What do you think?
Rate this book
Pelican Books #21
Think Again: How to Reason and Argue
Our personal and political worlds are rife with arguments and disagreements, some of them petty and vitriolic. The inability to compromise and understand the opposition is epidemic today, from countries refusing to negotiate, to politicians pandering to their base. Social media has produced
a virulent world where extreme positions dominate. In most of these disagreements, parties yell at each other, very little progress is made, and the end result is a hardening (or further widening) of positions. There is however, such a thing as 'good' arguments. Arguments that offer reasons on
both sides can ultimately allow for some mutual understanding and respect, and even if neither party is convinced by the other, the possibility of compromise can result.
Sinnott-Armstrong's book shows the importance of good arguments and reveals common misunderstandings about them. Many people see an argument just as a means to persuade other people or beat them in an intellectual competition. Sinnott-Armstrong sees them as much more essential-as a means to play a
constructive role in the way we interact with each other. He shows the way out of the impasse by introducing readers to what makes a good argument. In clear, lively, and practical prose, and using plentiful examples from politics, popular culture, and everyday life, he introduces the reader to
topics such as: what defines an argument; the role that reasons play in arguments; the pieces that make up good arguments; what arguments can accomplish effectively; the difference between essential terms like deductive, inductive, and abductive in creating an argument; and how to spot fallacies in
others' arguments. Armed with these tools, Sinnott-Armstrong wants readers to be able to spot bad reasoning and bad arguments, and to advance their own view in a forceful and logical way-with an eye toward effective resolution of disputes.
a virulent world where extreme positions dominate. In most of these disagreements, parties yell at each other, very little progress is made, and the end result is a hardening (or further widening) of positions. There is however, such a thing as 'good' arguments. Arguments that offer reasons on
both sides can ultimately allow for some mutual understanding and respect, and even if neither party is convinced by the other, the possibility of compromise can result.
Sinnott-Armstrong's book shows the importance of good arguments and reveals common misunderstandings about them. Many people see an argument just as a means to persuade other people or beat them in an intellectual competition. Sinnott-Armstrong sees them as much more essential-as a means to play a
constructive role in the way we interact with each other. He shows the way out of the impasse by introducing readers to what makes a good argument. In clear, lively, and practical prose, and using plentiful examples from politics, popular culture, and everyday life, he introduces the reader to
topics such as: what defines an argument; the role that reasons play in arguments; the pieces that make up good arguments; what arguments can accomplish effectively; the difference between essential terms like deductive, inductive, and abductive in creating an argument; and how to spot fallacies in
others' arguments. Armed with these tools, Sinnott-Armstrong wants readers to be able to spot bad reasoning and bad arguments, and to advance their own view in a forceful and logical way-with an eye toward effective resolution of disputes.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2018
232 people are currently reading
2334 people want to read
About the author
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
33 books45 followersWalter Sinnott-Armstrong (born 1955) is an American philosopher specializing in ethics, epistemology, neuroethics, the philosophy of law, and the philosophy of cognitive science. He is a Professor of Practical Ethics in the Department of Philosophy and the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
July 13, 2020
Cartea asta e chiar ce trebuie acum, mai ales într-o țară în care nu există dezbateri, nu există argumente, nu există rațiune. Dacă nu vă place cu cititul sau nu vreți să dați bani pe carte, puteți urma cursul lui Sinnot-Armstrong. E disponibil pe coursera.org, gratuit. Sunt, de fapt, patru părți. Și plătiți 30 de dolari la fiecare dacă vreți și patalamaua de pus la cv. Ascultați seara, înainte de culcare, merge. Eu fac asta de ceva timp, după ce ochii nu mă mai lasă să citesc. Așa mi-am dat seama ce pierdere de timp erau serialele la care mă uitam seară de seară.
Cartea nu este pentru avansați, dar e excelentă pentru elevi și studenți și este o bună recapitulare și pentru cei care știu multe dintre aceste lucruri, doar că au ajuns să le ignore și se lasă târâți în dispute care, pentru că se presupune că trebuie să aibă un învingător, degenerează. Și toată lumea pierde dintr-o astfel de abordare. Ce propune, cu multe exemple, autorul acestei cărți (acestui curs) este să învățăm să discutăm și să ne susținem argumentele. Ideea ar fi să fim motivați, iar asta e valabil în toate aspectele vieții (nota mea), să înțelegem și să colaborăm, nu să fim egoiști și să vedem peste tot o competiție. Pe care trebuie s-o câștigăm, pentru că, nu-i așa, noi suntem deștepți și nu avem cum să nu avem dreptate. E o carte foarte bună și pentru politicieni sau pentru cei care vor să devină politicieni. După ce explică de ce ne certăm, unele exemple sunt excelente, autorul ne învață apoi și cum să nu ne certăm.
Ideea este că dacă reușești să identifici, analizezi și evaluezi argumentele altora (de la politicieni la vânzătorii de mașini), devii, la rândul tău, capabil să construiești argumente care să te ajute să iei cele mai bune decizii. Părerea mea, șapte din zece oameni care termină o facultate nu pot face asta.
