratic fallacy: public opinion tend to be right.
...

[Suhaib · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is concise and direct: a perfect introduction into logic. It follows aptly from Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style exactly as the author says in the introduction. It brings into light the basics of logical reasoning and then delves deeper into the subject, covering the principles of logic, argumentation and common fallacious reasoning.

McInerny emphasizes objective truth as the ultimate purpose of logic throughout the book, which is an indispensable reminder since many people often overlook this principle and succumb to their emotions. Either they start focusing on refuting their contending person rather than the argument itself, or focusing on winning the argument as an ego-boost.

There are two basic types of reasoning: deductive and inductive. The former follows from general to particular, generating premises to offer a necessary, and often philosophical, conclusion. The latter follows from particular to general, generating experiments to offer probable and often scientific (empirical) conclusions (example with dogs on page 83). Here is an example of deduction:

Brooding is a sign of emotional disturbance. (Major premise / general)
The persona, in Larkin’s poem, is brooding. (Minor premise / particular)
The persona is emotionally disturbed. (Conclusion / particular)

With regard to practical matters, here are some pointers:
1- Sort out the facts first.
2- Keep in mind that logic is about discovering objective truth.
3- Check your conclusion against your premises.
4- Check your premises against objective reality.
5- Match your words with your ideas.
6- Speak in complete sentences.
7- Do not assume your audience has adequate background on your topic. Better to err on saying too much than confusing people.

Personally, concerning everyday practice, I have found that keeping constant taps on objective reality (facts: things and events out there) and focusing on forming complete sentences gradually orients my mind towards more logical thinking. It is difficult in the beginning, but it catches on with daily practice.

[Ghayeth Ersheidat · Rating 4 out of 5]

#مراجعة_كتاب Being Logical

"جهود الإنسان الذي يفكر بمنطقية تكرّس لجلب الأخرين إلى أن يروا بأنفسهم النقطة المهمة في أي قضية ما، وليس تبعا لمشاعرهم. فالشيء الوحيد الذي يستحق أن تشعر بشعور جيد تجاهه حقاً هو اللذة في إيجاد الحقيقة."

يقدم لنا الكاتب D.Q.MacInerny كتابه being logical كدليل إرشادي إلى التفكير بمنطقية. يقول في كتابه أن المنطق هو مفهوم يدور حول الوضوح والتفكير الفعّال وكذلك يمكننا أن نأخذ المنطق من منطلق علمي وفني أيضاً. فالهدف من هذا الكتاب هو بأن يقدم لنا المبادئ الأساسية التي يرتكز عليها المنطق. الكتاب مكتوب بلغة بسيطة سهلة الفهم.

الكتاب يقسم إلى خمسة اقسام :

القسم الأول: وهو قسم تحضيري ويتعامل مع تكوين الإطار الفكري للعقل أن تتطلب الأمر لإن يكون المنطق مبحث في قضية ما.

القسم الثاني: وهو قلب قلب الكتاب ويقدم تفسيرات وشروحات للأسس التي تبنى عليها الحقيقة والتي تحكم وتشكل التفكير المنطقي.

القسم الثالث: يركز هذا القسم على الحوار والنقاش في ما التفكير المنطقي.

القسم الرابع: يناقش بعض السلوكات و التكوين او الإطار العقلي الذي يتبع التفكير اللامنطقي.

القسم الخامس: يركز على تفاصيل المغالطات اللامنطقية التفكير.

#المنطق هو العامود الفقري وحجر الأساس للتعليم الصحيح.

[Alberony Martínez · Rating 3 out of 5]

‟El argumento es un discurso racional, no debe confundirse con las disputas”

Ya sea que se lo considere como una ciencia, un arte o una habilidad, y puede considerarse adecuadamente como los tres, la lógica es la base de nuestra capacidad de pensar, analizar, argumentar y comunicar. De hecho, la lógica va al núcleo de lo que entendemos por inteligencia humana. En este libro conciso y legible, el distinguido profesor D. Q. McInerny ofrece una guía indispensable para usar la lógica para aprovechar la vida cotidiana.

