Crimes Against Logic: Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders

by Jamie Whyte

Uncover the truth under all the BS In the daily battle for our hearts and minds--not to mention our hard-earned cash--the truth is usually the first casualty. It's time we learned how to see through the rhetoric, faulty reasoning, and misinformation that we're subjected to from morning to night by talk-radio hosts, op-ed columnists, advertisers, self-help gurus, business "thinkers," and, of course, politicians. And no one is better equipped to show us how than award-winning philosopher Jamie Whyte. In Crimes Against Logic Whyte take us on a fast-paced, ruthlessly funny romp through the mulligan stew of can, folderol, and bogus logic served up in the media, at the office, and even in your own home. Applying his laserlike wit to dozens of timely examples, Whyte cuts through the haze of facts, figures, and double-talk and gets at the real truth behind what they're telling us. "An incisive philosopher."
-- Sunday Telegraph

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Logic, Politics, Science, Psychology, Religion

157 pages, Paperback

First published September 12, 2004

Reviews

[Todd Johnson · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author's tone is condescending and pedantic. He often constructs straw men or belabors a deconstruction of the weakest argument ever put forth by a particular position.

Here is an example which may allow you to decide if the book is for you. In the chapter "Begging the Question," we are presented with a character, Jack, who is a libertarian, who believes the individual right to property is paramount, and looks for an absolutely minimal government. We also meet Jill, his counterpart who argues that such a society would have mass poverty. We learn that Jill has begged the question by assuming that 1) individual right to property is not paramount and 2) it is surpassed in importance by the need to avoid mass poverty.

I think there are two ways to respond to this: One is, "Gee, that's insightful. That Jill really needs to deal with Jack on his own terms." The other is, "Be serious, Jamie. Jill's response is perfectly reasonable, in that it fits within the moral structure under which most people operate: she has assumed only axioms which are at least approximately universal. If Jack believes she has missed the point, he's welcome to say, 'That's true, but mass poverty isn't as important as property rights,' and then to try and defend that claim."

Me personally, I thought the book was heavy on obnoxious tone and light on insight. But I think this has a lot to do with personality.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another book meant to destroy, or at least floodlight, prevalently tolerated human behavior. Whyte immediately strikes at the throat of one of our most commonly shared beliefs, that we have a right to our own opinion. If you believe that you do have this right, Whyte will certainly make a very strong argument for why you may want to consider that one mo’ time again. He will also demonstrate very clearly that even if you have the right to your opinion, your claim of it is absolutely irrelevant.

After Whyte has finished off one of the most ingrained and cliché beliefs most of us hold, he goes on to gnaw away at many other fallacies we all commit on a much too regular basis. This book is not only enjoyable but also simultaneously offers great insight into erroneous thought and action we all commit. It’s easy to identify other’s behavior that fit Whyte’s condemnations, but remember to also note your own fallacious quirks. As suggested by the title, the covered topics are addressed from an almost entirely logical standpoint; While I think there are certainly selected issues Whyte tackles that perhaps are deserving of additional consideration from another perspective, I think he is very fair with most of his arguments. So hop to it, Watson.

[DJ · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book. I tried to like this book. The premise was, I though, a good one: to use the principles of logic to dissect popular arguments of the day, and to recognize fallacies for what they are. Unfortunately, the author does a great disservice to the noble enterprise by falling victim to those same fallacies in the attempt to poke holes in arguments. Straw men and ad hominem attacks abound, and more often then not the book provides an excellent example of what not to do.

[Wendy Holliday · Rating 2 out of 5]

2024 edit: may look at this again with fresh, atheist eyes lol

[Ben Christian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bit of a pompous guy, examples given are simple and easy to understand, but did he have to include all this targeted commentary and side jabs on different peoples beliefs?

[Craig Adamson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can't remember how I came across a review for this book as I've had it for awhile now. Unfortunately, whatever expectation I had for it was too high.