Nu ratați finalul, cu niște reguli excelente de urmat. Și pentru că mulți nu vor ajunge să citească această carte, vi le spune rapid:
1. Admite că ai limite.
2. Învață în permanență.
3. Exersează.
4. Construiește-ți propriile argumente în legătură cu subiectele importante.
5. Folosește-ți abilitățile dobândite.
6. Învață-i pe alții.
Cartea nu este pentru avansați, dar e excelentă pentru elevi și studenți și este o bună recapitulare și pentru cei care știu multe dintre aceste lucruri, doar că au ajuns să le ignore și se lasă târâți în dispute care, pentru că se presupune că trebuie să aibă un învingător, degenerează. Și toată lumea pierde dintr-o astfel de abordare. Ce propune, cu multe exemple, autorul acestei cărți (acestui curs) este să învățăm să discutăm și să ne susținem argumentele. Ideea ar fi să fim motivați, iar asta e valabil în toate aspectele vieții (nota mea), să înțelegem și să colaborăm, nu să fim egoiști și să vedem peste tot o competiție. Pe care trebuie s-o câștigăm, pentru că, nu-i așa, noi suntem deștepți și nu avem cum să nu avem dreptate. E o carte foarte bună și pentru politicieni sau pentru cei care vor să devină politicieni. După ce explică de ce ne certăm, unele exemple sunt excelente, autorul ne învață apoi și cum să nu ne certăm.
Ideea este că dacă reușești să identifici, analizezi și evaluezi argumentele altora (de la politicieni la vânzătorii de mașini), devii, la rândul tău, capabil să construiești argumente care să te ajute să iei cele mai bune decizii. Părerea mea, șapte din zece oameni care termină o facultate nu pot face asta.
Nu ratați finalul, cu niște reguli excelente de urmat. Și pentru că mulți nu vor ajunge să citească această carte, vi le spune rapid:
1. Admite că ai limite.
2. Învață în permanență.
3. Exersează.
4. Construiește-ți propriile argumente în legătură cu subiectele importante.
5. Folosește-ți abilitățile dobândite.
6. Învață-i pe alții.
April 27, 2021
A solid book of not just how to argue, but why we need to argue, and how and why to argue well.
To explain further, this is a book that offers up some basic tenets of informal logic, but in a good-sneaky way. Sinnott-Armstrong does so in the process of explaining what argumentation is, how to analyze an argument, how to see its strength or weakness, how to make a reasonably but not naively charitable attempt to construct a structured informal logic argument out of something lacking structure and more.
That said, per some other reviewers that gave either four or three stars, not five? I think he does, even without encouraging naivete, encourage people to bend over backward too much. Plus, his own argument, especially if we follow his own schema for how to analyze an argument and how to extract a structured argument from something that is not structured, that we're in a uniquely uncivil era, doesn't ring true. Perhaps he's viewing modern America from Eisenhower-era rose-colored glasses behind a white picket fence, but the reason that era looked civil is that lots of people "knew their place."
Women and minorities of that era aside, is there some evidence that we've gotten somewhat more uncivil than at *certain times* in the past? Yes. But, without being naively charitable, per his own analysis suggestions, I think he's made a claim that, if not absolutist, is too close to absolutist. Look at the debates over the Constitution. Or Congress in the 1850s. Or to jump across the pond, the British Parliament over Irish Home Rule.
Or, this great Politico piece about political activism in the Gilded Age, that politics as ersatz religion ain't necessarily new: https://www.politico.com/news/magazin...
To explain further, this is a book that offers up some basic tenets of informal logic, but in a good-sneaky way. Sinnott-Armstrong does so in the process of explaining what argumentation is, how to analyze an argument, how to see its strength or weakness, how to make a reasonably but not naively charitable attempt to construct a structured informal logic argument out of something lacking structure and more.
That said, per some other reviewers that gave either four or three stars, not five? I think he does, even without encouraging naivete, encourage people to bend over backward too much. Plus, his own argument, especially if we follow his own schema for how to analyze an argument and how to extract a structured argument from something that is not structured, that we're in a uniquely uncivil era, doesn't ring true. Perhaps he's viewing modern America from Eisenhower-era rose-colored glasses behind a white picket fence, but the reason that era looked civil is that lots of people "knew their place."
Women and minorities of that era aside, is there some evidence that we've gotten somewhat more uncivil than at *certain times* in the past? Yes. But, without being naively charitable, per his own analysis suggestions, I think he's made a claim that, if not absolutist, is too close to absolutist. Look at the debates over the Constitution. Or Congress in the 1850s. Or to jump across the pond, the British Parliament over Irish Home Rule.
Or, this great Politico piece about political activism in the Gilded Age, that politics as ersatz religion ain't necessarily new: https://www.politico.com/news/magazin...