Es un excelente libro donde pone en nuestra entera disponibilidad de las herramientas de la lógica, el razonamientos y las demás herramientas para hacer uso de manera efectiva cualquier intervención o discurso con tercero, no con el objetivo de hacer mellas a nuestros escuchas, sino para proporcional de que no todo esta enteramente dicho, que mas allá hay otras verdades, y que esta verdades esta cimentadas a través e las evidencias.

[Donkeykonguk Forero · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a slim, easy-to-read guide to basic critical thinking. If you wonder why so many people have trouble analyzing the issues that impact their lives, you'll see that part of the blame is due to atrophied thinking. Weak critical skills, which may seem to be a stuffy thing to be worried about these days, are actually the root of prejudice, demagoguery, scams, intolerance, ignorance, mistakes, and tragedies of all kinds. This book is kryptonite to everything from the justifications for the invasion of Iraq to creationism's claims and the orwellian reduction of American civil rights in a war against an abstract emotion (aka "terror") My deepest thanks to Mr. McInerny for this intellectual life vest. Read it!

[Kelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

I bought this book because it was recommended for lawyers (I am a law student). However this is definitely not worth the read - - the concepts are exceedingly simple and do not offer a good supplement to a legal education. It feels more like the introduction to an LSAT prep book. I would recommend it more for someone who is new to logical thinking, not someone who's already immersed in it.

[Khalil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Très bon le livre de base sur la réflexion logique.

Succinct, de petite taille, qui va droit au but. Je pense le garder comme référence afin d’analyser les erreurs logiques que je pourrais côtoyer au quotidien.

Une étoile que retire pour le manque d’exemples donnés qui aurait agrémenter d’avantage les propos du livre.

[Bookish Dervish · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was given this book by my friend Mubarak MarzouQ, who ordered it from USA.
It was a nice introduction to basic rules of logic. I recommend it to youngsters as a step in a larger programme to educate themselves.

[Samantha · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was specifically looking for a book to teach me about the logical fallacies and this short textbook-style primer on logical reasoning perfectly fit the bill. I found this very educational with excellence use of illustrative examples.

[Hiep Nguyen · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book expresses lots of logical & scientific points without much examples, making it very hard to digest

[Sean McGowan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great!

[Shawn Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book and very clearly written, even for the novice.

[Moataz Mahmoud · Rating 5 out of 5]

مراجعة كتاب: (كن منطقياً)
الدليل إلى التفكير الصائب
💥 اسم المؤلف
دينس كيو.ماكنيري
💥 اسم المترجم
د/ أحمد تركي
💥 اسم الدار
مؤسسة عالم الأدب للترجمة و النشر
💥 سنة طبع النسخة
سنة ٢٠٢٣
💥 الحديث عن الكتاب
هذا الكتاب من خلاله سنبني في عقلنا فن المنطق _ إن جاز التعبير _ و هو باب جيد كبداية في هذا العالم هو عبارة عن أربع أجزاء

الجزء الأول؛ جزء يُعدك إعداد سليم و يُفهمك المعنى الصحيح للمنطق

الجزء الأول: إعداد الذهن لاستقبال المنطق (تنبه، التحصيل السليم للحقائق، الأفكار و مصاديقها، تيقظ لأصول الأفكار، صِل الأفكار بالحقائق، صِل الكلمات بالأفكار، التواصل الفعال، تجنب اللغة الغامضة و الملتبسة، تجنب اللغة المراوغة، الحقيقة)

في الجزء الثاني و الثالث؛ هما الجزءان الأساسيان في هذا الكتاب

الجزء الثاني: المباديء الأساسية للمنطق (المباديء الأولية، المناطق الرمادية الحقيقية و المصطنعة، لكل شيء تفسير في النهاية، لا تتوقف في خضم البحث عن الأسباب، التفريق بين أنواع الأسباب، عرف المصطلحات، العبارة الحاسمة، التعميم)