I enjoyed the author's "jaunty" and "semi-serious" writing style. That makes this type of material a little more enjoyable. Which is why I could give it 2 stars.

I was underwhelmed for sure. The author takes on multiple topics that he is "exposing." Despite agreeing with him on several topics I felt his arguments should be "meatier" than they were. Maybe that was on purpose for the length and style of this book? It has taken me over a month to even want to write this review as I kept coming back tot he term "underwhelmed." WHich when you spend the money and time to read a book... that isn't the outcome I'm looking for.

I went into my read assuming he would be an atheist. He certainly is. He makes no bones about it as he takes numerous opportunities to use his super-human intelligence to explain in his dumbed-down way why Christians in particular (he cites other religions too which is a nice change of pace. Most atheists are so uneducated about Christianity that they simple ignore other major religions as that would force them to do yet another cursory study. Since Christianity has shaped the development of Western Civilization like no other religion has I suppose they are forced to focus their hate on it) are stupid for believing in God. My impression is he should stick to other topics that he knows more about or he will meet even a half-assed Christian apologetic who will "manipulate" him into believing in God. I almost see this book as his way of asking for someone to challenge is over-simplified views of religion and morality so that he can become a believer too. But like I stated earlier, since I assumed he would have this attitude, I tried not to let it color my enjoyment of the book. But for such a highly regarded logician, I had hoped to have my faith challenged in a more intellectual way.

The main annoyance of this book (personally, I like his snide attitude/voice but this will probably turn off most readers) is switching back and forth from UK to US. He talks about various issues but hops back and forth between House of Commons and PMs and Congress and POTUS. My impression is he is trying too hard to gain the affection of 2 different audiences (he is originally from New Zealand) by peppering his examples from both countries. It was an unnecessary distraction. The examples he used to demonstrate his points and his superior intellect may have been true, but he seemed to really stretch in some spots. They seemed a bit contrived so he could "show off" how he thinks about the topic and how you should too.

As I write this review, I have decided to change my review from 2 stars to 1 star. I just thought it should be a better book. Maybe his next attempt will be better.

[Kohl Gill · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Cynicism, like gullibility, is a symptom of underdeveloped critical faculties." - p. xi

So begins an excellent introduction to logic and contemporary rhetoric. CAL is a snappy tour through the most common forms of illogical reasoning used by everyone from your family to politicians and the media.

For those of us who've already read a bit on logic, CAL brings a nice opportunity to put names to the fallacies we've already noticed, and to test our mettle against Whyte's many examples. Kudos are deserved on the "Weird Science" section, critiquing the abuses of quantum physics and science in general for New Age or quasi-religious aims. I would differ on Whyte's criticism of the Declaration of Independence's self-evident truths; just because they are self-evident, doesn't mean one shouldn't list which specific truths are relevant to that discussion.

Also, Whyte claims that one shouldn't take into account the general political leanings of organizations that produce analysis. However, that initial correction is actually a good shorthand for the types of evidence that various analysis organizations consider valid, and can highlight especially interesting news. For example, it would be very unexpected for a group like the American Enterprise Institute to produce analysis supporting a single-payer health care system.

My final criticism would be that Whyte does become a bit snarky, occasionally. Ironically, his chapter, "Inconsistency" contains his own most obvious mistakes. For example, while discussing fox hunting, Whyte blurs the gradations of cruelty between various forms of hunting.

Worth a read.

[Handolf · Rating 3 out of 5]

Crimes against logic was on a recommended reading list for my philosophy class few years back when I studied Arts. At the time, I didn't take this book seriously and neglected it on my book shelf.

I'm glad that I've finally read it because I appreciated every bit of it.

My favourite chapters were empty words, shocking statistics and morality fever.

This book is a great guide to identify bogus statements and arguments that are irrational and weak.