December 10, 2018
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
I always meant to take the Coursera class this is based on, but I never quite got round to it, so when I saw it’d been made into a book, well, that seemed likely to be a format that would work for me (and wait for me to get round to it, though as it happened, it didn’t have to wait long). I think it does have some good suggestions and some good analysis of ways to argue, but there are a couple of things I find difficult.
One is the claim that the world is increasingly polarised and things were better, people were more polite, in ye olde days of yore. Sure, it’s very clear that the discourse has changed, and Sinnott-Armstrong does have the receipts to show that we are more polarised in terms of our political view. On the other hand, I have a hard job seeing that as just a symbol of our current times: countries have been split by civil war before. People haven’t always been more polite or known how to argue or how to disagree civilly, and maybe the less-polarised times he’s holding up as a better time had their own problems (like people feeling unable to express their opinions, perhaps even feeling unsafe to do so, in the cases of a lot of minorities).
The other thing is the way Sinnott-Armstrong pushes always being civil, always giving the other person the benefit of the doubt. On the one hand, it feels like the right thing — I would love more civility in debates. But there are some views which are legitimised by being engaged with, and there are some things that are indefensible. Now it’s true that he does say that it’s not always the time to argue, but it really wasn’t clear to me that he understood the position his insistence on civility and hearing both sides would put some people in: debating with someone who believes that it’s simply a fact that they and everyone like them should be cleansed from the world, and asking them why, charitably reframing their argument… Ew. No. It comes across as very “good people on both sides”, and it’s not true.
Perhaps it’s a fault of it being a rather short book and limited space, but given he’s constantly framing the issue in terms of the political divide in the US, I wonder. I don’t feel that he quite gets out of it by simply stating that sometimes it isn’t the right time to argue. Maybe it’s just a matter of saying that you just can’t argue productively with some people/views, and he’s automatically discounting those right away. It didn’t feel like it, though, with some of his examples.
The book did make me want to try debating more instead of constantly either passing arguments by or dismissing people as too biased to bother. I do think it could be pretty useful when both parties are willing to argue in good faith. I doubt it’ll be an antidote to political polarisation right now, though, for most people — I think for many people, the other side (whichever that is) just isn’t willing to talk anymore. There’s too much at stake, and it’s too exhausting.
I always meant to take the Coursera class this is based on, but I never quite got round to it, so when I saw it’d been made into a book, well, that seemed likely to be a format that would work for me (and wait for me to get round to it, though as it happened, it didn’t have to wait long). I think it does have some good suggestions and some good analysis of ways to argue, but there are a couple of things I find difficult.
One is the claim that the world is increasingly polarised and things were better, people were more polite, in ye olde days of yore. Sure, it’s very clear that the discourse has changed, and Sinnott-Armstrong does have the receipts to show that we are more polarised in terms of our political view. On the other hand, I have a hard job seeing that as just a symbol of our current times: countries have been split by civil war before. People haven’t always been more polite or known how to argue or how to disagree civilly, and maybe the less-polarised times he’s holding up as a better time had their own problems (like people feeling unable to express their opinions, perhaps even feeling unsafe to do so, in the cases of a lot of minorities).
The other thing is the way Sinnott-Armstrong pushes always being civil, always giving the other person the benefit of the doubt. On the one hand, it feels like the right thing — I would love more civility in debates. But there are some views which are legitimised by being engaged with, and there are some things that are indefensible. Now it’s true that he does say that it’s not always the time to argue, but it really wasn’t clear to me that he understood the position his insistence on civility and hearing both sides would put some people in: debating with someone who believes that it’s simply a fact that they and everyone like them should be cleansed from the world, and asking them why, charitably reframing their argument… Ew. No. It comes across as very “good people on both sides”, and it’s not true.
Perhaps it’s a fault of it being a rather short book and limited space, but given he’s constantly framing the issue in terms of the political divide in the US, I wonder. I don’t feel that he quite gets out of it by simply stating that sometimes it isn’t the right time to argue. Maybe it’s just a matter of saying that you just can’t argue productively with some people/views, and he’s automatically discounting those right away. It didn’t feel like it, though, with some of his examples.
The book did make me want to try debating more instead of constantly either passing arguments by or dismissing people as too biased to bother. I do think it could be pretty useful when both parties are willing to argue in good faith. I doubt it’ll be an antidote to political polarisation right now, though, for most people — I think for many people, the other side (whichever that is) just isn’t willing to talk anymore. There’s too much at stake, and it’s too exhausting.
December 5, 2018
TL;DR
Think Again by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues effectively for improving recognition, evaluation, and consideration of political arguments. This timely, nonpartisan book of instructions teaches logical argument construction in a relatable, understandable method and is badly needed for tense political discussions. Recommended.