الجزء الثالث: الحجة لغة المنطق (تأسيس الحجج، الانتقال من الكلي إلى الجزئي، الانتقال من الجزئي إلى الكلي، الإسناد، العبارات السلبية، عقد المقارنات، المقارنة و الحجاج، الحجة السليمة، الحجة العطفية، الحجة الانفصالية، الحجة الشرطية، الحجة القياسية، حقيقة المقدمات، ملاءمة المقدمات، قضايا واقعية و قضايا تقييمية، الشكل الجدلي، يجب أن تعكس الاستنتاجات كمية المقدمات، يجب أن تعكس الاستنتاجات جودة المقدمات، الحجة الاستقرائية، تقييم الحجة، بناء الحجج)

الجزء الرابع و الخامس؛ هما الجزءان اللذان عن طريق الجزئين السابقين ستفهمهما و لهذا فإن الجزءين السابقين الأهم في الكتاب

الجزء الرابع: منابع التفكير غير المنطقي (التشكك، اللاأدرية المراوغة، التهكمية و التفاؤل الساذج، ضيق الأفق، العاطفة و الحجة، الهدف من الاستدلال، الحجاج ليس شجاراً، قيود الصدق، البديهيات المشتركة)

الجزء الخامس: الأنماط الرئيسية للتفكير غير المنطقي (نفي المقدم، إثبات التالي، الحد الأوسط غير المستغرق، الاشتراك أو الالتباس العجمي، المصادرة على المطلوب، الافتراضات الباطلة، مغالطة رجل القش، التقاليد بين الإفراط و التفريط، خطئان لا يصنعان صواباً، المغالطة الديمقراطية [الاحتكام الأكثرية]، مغالطة الشخصنة، استبدال قوة المنطق [الاحتكام إلى القوة]، الخبرة بين الإفراط و التفريط، تكميم الكيف، انظر لأبعد من المنبع، التحليل غير المكتمل، الاختزالية، خطأ التصنيف، الرنجة الحمراء، السخرية كمناورة مضللة، الدموع كمناورة مضللة، فشل الدحض لا يعني الإثبات، المعضلة الزائفة، بعده... إذاً بسببه، الادعاءات الخاصة، مغالطة الذريعة، تجنب الاستنتاجات، المنطق التبسيطي)

من الممكن بعدما تقرأ فهرس الكتاب تستشعر بأن الكتاب به صعوبة و لكن العكس هو صحيح فشرح الكاتب به تبسيط و أيضاً لم ينسى الأمثلة السهلة و التي تجعلك تهضم الفكرة تماماً و الكتاب مليء بالمعلومات؛ فاقرأ الكتاب بتأني
💥 عدد المقولات المأخوذة من الكتاب
٨ مقولات ألا و هم:
* مهم أن تعرفوا الفرق بين صدق الحجة و صحتها؛ لأن الخلط بينهما يتكرر كثيراً، و هما مفهومان مختلفان تماماً. أولاً؛ لا يتعلق صدق الحجج إلا بعباراتها ذاتها، بينما صحة الحجج تتعلق بترتيب بناء العبارات فحسب. ثانياً؛ تصدق القضية إذا أكدها ما يعكس موضوعية واقعها. بينما نقول إن الحجة صحيحة، إذا ضمن بناؤها نتيجة صادقة، و من قبل هذا، إذا صدقت مقدماتها.

* الحجة هى تعبير عن لب التفكير المنطقي.

* نحن البشر نجادل جيداً لأننا أولاً نفكر جيداً، و نهدف من الجدال و التفكير إلى ما يؤهلنا إلى التصرف بحرية أكبر في عالمنا.

* الحجاج حوار عقلاني، و لا ينبغي أن يُخلَط مف��ومه مع الشجار؛ لأن الهدف من الحجاج هو اقتناص الحقيقة، أما الهدف من الشجار فهو اقتناص الآخرين. و لن يرغب الكثيرون _ و إن تمنوا التشاجر معك _ في محاججتك أو لن يقدروا. فلا تضع وقتك و جهدك و تحاول محاججة أشخاص لن يحاججوك، و لا يقدرون أصلاً على الحجاج.

* ذوو المشاعر الحساسة وحدهم يعتقدون أن الصدق وحده يكفي، أما في الواقع فقد يجتمع الصدق الواضح مع أخطاء جلية، و قد أكون صادقاً تماماً و مخطئاً تماماً، صدقي هذا لا يحول الباطل إلى حق. ينبغي أن يكون المرء صادقاً بالطبع، و يجب أن يكون محقاً أيضاً.