At times we can be blinded by the expert opinions and statistics. The chapter 'shocking statistics' for example, shows how statistics can be falsely used and manipulated to convey a point. From this chapter, I have realised how important it is to consider the accuracy of the sources and statistics.

-

I believe that being able to think logically and rationally is a powerful tool that a person can have. From reading this book, I have grasped the concept of identifying logical and false statements.

[kartik narayanan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read my full review at https://wp.me/p89tYT-98

Release a few statistics into the discussion and the effects will be visible within moments: eyes glaze over, jaws slacken, and soon everyone will be nodding in agreement

What is the book about?
“Crimes Against Logic” is written by Jamie Whyte, a person with an eclectic career including that of a philosophy professor, management consultant, politician and author. The closest parallel I could find for his incisive style of writing is Richard Dawkins though the subject matter is vastly different.

“Crimes Against Logic” is a book intended to help people identify errors of reasoning in their day-to-day lives. The book uses several real-life examples from politics, theology and business to explain these fallacies.



Read my full review at https://wp.me/p89tYT-98

[Courtney Campbell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was assigned to read a few chapters in this book for my Critical Thinking class. Slightly disappointed that my professor did not require us to read all of it, I decided to finish it myself. Whyte uses wit and humor to explain the faults in the logic we attempt to use in order to defend our own logic. I found it interesting, enjoyable, and an eyeopener to the fallacies that we are all guilty of using. Although many of the examples that Whyte uses can be offensive if you do not agree with his own opinions and to the sources he has criticized, he still uses strong arguments of his own to prove his point.

[Sigrid Fry-Revere · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. It made me chuckle and smile. I haven't had so much fun reading a book in years. That being said, I'm a lover of logic and not everyone is. The insights into how we are misled and mislead ourselves are pretty remarkable. One of my favorite quotes -- not in this book -- but totally appropriate given the subject matter of Prof. Whyte's little book of gems -- is a quote from Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[Amr Shaker · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. I particularly liked the condescending tone, which was hilarious at times. There is much information offered by media that people just take for granted without any effort analyzing why it might be biased or unreliable. This book explains many of the logical fallacies that can help you avoid falling for any argument lacking in logic.

[Kieran Healy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Go elsewhere for logic explanation. I thought I was going to read an engaging and novel breakdown of the nonsense we see every day, but the author just comes off like a bitter pedagogue. Whatever it’s merits, this book is just unpleasant to read.

The first chapter should be “Straw Man” because that’s all the author uses. I doubt he’s ever enjoyed a movie or a painting, and is probably a bore at social occasions, if this “everyone is stupid” attitude is his world view. It’s a shame, because he had an opportunity to write a really fun book about logic, and didn’t.

[Craig Sanscrainte · Rating 5 out of 5]

Might be most important book of this era

[Lummi Netti · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bastante pesado al principio porque es un debate filosofico pero deja pregintas interesantes para hacerse. Un poco crudo con unas realidades

[Elliott Bignell · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this a good few years ago, and have recently re-read it prior to adding it to a clean-out pile as my library is beginning to approach critical mass. While there is a lot of sharp wit in the book, some brash vocabulary and a lot I agree with, I find myself less impressed on second reading. Perhaps it comes of knowing more of rhetoric, and perhaps it comes of years of arguing on the internet, but my experience is that logical argument doesn't have much power to sway people, so violations of it no longer look so unforgiveable. I also find myself disagreeing critically with the author on a few points and on what I perceive as an underlying political agenda of his own.

As a first example, he objects to appeals to motivation in regard of the Rape of Iraq. The argument "he's only doing it for the oil" is dismissed as an argument against this ill-starred enormity on the grounds that it could still be good for the Iraqis or the region. That this now looks pretty silly in its own right is the least of the problems with this line of criticism. War crimes, like murders, are actually defined partly by virtue of motivation. Deliberately bombing civilians is a fundamentally different offence to mistakenly doing so. Going to war on false pretences weakens international security. The appeal to motivation was clearly not fallacious in this instance.