Disclosure
Oxford University Press provided an advanced electronic copy in exchange for an honest review. Review cross-posted at my website: PrimmLife
Review
Modern American society is one big competition for people’s attention. From phones to television to social media, our attention span decreased to nothing. At the same time, the so-called culture wars deepened the divide in our two party system. While political division exists all through US history, it is much more extreme than just twenty years ago. The rise of hostile political media contributes in part; fake news and foreign nations meddling in our elections plays a role; but in my opinion the main corrupter falls on political sound bites. Politicians, public relations consultants, and media personalities love distilling complex, societal issues down into small, simple phrases and slogans. Often, these slogans sound like propaganda instead of a nuanced, reasoned argument, and these sound bites allow people to feel well-read and in-touch with current politics when they are not. In Think Again, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong teaches us how to evaluate arguments based on principles of logic. Why Think Again? By using contemporary examples, Professor Sinnott-Armstrong lays out a process to improve political debating.
Think Again’s primary goal is to increase political debate for the entire political spectrum; it is a nonpartisan approach to bridge the divide. Professor Sinnott-Armstrong succeeds by returning to basic principles. If this book had a slogan, it’d be “First, seek to understand, then, to be understood.” In Sinnott-Armstrong’s opinion, being charitable in arguing is the path back to civil political discourse. To achieve this, we must ask questions of our political opponents. Even labeling the person as an opponent goes against the spirit of this book.
I found this text refreshing. In a political climate where invective, derision, and outright lies are standing operating procedure, this nuanced, balanced book feels mature and necessary. Professor Sinnott-Armstrong shows that political debate improves without name calling, without contempt. Because he uses contemporary examples, he gives us a step-by-step method for how to and how not to argue. I loved this book.
But Why Think Again
For the first roughly third of the book, Professor Sinnott-Armstrong lays out an argument for why we should debate. This section is the most important one in the book and separates it from other logic texts. It surveys the current state of political debate, and it provides a look at the pitfalls in which we currently engage. In this section, I saw a number of my own faults, and that led me to evaluate my own conduct. For me, that alone made the book a success. This section sets the book apart from another book on introductory logic. People should read this book before debating on Facebook or Twitter. It, without doubt, can improve our ability to argue, but it also requires study, work, and maintenance. This book requires a reread to learn all the methods. I struggled recognizing suppressed arguments; so, that presents an opportunity for personal improvement.
Writing
This book has a dry, academic tone but also a compassionate voice. It reminds me of all the best professors from my college days because Sinnott-Armstrong cares about the material and conveying the information. Though it read slowly, the pace picks up speed near the end. Through the use of contemporary examples, the reader can follow along to Walter’s method.
Conclusion
For a book that aims to teach, the key question of any review is: Does it work? Did it achieve its goal? The answer, resoundingly, is yes. Think Again works well as an instruction in logic, and it works well as a call to civility in political discourse. With a little work, this book can improve political literacy; it teaches us how to think critically. For anyone interested in politics, Think Again is a must have tool for the debating toolbox.
Think Again by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues effectively for improving recognition, evaluation, and consideration of political arguments. This timely, nonpartisan book of instructions teaches logical argument construction in a relatable, understandable method and is badly needed for tense political discussions. Recommended.
Disclosure
Oxford University Press provided an advanced electronic copy in exchange for an honest review. Review cross-posted at my website: PrimmLife
Review
Modern American society is one big competition for people’s attention. From phones to television to social media, our attention span decreased to nothing. At the same time, the so-called culture wars deepened the divide in our two party system. While political division exists all through US history, it is much more extreme than just twenty years ago. The rise of hostile political media contributes in part; fake news and foreign nations meddling in our elections plays a role; but in my opinion the main corrupter falls on political sound bites. Politicians, public relations consultants, and media personalities love distilling complex, societal issues down into small, simple phrases and slogans. Often, these slogans sound like propaganda instead of a nuanced, reasoned argument, and these sound bites allow people to feel well-read and in-touch with current politics when they are not. In Think Again, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong teaches us how to evaluate arguments based on principles of logic. Why Think Again? By using contemporary examples, Professor Sinnott-Armstrong lays out a process to improve political debating.
Think Again’s primary goal is to increase political debate for the entire political spectrum; it is a nonpartisan approach to bridge the divide. Professor Sinnott-Armstrong succeeds by returning to basic principles. If this book had a slogan, it’d be “First, seek to understand, then, to be understood.” In Sinnott-Armstrong’s opinion, being charitable in arguing is the path back to civil political discourse. To achieve this, we must ask questions of our political opponents. Even labeling the person as an opponent goes against the spirit of this book.
I found this text refreshing. In a political climate where invective, derision, and outright lies are standing operating procedure, this nuanced, balanced book feels mature and necessary. Professor Sinnott-Armstrong shows that political debate improves without name calling, without contempt. Because he uses contemporary examples, he gives us a step-by-step method for how to and how not to argue. I loved this book.
But Why Think Again
For the first roughly third of the book, Professor Sinnott-Armstrong lays out an argument for why we should debate. This section is the most important one in the book and separates it from other logic texts. It surveys the current state of political debate, and it provides a look at the pitfalls in which we currently engage. In this section, I saw a number of my own faults, and that led me to evaluate my own conduct. For me, that alone made the book a success. This section sets the book apart from another book on introductory logic. People should read this book before debating on Facebook or Twitter. It, without doubt, can improve our ability to argue, but it also requires study, work, and maintenance. This book requires a reread to learn all the methods. I struggled recognizing suppressed arguments; so, that presents an opportunity for personal improvement.