* الوصول إلى النتائج أمر ينبغي حدوثه. الحجج _ كتعبير لغوي عن المنطق البشري _ متمحورة حول هدف، و افتراض أننا ننخرط في الجدل كي نسمع أنفسنا نتحدث فحسب هو تهوين منه. أن نعترف بمشاكل معينة قد يستحيل حلها، و أن بعض الاستنتاجات ليست في متناول أيدينا، هذا أمر. أما تبني مبدأ أن المشكلات على إطلاقها يستحيل حلها، و النتائج على إطلاقها يستحيل الوصول إليها، و هذا يعني استخدام المنطق لتقويض عين طبيعته.

* يتمتع بعض الناس بقدرة مصقولة على قبول ما يريدون سماعه فحسب، بينما يحتاج آخرون إلى إجابات سهلة، و استغلال نقاط الضعف هذه سفه، لا تخبر الجمهور ما يريدون سماعه؛ بل أخبرهم الحقيقة، و لا تؤكد لهم شيئاً غير مؤكد. إذا كان الواقع أسود، فقل إنه أسود، و إذا كان الواقع أبيض، فقل إنه أبيض، و إذا كان رمادياً، فقل إنه رمادي. ربما لا يقدر الجمهور صراحتك فور تحدثك بها، لكن المأمول على المدى الطويل أن يدركوا أن الحقيقة هى وحدها المهمة فعلاً.

* ينبغي الاهتمام بتجنب شراك المنطق الرديء الضعيف، و الأدعى هو تركيز طاقاتنا على إتقان تلك المباديء الإيجابية التي تأخذ بأيدينا إلى النقيض المبهج؛ أي المنطق السليم، و هنا يأتي دور الممارسة. لا يمكن إتقان فن المنطق إلا بالتطبيق المنتظم في المواقف الواقعية، و لن نشكو أبداً من ندرة فرص التطبيقات؛ إذ تزخر كل ساعات مواجهتنا للحياة بالمواقف التي تتطلب منا استجابات منطقية.
💥 عدد صفحات الكتاب
١٣٩ صفحة
💥 التقييم ٤,٥/٥
#ريفيوهات_معتز_محمود

[KingSolomon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid primer on thinking logically and doing your best to make sure you make sense, and improving yourself as a rational agent. I don't recall anything in here being novel or really eye-opening, but as was aptly mentioned in the beginning: "A dumbed-down logic is not logic at all. Other readers might be put off by what they perceive to be an emphasis upon the obvious. I do, in fact, place a good deal of stress on the obvious in this book, and that is quite deliberate. In logic, as in life, it is the obvious that most often bears emphasizing, because it so easily escapes our notice. If I have belabored certain points, and regularly opted for the explicit over the implicit, it is because I adhere to the time-honored pedagogic principle that it is always safest to assume as little as possible."

This book was filled with staunch advice and this review will just be a smattering of quotes, and my commentary thereof. There were a couple dense sections that I struggled with, but overall I liked the book.

We misread a situation because we are skimming it, when what we should be doing is perusing it. The phrase “to pay attention” is telling. It reminds us that attention costs something. Attention demands an active, energetic response to every situation, to the persons, places, and things that make up the situation. It is impossible to be truly attentive and passive at the same time. Don’t just look, see. Don’t just hear, listen. Train yourself to focus on details. The little things are not to be ignored, for it is just the little things that lead us to the big things.

I also find his philosophy aligns very much with mine own. I had the same revelation with Robert Covey(?) from Seven Habits. I'm glad it seems I try to be as logical as possible, it logically seems the most tactful position in any endeavor to assume.

The whole purpose of reasoning, of logic, is to arrive at the truth of things. This is often an arduous task, as truth can sometimes be painfully elusive. But not to pursue truth would be absurd, since it is the only thing that gives meaning to all our endeavors.