Similarly with Think Tanks. Their description as "right-leaning" or, much more rarely, "left-leaning" is most definitely relevant information when reporting on their antics, whether the author recognises it or not. Yes, logically what they are saying could be right whatever their motivation for saying it. But, crucially, we as observers can predict which way they will fall on an issue without having to know what their logic is, and we know what evidence they will cherry-pick to support an agenda. In the end, examining the detailed justification for their claims will probably leave us no better off than if we just assume that their leaning determines what they will say. After all, it does! At best, we might find their evidence sufficient. But don't bet on it.

I do not want to fly a flag for the fruitloopery of homoeopathy, but the author's reasoning is weak here, as well. The concrete problem with homoeopathy comes down to the fact that is is not observed to work. The properties of a sample, however, are not necessarily fully specified by its composition alone, contrary to the author's claims, and can indeed depend on its history. Two samples of mixed iron and carbon may have exactly the same overall composition, but if one has just been poured while the other has been case-hardened and then hammered and folded, then the latter may make a much more effective blade. The idea that water might have a "memory" of constituents that are no longer present is not irrational per se. It appears to be wrong, but you could not use the author's reasoning to ensure that.

I have waxed a little critical myself here, but there is more to recommend this book's content than to condemn it. It is robust and witty and makes some valid points about the water of unreason in which we increasingly swim these days. Or perhaps flounder. It's also a short read and very enjoyable.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Whyte has a wonderful grasp of logic and argument, as one would hope. This in an engaging little book, which I would widely recommend, although with some reservations.

His chief strength is explaining logical fallacies and providing everyday examples, showing that they are far more common than one might think (and generally not recognized). It is nice to have a champion of things making sense. Many people and organizations, from lawyers to churches, politicians, and more, have a vested interest in making things unclear and ambiguous, and freely employ fallacies to make things seem sensible when they are actually not. There are even people who see the incomprehensibility of an argument as a good thing - chiefly religions (New Age and old) and postmodernists. As Whyte says, "cultural relativism is so absurd that it is hard to believe anyone can be so fevered as to assert it."

The failings of the book come whenever Whyte strays from logic, which happens fairly frequently as he delves into examples. He demonstrates at various points that he does not have a completely firm grasp of science, economics, medicine, or politics. These include some overstated claims such as the establishment of absolute truth in science. He doesn't fully grasp, at a fundamental level, the provisional and probabilistic nature of truth in science. Anyone with an eye for experiment and Bayes' theorem knows that once you start assigning p=0 or p=1, you're no longer doing science. Science might say p=1-(1e-9), which in everday language means "definitely true", but it's very important that p doesn't exactly equal 1. If it did, no amount of further evidence contradicting our hypothesis could ever reduce this. That is, once you say "I believe this to be completely true", then in the face of a Universe of evidence against it, you would still believe it to be completely true. This is not empirical, this is not rational, this is not science. It is faith, and has no role in rational understanding of the world. (So, this is a very important point, but I would call this a minor failing of the book because it is such a small part of the book, and he doesn't really mean it, I don't think. It's just an oversight.)

He also fails to appreciate quick, efficient ways of assessing truth that must be used in practice, but are occasionally wrong. For example, the Lewin Group has been frequently cited in the current debate on health care in the US. The Lewin group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, a health insurance company. Whyte would argue that it's a fallacy to claim that this is relevant, and that any opinions the Lewin Group produces should be judged solely on their merits. He doesn't appreciate that few people have the skill and knowledge to do so, and even fewer have the time. Biases and potential biases of sources must be included in any real-world analysis, whether this is doctors publishing articles that were actually ghostwritten by drug companies or claims on Fox News that Obama was born in Kenya.

Still, this book is goes by quickly, and is quite worth reading.

[Penelope · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think the content is quite valuable but it’s grating to read; you don’t have to be arrogant to be right. I’d still recommend this book - rationality is important and we unfortunately do have a lot of irrationality taken seriously that oughtn’t be in our society.