Writing
This book has a dry, academic tone but also a compassionate voice. It reminds me of all the best professors from my college days because Sinnott-Armstrong cares about the material and conveying the information. Though it read slowly, the pace picks up speed near the end. Through the use of contemporary examples, the reader can follow along to Walter’s method.
Conclusion
For a book that aims to teach, the key question of any review is: Does it work? Did it achieve its goal? The answer, resoundingly, is yes. Think Again works well as an instruction in logic, and it works well as a call to civility in political discourse. With a little work, this book can improve political literacy; it teaches us how to think critically. For anyone interested in politics, Think Again is a must have tool for the debating toolbox.
August 5, 2019
What I thought it would be: an engaging book about how to spot argumentative fallacies, not fall in them myself, and in general become a better participant in debates.
What it actually was: a rather dry exercise in explaining the basics of reasoning (premises, propositions, conclusion, evaluation, validity, soundness, completion, fallacies - that kind of stuff).
It would be unfair to ascribe my low score to this discrepancy between expectations and reality, but it was nevertheless quite a dull read, which did little to spark my interest into further engaging with the topic of argumentation.
What it actually was: a rather dry exercise in explaining the basics of reasoning (premises, propositions, conclusion, evaluation, validity, soundness, completion, fallacies - that kind of stuff).
It would be unfair to ascribe my low score to this discrepancy between expectations and reality, but it was nevertheless quite a dull read, which did little to spark my interest into further engaging with the topic of argumentation.
October 25, 2020
In works like this you run the risk of rating them at the extremes of either far too harshly for not being of greater depth or as superficially great but practically and academically lacking. As such I will try to review this book for what it is, and that is an introduction to reasoning and arguing in more purposeful ways and in more philosophically sound fashion. In this mission, it serves as an effective précis and will provide context and names for various forms of argument and disputation that you likely have found both compelling and spurious. Sinnott-Armstrong divides the work into three sections: Why to Argue, How to Argue, How Not to Argue. He provides cases from recent history to illustrate where arguments that sounded convincing at the time were self-evidently weak and reliant on well-known fallacies that we, the public, have become numb to due to overuse. His section on how to refute an argument is the one section that even in a short introductory work such as this, I wish were much longer as it is the most important topic presented and a greater amount of time was spent on argument construction proportionately. As a supplement to the last section of this work, I would also recommend you pick up a copy of Michael Withey's, "Mastering Logical Fallacies." However, this book itself is a fine introduction to the topic and would do society a great service if it became widely read as perhaps then we could all agree that we need to hold those in power to a much higher standard and more objectively evaluate their arguments...hey, a guy can dream...
November 16, 2023
Honestly, 2* for entertainment value but this is a great book! The topic is very interesting and I think Sinnott-Armstrong really delivers on his claim to give you the run down on how to argue. But regardless of how good it is as a piece of non-fiction, I can't ignore how fundamentally dry it was. It is such a slog to read and I struggled to enjoy it. We're talking 10 or so pages deconstructing arguments and interrogating their construction. Valuable? Sure! Entertaining? No!
That all being said, absolutely read this book! I think it's got great quotes, lots of content for its length and is very insightful. I'll suggest you prepare yourself before each time you open the cover by staring at a white wall for about 10 minutes or so.
That all being said, absolutely read this book! I think it's got great quotes, lots of content for its length and is very insightful. I'll suggest you prepare yourself before each time you open the cover by staring at a white wall for about 10 minutes or so.
April 19, 2020
Possibly the worst book I have ever read. I forced myself to finish it hoping it would have something to teach me but it was a complete waste of time. It's a poorly written, uninformative borefest.
The author spends 50% of the book complaining about how politicians don't know how to argue. He uses political examples throughout the book and he is very obviously left-leaning so he does a poor job of "seeing a situation from all perspectives", his own biases are showing.
The author spends 50% of the book complaining about how politicians don't know how to argue. He uses political examples throughout the book and he is very obviously left-leaning so he does a poor job of "seeing a situation from all perspectives", his own biases are showing.
June 24, 2018
A book describing how to reason / argue.
A few sections of this book were interesting, but overall it read like an academic work and there was too much padding.
A few sections of this book were interesting, but overall it read like an academic work and there was too much padding.
March 30, 2020
Summary:
This book comprises of 3 parts: part I - Why to argue, part II - How to argue, and part III - How to not argue. This book helps to separate between argument and discussion and provide plenty of techniques to support or refute an argument.
Worth reading?
The author explains again and again some simple ideas, and this bored me. The fact that this book comes from the author's experience of teaching MOOC course on Coursera. I feel that this book is a collection of lecture notes. I did find some interesting ideas and applicable technique, but I don't have enough patience to finish the book.