I was really glad with the way he contsructed the following piece because it says concisely and precisely, a very hard notion to grasp, yet one of the most important that even the most logical thinkers will overlook, have a hard time with, or simply deny because it's too "catch-all" and easy of an argument. That's quite amusing. Because while I do understand the idea of first principles does seem convenient to those using such a first principle and defending it as Mcinerny does, they are truly that convenient and catch-all because they are indeed self-evident, logical, and damn well true: Another trait of first principles—it follows from their being self-evident—is that they cannot be proven. This means that they are not conclusions that follow from premises; they are not truths dependent upon antecedent truths. This is because first principles represent truths that are absolutely fundamental. They are “first” in the strongest sense of the word. Consider the principle of sufficient reason. I cannot prove that everything that exists must have a cause, nor do I need to, since it is a truth self-evident to me simply by my observing the way the world works. I either see it or I don’t. If the first principles of a science are not seen as self-evident and accepted at face value, the science could not proceed. It would stall right there.

Great reprimand for those guilty of the following conduct: That you might find yourself at times in a situation in which you see no clear alternatives does not mean, objectively considered, that there are no clear alternatives. It simply means that you do not see them. Don’t project your subjective state of uncertainty upon the world at large and claim objective status for it. It's done all the time in debate.

Agnostics always abhor logic, and such masterful concepts as presented in this text: The principle of sufficient reason tells us that things don’t just happen. They are caused to happen. We do not know the causes of everything, but we know that everything has a cause.

This statement is just pure beauty and a great jab at self-proclaimed academics who really have no clue what they're saying: The extreme skeptic proclaims baldly that there is no truth. This is obviously a self-contradictory position, for if there is no truth there is no standard by which that very claim can be assessed, and the skeptic’s statement is empty of meaning.

These next three are so fundamental that I daresay many smart and religious folk need review on. Even in debating with some of the smartest people I know, these three are always the most tread upon and eschewed. It is a weal to study these three alone:

I just love cold logical pieces like this: Established ways of doing things are commendable and worth continuing if they can stand on their own merits. Tradition, taken as a whole, might be regarded as an elaborate set of precedents. The mere fact that “things have always been done that way” is not in and of itself a compelling reason for keeping on doing them that way. You just can't argue with that, though many will try in vain.

That a majority of the population in a given society holds a particular opinion on a given matter is interesting sociological information, but it has no necessary bearing on the truth or falsity of the matter in question. Majorities can be wrong.

But it is argument, not just the word of the experts, which should be carrying the authoritative weight, and the argument we are presented with here is far from convincing, because it offers us nothing beyond the mere word of the experts. If we are satisfied with only the word of the experts, we are essentially being told: “Don’t ask any questions, just do as we say.” Of course as he's mentioned earlier himself, experts are indeed experts. Their scholarship for their domain is definately paramount in a general sense, and surely has weight behind it, more so than the average laymen. Yet, this in no way shape or form means that they are infallible, that experts are automatically right. This is indeed the fallacy of authority. So trod upon.


And there you have it. So much better than the sophistries of Plato. Dare I go there?

Four stars.

[Marjan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Useless. Can’t believe I voluntarily listened to this audiobook.

[Melissa]

Exquisite. A topic that can be dry but this was done so cleanly it was a joy to read. I'm going to buy it and make everyone else read it too.

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm a bit mystified by the number of positive reviews for this book. I found it to be quite muddled, which is ironic given that the author himself goes to pains to emphasize the importance of clarity in communication. Too many pages in an already short book (only 137 pages) are spent belaboring the relationship between ideas, objective reality, and language, and even here the author fails to express himself clearly and consistently. For example, in the last paragraph of the section "Be Mindful of the Origin of Ideas" he writes,

"But I could have another idea in my mind, which I label 'centaur' but for which no corresponding fact can be found in the extramental world. ...[T]he idea of 'centaur' is a subjective fact, since it really exists as an idea in my mind."

Then in the beginning of the very next section, he seems to have forgotten that he's just provided an example of an idea and a word mapping to something that has no real existence and writes, "It all starts with [the objective reality of] the cat. If there were no real cats, there would be no idea about them, and there would be no word for the idea."