I think the greatest downfall of this book is that, for me, it was genuinely difficult to learn and take on board the information presented because Whyte was just relentlessly unkind in the way he spoke about other people.

I agree with him - the truth is genuinely important and sincerity and kindness do not mean your opinions are correct, your arguments are valid, or your approach/policies are effective, but that doesn’t mean that in order to be correct you must abandon sincerity and kindness either. You don’t need to ridicule people to show that they’re wrong, and as Whyte professes to value - to lead them to better outcomes for society or for themselves individually. I think Whyte is deliberately trying to be edgy, some may take it as wit but I just think he’s kind of rude. It’s such a shame because I think what he’s actually saying is quite valuable and very relevant.

Further, I don’t think he’s necessarily correct in his own arguments; he’d do much better using simpler examples that don’t have enormously complex backgrounds - he deliberately picks examples of arguments made by people he doesn’t like; or opinions he’s decided are wrong - the advantage of being the author is that you can easily make strawman arguments with no ramifications at all. If you do read this book - read it for the structure and logic of arguments; not for the opinion of this pompous man.

[S · Rating 1 out of 5]

Some parts are decent, but the majority of the book is just a basic discussion of common logical fallacies, information that could otherwise easily be gleaned from an hour of Wikipedia research. So there is nothing exciting to be had here. The writing is somewhat disagreeable, and the author often comes off as smug while strongly pushing a political agenda; overall, he seems to be more concerned about spotting the fallacies in opponents arguments then generating discourse over the validity of their claims. Fair enough, that's what the book written about—but it's not particularly enjoyable to read in such a limited frame.

[Ryan · Rating 1 out of 5]

All hail logic Almighty, we praise and adore thee forever! We offer thee all of our thoughts and knowledge. Purge us of all other forms of knowledge save the scientific.
Cleanse us from the sins of mystery, imagination, and faith. Purify our hearts so that we too may disdain and despise the ignorant masses. And most of all protect us from the humility to admit that this whole book might beg the question of its own argument, by placing absolute unquestioning faith in you O Lord.
Amen.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this - I had some definite gaps, e.g. didn't know what "begging the question" meant, and this filled some of the gaps in a very entertaining way.

The author rants a little too hard against Christianity specifically - it's an easy target, but he could have chosen more varied targets, as it comes off a bit like a vendetta.

Overall though, much recommended.

[David Teachout · Rating 5 out of 5]

Even if you disagree with one or another of the author's opinions, it is even more so incumbent to note the existence of the logical fallacies he identifies, in order to then come up with better arguments for one's position. As noted at the end, moral self-righteousness and sincerity is not a substitute for rationality, and this book is a great start to cementing a dedication to it.

[Alice · Rating 1 out of 5]

For a short book, it's incredibly long winded. Whyte is so in love with the sound of his own keystrokes that he restates each point numerous times, yet somehow manages to end each chapter more muddled than it began. Some eye-watering leaps of logic and comically broad brushstrokes made me question Whyte's qualifications to write on this very subject.

[Halle · Rating 3 out of 5]

a clever, short read. perfect for a 5-hour flight. although he's abrasive in his attacks, he has a strong argument against certain arguments. ironic.

[GM Vaughan · Rating 1 out of 5]

He can't see the flaws in his own logic! Drivel by an angry man with a clear agenda.

[Kam-Hung Soh · Rating 1 out of 5]

A guide for identifying illogical arguments but I was put off by strident tone in later chapters.

[Fennec Fox · Rating 1 out of 5]

I do not like this guy. I do not like this book. I am done.

[Kelly Jacobs]

Really interesting book with great examples of how logic is not always used logically.