Nội dung tóm tắt:
Sách gồm 3 phần: phần 1 - Tại sao cần lập luận, phần 2 - Lập luận như thế nào, phần 3 - Làm thế nào để phản bác lập luận. Sách phân biệt giữa lập luận với việc tranh cãi và đưa ra nhiều kỹ thuật để ủng hộ hoặc phản bác một lập luận.
Có đáng đọc không:
Có một số nội dung tương đối dễ hiểu nhưng tác giả vẫn giải thích đi giải thích lại làm cho người đọc bị chán. Cuốn sách ra đời từ trải nghiệm của tác giả khi giảng dạy một khóa học về lập luận trên Coursera. Có lẽ vì thếnên cuốn sách giống như một tập hợp các bài giảng. Tôi tìm thấy một số kiến thức thú vị từ cuốn sách, nhưng cũng không đủ kiên nhẫn để đọc hết.
This book comprises of 3 parts: part I - Why to argue, part II - How to argue, and part III - How to not argue. This book helps to separate between argument and discussion and provide plenty of techniques to support or refute an argument.
Worth reading?
The author explains again and again some simple ideas, and this bored me. The fact that this book comes from the author's experience of teaching MOOC course on Coursera. I feel that this book is a collection of lecture notes. I did find some interesting ideas and applicable technique, but I don't have enough patience to finish the book.
Nội dung tóm tắt:
Sách gồm 3 phần: phần 1 - Tại sao cần lập luận, phần 2 - Lập luận như thế nào, phần 3 - Làm thế nào để phản bác lập luận. Sách phân biệt giữa lập luận với việc tranh cãi và đưa ra nhiều kỹ thuật để ủng hộ hoặc phản bác một lập luận.
Có đáng đọc không:
Có một số nội dung tương đối dễ hiểu nhưng tác giả vẫn giải thích đi giải thích lại làm cho người đọc bị chán. Cuốn sách ra đời từ trải nghiệm của tác giả khi giảng dạy một khóa học về lập luận trên Coursera. Có lẽ vì thếnên cuốn sách giống như một tập hợp các bài giảng. Tôi tìm thấy một số kiến thức thú vị từ cuốn sách, nhưng cũng không đủ kiên nhẫn để đọc hết.
October 28, 2019
¡Quedé fascinada con el autor antes de su libro! Tuve el gusto de tomar un MOOC de Coursera con Walter Sinnot-Armstrong a cargo; creo que tener el precedente de su voz y sus maneras de explicar, hizo la experiencia de leerlo más agradable y graciosa. Tiene muchos dad jokes.
Encuentro en este libro la oportunidad de hacer una evaluación de la disposición que creemos tener en pro del aprendizaje.
Los temas clave: la importancia de los argumentos, razonamiento, como valorar los argumentos en relación a la conclusión de sus premisas y como detectar y evadir falacias.
Este libro es encantador, claro e incisivo. Nos invita a dejar de lado la incivilidad y polarizaciones, fortalecer la tolerancia y mantener una postura curiosa durante la permanencia de nuestros días.
Encuentro en este libro la oportunidad de hacer una evaluación de la disposición que creemos tener en pro del aprendizaje.
Los temas clave: la importancia de los argumentos, razonamiento, como valorar los argumentos en relación a la conclusión de sus premisas y como detectar y evadir falacias.
Este libro es encantador, claro e incisivo. Nos invita a dejar de lado la incivilidad y polarizaciones, fortalecer la tolerancia y mantener una postura curiosa durante la permanencia de nuestros días.
January 30, 2019
This is a very informative and necessary book. We'd be so much better off if people just knew how to argue with each other and did it with the right attitude, that is, moved by a constructive desire for understanding and collaboration, instead of, as we see so often nowadays (just open your facebook), by competition and egoism. In this way this book is both educative and inspiring, and motivates you to further, more advance readings into the topic.
May 24, 2021
Someone at my old work gave this to me, not in a pointed way (I think there were a bunch of remaindered copies), but I was interested in the take a current philosopher and ethics professor would have on the state of debate at the moment and any potential solutions. The book talks a good game at the beginning, talking about polarised politics, and how aspects of social media has debased debate. But when it comes to solutions its rather frustrating, particularly as there is little engagement with the platforms on which debate has been debased. Arguments on twitter and facebook are not like arguments face to face, in how you can organise and obfuscate your premises and ignore and engage on points at will (and not least ad hominem insults that might otherwise get you punched on the nose).
And so when we get tot he solution part of the book it basically turns into a week one logic course - one what is a well formed formula, or arguments which can be logically defined. I did all this in my degree course, and most people won't have, but having a degree in Maths & Philosophy has not particularly given me an advantage on Twitter. Pointing out logical fallacies rarely wins the argument after all. So overall disappointing, and I don't think that it is even that accessible to the layman.
And so when we get tot he solution part of the book it basically turns into a week one logic course - one what is a well formed formula, or arguments which can be logically defined. I did all this in my degree course, and most people won't have, but having a degree in Maths & Philosophy has not particularly given me an advantage on Twitter. Pointing out logical fallacies rarely wins the argument after all. So overall disappointing, and I don't think that it is even that accessible to the layman.