It takes nearly 60 pages for the author to even begin to approach logic arguments themselves. At the point where he broaches the topic of validity and soundness, he fails to clearly explain the difference and then continues to uses phases like "sound form" (by which he means "valid") and "sound content." This doesn't help the reader make the distinction between validity and soundness, and it would have been much better had he just provided clear, concise definitions for those two terms and then use them consistently going forward. Another example of his presentation lacking clarity: He uses the notation "-A" but waits until the following example to tell you explicitly that "-A" means "not A".

The final section, "The Principles of Illogical Thinking", in which deductive mistakes and logical fallacies are briefly reviewed, was helpful however.

[Demetrius Wallace · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a random pick-up from my local bookstore. It's quite a dense read, and some parts of it require multiple re-reads to comprehend. Much of what the book covers is common sense. However, how it speaks to logic dives deeper into "common sense" than I've ever thought about. The analysis of poor logic was interesting in relation to the 2024 election. I see many of the tricks mentioned in the back half of the book being used by Trump. I hadn't had a name for some of what he and many other politicians were doing until reading this.

Key Takeaways:

ON LOGICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENT:
> There are two basic types of objective facts. Things and events made up of things.
> Facts can be broken up into objective and subjective. Subjective facts are limited to the person experiencing it.
> Factualness comes down to the authenticity and reliability of sources.
> An idea is the subjective evocation of an objective fact.
> There are three basic components to human knowledge: the objective fact, the idea of the thing or event, and the name or word we give the idea.
> Ideas are clear or sound to the extent that they reflect objective realities.
> Don't assume your audience understands your meaning if you don't make it explicit.
> Speak in complete sentences.
> Don't treat evaluative statements as statements of objective fact.
> Avoid double negatives (Ex. "it is not unlikely that she would be welcome" just she "She would be welcome."
> Gear your language to your audience.
> Gray areas are situations where the truth cannot be clearly established. Life is full of them, and they have to be cheerfully contended with.
> Don't project your subjective statute of uncertainty upon the world at large and claim objective status for it.
> You may be uncertain about a matter, but that is only possible because you have known the experience of being certain. If certainty is possible at all, it is possible eventually.
> Everything has a cause.
> Weed out the weaker premises; otherwise, they will only divert attention from the stronger ones. Limiting the number of premises gives your argument a sharper focus and, therefore, a greater impact.

ON ILLOGICAL THINKING:
> As important as it is to avoid the pitfalls of poor reasoning below, it is more important to concentrate energies on mastering the positive principles that make for its happy opposite-sound reasoning.
> The person who succumbs to "Evasive Agnosticism" uses ignorance as an excuse rather than a reason. Such ignorance is the result of indifference or laziness.
> Neither the cynic nor the naive optimist is paying the right attention to the world around them. Rather than seeing things as they are, they see them as they are predisposed to see them.
> A narrow-minded person only refuses to consider certain alternatives because they do not meet their prejudiced assumptions about what is and isn't worth pursuing.
> A healthy open-mindedness does not mean that one is open to everything. To be noncommittal in a situation that demands commitment is no virtue. To be tolerant of everything is to value nothing.
> The more intense our emotional state, the more difficult it is to think clearly and behave temperately.
> To the point above, emotion is still an important part of being human. "For every idea is the brainchild of that naturally emotional creature who is man." It is a matter of emphasizing reason, not attempting to exclude emotion entirely.
> Never appeal directly to people's emotions. Devote your efforts to bringing them to the point where they can see what is the case for themselves.
> To use reason for any purpose other than attaining truth is to misuse it.
> In an ideal debate, the primary purpose is not to triumph over each other but to use combined efforts to find the truth regarding the uses being debated.
> The object of argument is to get at the truth. The object of quarreling is to get at other people.
> Sincerity cannot transform falsehood into truth. Of course, one must be sincere. But one must also be right.
> If one begins an argument with a false assumption, one's conclusion can only be false.
> Straw-Man Fallacy: Deliberately distorting an opponent's argument to weaken it. Dishonest.
> Two wrongs don't make a right: Precedent in and of itself provides insufficient justification for action. The fact that an act has been performed by others is of historical interest only. We must pay attention to the values of the action itself.
> Democratic Fallacy: That a majority of the population in a given society holds a particular opinion is interesting sociological information. Still, it has no necessary bearing on the truth or falsity of the matter in question. Majorities can be wrong.
> The Ad Hominem Fallacy: Responding to the person rather than the argument at hand. Being against your opponent personally and not their POV.
> People will accept the truth only when they can do so freely.
> The strongest kind of expert evidence incorporates the reasons the experts hold a certain position va. just using their expert status. There are many people who pass themselves off as experts but don't qualify as such.
> If quality could be perfectly translated into quality, there wouldn't be a need for two ideas. Many important things don't lend themselves to quantitative assessment (Love, beauty, kindness, justice, freedom, peace.) To attempt to quantify something that doesn't lend itself to it is to distort it.
> If you know a source is generally bad, you assume that everything coming from it is bad. This doesn't follow. Certainly, it's relevant to consider the source, but we must also go beyond that.
> Reductionism: This fallacy is committed when we selectively focus only on some parts of the composed hole. This is what we do when we call attention exclusively to negative traits of a person and then pretend that in doing so we have revealed what the person, as a person, is really all about.
> Misclassification: We misclassify things because we fail to properly identify them in the first place, and we do that because weare not paying attention.
> The Red Herring: Introduces emotionally volatile information which is diliberaltyl calculated to agitate the audience. It is a direct appeal to emotion. The information introduced has nothing to do with the issues of the argument.
> Simplistic reasoning: Some audiences have a refined capacity for accepting only what they want to hear. Others have a need for easy answers. It is cynical to explore these weekends. Don't tell them what they want to hear - tell them what is true.