[Peace · Rating 5 out of 5]

An award winning philosopher, Jamie Whyte is a past lecturer of philosophy at Cambridge university, whose book - Crimes Against Logic attempts to fill the gap left by the education system. By identifying common errors of reasoning, Crimes Against Logic is a witty assault on bogus arguments that we are subjected to in our everyday lives. It is a thought-provoking book that is bound to keep you entertained for a few hours. Not meant to be a text book, it is a small book of 176 pages that is bound to keep you well entertained.
Widely recommended and well worth the read, Jamie Whyte's chief strength is explaining logical fallacies and providing everyday examples showing that these errors are far more common than one might think and generally not recognized. Crimes Against Logic presents some interesting concepts and ideas on how logic is abused by our society today and by business and governments.
It pokes fun at the lack of logic in everyday arguments.
As an informal and lively polemic against faulty reasoning, it fulfills it's goal. One such faulty reasoning would be:
If asked whether one thought homosexuality should be illegal, one might reply "yes because it was denounced in the bible". This reply invokes a generalization that everything denounced in the Bible should be illegal including adultery, banking, mixed fabrics and eating certain sea food. This reply only serves to render one's objection to legal homosexuality groundless. Despite the Bible's disapproval, law abiding citizens, the world over, continue to covet each other's spouses, banks continue to charge exorbitant interest rates, ladies continue to wear lycra cotton leggings and some continue to indulge in delicacies like lobster. Why not homosexuality too? That kind of reasoning would be a crime against logic.
Crimes Against Logic is a perfect read for that five hour flight or for that quiet weekend in when you require a bit more mental stimulation from fun than the usual drunken activities.
On the flip side, some readers might find Jamie Whyte's tone condescending, pedantic and off-putting. His sarcasm might offend some people especially when it comes to some of his religious examples.
I enjoyed this book tremendously apart from the chapter on coincidence. Whilst I believe that Christians and other Religious people are bound to say some ridiculous things at times ( as all humans do ) , It is possible that not everything has a logical explanation. God does move in mysterious ways. It is not coincidence! My use of the word "mysterious" might also be viewed by Whyte as a fallacy since "mystery" is often used when there is a lack of substantial evidence to support an argument but some things, I believe, are beyond any logical or basic human understanding.
The goal of this book is to share, with a general audience, tools for clarifying what is at stake in arguments. Crimes Against Logic is a self-help book about logic, and it is just about as "life changing" as it sounds.
If you want to learn to present a solid argument better, or to take apart someone else's, this is a fantastic book.
Crimes Against Logic is not only enjoyable but also simultaneously offers great insight into erroneous thought and action we all commit. It’s easy to identify other’s behavior that fit Whyte’s condemnations, but remember to also note your own fallacious quirks. As suggested by the title, the covered topics are addressed from an almost entirely logical standpoint; While I think there are certainly selected issues Whyte tackles that perhaps are deserving of additional consideration from another perspective, I think he is very fair with most of his arguments.
Enjoy the book !!!!

[Gregory Eakins · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is perfect for honing your critical thinking skills. Our world has become so trampled with widely accepted distortions of truth that the battlefield of facts vs fiction is becoming a muddy place to be.

Whyte goes beyond the most obvious logical fallacies we all (or most of us) learn about and tackles the more subtle one that are easy to fall into. His precision dismantling of these ideas is admirable. Here's an example of how he addresses the entitlement to one's opinion:

Even if the cliché that we are entitled to our opinions is not employed in the truly egregious way so far discussed, it is a part of a mindset that increasingly impedes the free flow of ideas and their robust assessment. Many people seem to feel that their opinions are somehow sacred, so that everyone else is obliged to handle them with great care. When confronted with counterarguments, they do not pause and wonder if they might be wrong after all. They take offense. The culture of caution this attitude generates is a serious obstacle to those who wish to get at the truth.

He goes on to many other problems in logic that we've all just come to accept.

My only wish is that he would have applied this to more real world examples.

This read should give you more than a few moments of learning and greatly improve the way you look at the information coming into your brain.