April 3, 2022
Lots of highly detailed and bone-dry dissection of clauses, generalisations and assumptions in statements that no reasonable adult would take literally, to explain why you shouldn’t take those points literally.
I was quite entertained by this book at first, but my interest dwindled more with every chapter.
I was quite entertained by this book at first, but my interest dwindled more with every chapter.
June 7, 2020
Book explores wide world of arguments: types, fallacies, use, etc. Moreover author scrutinizes arguments by analysing some texts.
January 13, 2022
Easy to read, quite catchy, but maybe a little too political.
February 1, 2023
Didn’t finish, stopped at page 177.
The second half of the book took delight in logic discourse with examples that are overly too longwinded, specific and unfamiliar to some readers.
The second half of the book took delight in logic discourse with examples that are overly too longwinded, specific and unfamiliar to some readers.
April 14, 2023
A very good introductory book to get the basics on arguing and reasoning with others in a constructive way. The beginning is a bit slow and I personally found the style to be not my cup of tea, but I would recommend it to anyone. (Would have gave 3.5/5 but it's not possible)
August 4, 2018
An interesting read , especially in this day and age, about how you should look at the things people say (mainly political).
October 19, 2024
I mean, good book? Pero siento que es muy manipulador. Lo que más me llevo es un apartado donde explica que la gente utiliza generalizaciones para darle más validez a su argumento sin tener que abarcar el source de donde proviene el mismo, por ejemplo: “Varias personas me lo han dicho”, okay? Quien es varias, cuanto es varias, esperan que caigas bajo la ilusión de que un cuantificador/generalizador le de validez a su argumento, influyendo miedo en ti, debido a la gran magnitud de personas que están de acuerdo con el mismo, evitando revelar la fuente de dicho “varios”, independientemente si este correcto o no, si realmente hay diversas personas que concuerdan con el argumento o simplemente está utilizando un generalizador para describir las 2-3 personas que consulto. Esta interesante el libro, definitivamente no es una lectura rápida, tienes que sentarte a reflexionar todo lo que dice, principalmente se enfoca en ejemplos de EE.UU, especialmente en la política, ejemplos de izquierda y derecha, rojo y azul, liberales, demócratas, republicanos, conservadores, son ejemplos muy interesantes. Este libro te convence de varias cosas, no me lo tomaría al pie de la letra todo lo que dice, pues considero que no todo el mundo es igual de malo a como lo hace parecer el libro, no todo el mundo tiene malas intenciones, pero definitivamente te abre los ojos hacia idéntico aquellos que si las tienen.
También aprendí que cuando una persona resalta que lo que está a punto de decir es su opinión o lo basa en sus experiencias, se debe principalmente a que quieren debilitar su argumento a propósito, en dado caso que se consejo no sea de utilidad o parecer, a final de cuentas no tiene tanto poder/firmeza el argumento, pues viene de experiencia propia/opinión propia. Digamos, si una persona dice: Te aconsejo hacer esto, porque así me pasó a mí, es solo opinión propia. Si este consejo termina arruinando tu vida, la otra persona no tiene la culpa, a final de cuentas disminuyó la fortaleza de se argumento con ese “es mi opinión”.
Finalmente, me llevo mucho la idea de que hay ciertos argumentos que las personas hacen a propósito para adquirir ventaja, apoyo del público. Por ejemplo, cuando una persona busca insultarte, hacerte ver como un payaso, lo hace estratégicamente para ver si el público que los rodea están de acuerdo con el o no, el público está de su lado o del mío, si el público llega a reírse del insulto, eres tú contra el público y la otra persona, no es una búsqueda de aprendizaje, es una búsqueda por querer hacer al otro ver mal/quedar mal.
En si, construyes un argumento, identificas los puntos débiles en tu argumento y los intentas evitar, estructura tus palabras de manera adecuada y estratégica para hacer que el argumento pegue, que la otra persona no logre tirar tu argumento, si esta persona está abierta a aprender de ti y entenderte, genuinamente aceptará tu argumento dará su opinión y aprenderá a vivir con ello, pero si se enoja o algo por el estilo, está persona solo estaba intentando ganarte, hacerte ver mal, no estaba buscando el aprendizaje.
NOTA IMPORTANTE:
El libro no busca enseñarte a ganar un argumento, cuando buscas ganar eso ya no es un argumento, es un debate, el libro busca concientizar sobre la argumentación de manera cívica, un mundo donde nos escuchamos mutuamente, queriendo aprender del uno al otro, independientemente de nuestras creencias y mentalidades, consiste en despejarte de todo lo que eres, intentar tu mejor para ver de dónde y porque vienen dichos argumentos del lado opuesto, ya sea una persona o un grupo. Puede ser que el argumento termine en entendimiento mutuo donde se llega a un acuerdo final que satisface a la gran mayoría de la población, pero nunca busques influir tus creencias a otros, tus creencias son válidas, más bien solo porque son tus creencias, no significa que son las únicas válidas.