[Zana · Rating 4 out of 5]

An almost perfect place to begin if you want to improve in the art of arguing. This is a simple (maybe too simple) introduction into the what, why and how of logical arguments. It breaks the topic down into its most fundamental building blocks and then puts it back together one piece at a time for you to thoroughly understand what it means to debate.

I did notice a glaring mistake on page 78 where the predicate of a minor premise ("hardworking") was referred to as the predicate of the major premise, in which it isn't even mentioned. This took me a while to make heads or tails off and was a bit annoying. Other than this my only other gripe is that sometimes the oversimplification approach was actually counterproductive and some explanations could've been clearer had they been explained verbally rather than symbolically.

It was fun learning about some of the different types of fallacies (it was not an exhaustive list) such as Red Herring, Straw-man, Democratic, Ad Hominem, False Dichotomy etc.

The book felt quite philosophical at times also which in light of what I now understand argument to be is not surprising: the pursuit of knowledge. To this effect some of my favourite passages are as follows:

"Rationalisation is reasoning in the service of falsehood"
"An open mind, like an open mouth, should eventually close on something... to be noncommittal in a situation that demands commitment is no virtue. To be tolerant of everything is to value nothing"
"At all costs is a price no one can afford"

[Peter Antonov · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is about the rules of logic. And it's a must-read, especially in today's day and age with so much contradictory information all around us on virtually any topic imaginable. When you first start reading it, the contents may appear overly simplistic. To the untrained mind, it might look like there is no new knowledge to be gained from it. However, I have consistently seen "logical" (in their mind at least) people objectively breaking the rules of logic when making arguments or worse off citing other people's arguments. In a perfect world, everyone would make their own controlled experiments and publish a paper with both the results and the methodologies of how they got them along with their conclusions. But we don't live in a perfect world, so the second best we can do is to at least use the rules of logic to properly align our arguments with the objective facts in the real world and see if there is enough structure to support any definite conclusions on a topic.

[Sendhilkumar Alalasundaram · Rating 3 out of 5]

Logical thinking and expression is an essential skill that guides in many ways.

This book describes what constitutes a logical thought and what does not?

An important part understanding logical thinking, is to understand types of causes, methods of reasoning and modes of expression.

For the benefit of the readers, The book analyzes exhaustively the characteristics and indicators of illogical thinking and arguments.

While,the book does a good job in analyzing the process of logical thinking and describing the terminologies associated with sound argumentation, I think much of this book deals with factors that the readers are already familiar with.