También aprendí que cuando una persona resalta que lo que está a punto de decir es su opinión o lo basa en sus experiencias, se debe principalmente a que quieren debilitar su argumento a propósito, en dado caso que se consejo no sea de utilidad o parecer, a final de cuentas no tiene tanto poder/firmeza el argumento, pues viene de experiencia propia/opinión propia. Digamos, si una persona dice: Te aconsejo hacer esto, porque así me pasó a mí, es solo opinión propia. Si este consejo termina arruinando tu vida, la otra persona no tiene la culpa, a final de cuentas disminuyó la fortaleza de se argumento con ese “es mi opinión”.
Finalmente, me llevo mucho la idea de que hay ciertos argumentos que las personas hacen a propósito para adquirir ventaja, apoyo del público. Por ejemplo, cuando una persona busca insultarte, hacerte ver como un payaso, lo hace estratégicamente para ver si el público que los rodea están de acuerdo con el o no, el público está de su lado o del mío, si el público llega a reírse del insulto, eres tú contra el público y la otra persona, no es una búsqueda de aprendizaje, es una búsqueda por querer hacer al otro ver mal/quedar mal.
En si, construyes un argumento, identificas los puntos débiles en tu argumento y los intentas evitar, estructura tus palabras de manera adecuada y estratégica para hacer que el argumento pegue, que la otra persona no logre tirar tu argumento, si esta persona está abierta a aprender de ti y entenderte, genuinamente aceptará tu argumento dará su opinión y aprenderá a vivir con ello, pero si se enoja o algo por el estilo, está persona solo estaba intentando ganarte, hacerte ver mal, no estaba buscando el aprendizaje.
NOTA IMPORTANTE:
El libro no busca enseñarte a ganar un argumento, cuando buscas ganar eso ya no es un argumento, es un debate, el libro busca concientizar sobre la argumentación de manera cívica, un mundo donde nos escuchamos mutuamente, queriendo aprender del uno al otro, independientemente de nuestras creencias y mentalidades, consiste en despejarte de todo lo que eres, intentar tu mejor para ver de dónde y porque vienen dichos argumentos del lado opuesto, ya sea una persona o un grupo. Puede ser que el argumento termine en entendimiento mutuo donde se llega a un acuerdo final que satisface a la gran mayoría de la población, pero nunca busques influir tus creencias a otros, tus creencias son válidas, más bien solo porque son tus creencias, no significa que son las únicas válidas.
November 15, 2018
A good book on the art of debate; Sinnott-Armstrong deconstructs arguments used during the Brexit campaign, the 2016 American election and opinions to do with immigration. He deconstructs arguments to see whether they are valid and teaches the reader how to better construct arguments and argue correctly for their point. He posits that we are now in a heated political climate in which the left is unwilling to listen to the right and vice versa; people have become more polarised and reluctant to debate with the other side. Indeed, left-wingers and right-wingers of each nation have become more radicalised and more likely to dismiss their opponents as, stupid/greedy/crazy (insert other offensive adjective here). He also notes that most people have friends and family of the same political persuasions and that it is dangerous for democracy if we do not engage with other points of view, as diversity of opinion is a wonderful thing and can instigate informed change. Often, each side wants to shut down opponents without listening to them, as evidenced in British and American politics, but we need to debate and argue with the other side, rather than ignoring and insulting them.
The author also breaks down the dichotomy between reasons vs emotions, i.e. that you can only make a decision or have an opinion that is rooted in logic or emotion; this is not always correct, as often reason can precede emotions, e.g. when you become happy because you've made the correct decision (made logically). Also, the correct way to bring someone about to your POV is not to explain why they're wrong, but to ask questions, as "questions are more powerful than assertions". He states that it is better to ask a how the opposition's proposal works, rather than why they hold their beliefs. Causing the other side to break down the "how" reasons for their argument may make them see that they do not really know their position well enough and may push them to come round to a different POV (or at the very least make them weaker in their own POV).
Other interesting bits:
-Reddit's Change My View forums
-"Sceptics are not satisfied by any argument unless it rules out every contrary possibility and convinces everyone."
-When inductive generalisations are made, it's important to ask whether the premises are true (obvs), the sample size and whether the sample size might be biased (through the framing of the question for example or whether they were chosen from a specific areas which brings out certain biases).
The author also breaks down the dichotomy between reasons vs emotions, i.e. that you can only make a decision or have an opinion that is rooted in logic or emotion; this is not always correct, as often reason can precede emotions, e.g. when you become happy because you've made the correct decision (made logically). Also, the correct way to bring someone about to your POV is not to explain why they're wrong, but to ask questions, as "questions are more powerful than assertions". He states that it is better to ask a how the opposition's proposal works, rather than why they hold their beliefs. Causing the other side to break down the "how" reasons for their argument may make them see that they do not really know their position well enough and may push them to come round to a different POV (or at the very least make them weaker in their own POV).
Other interesting bits:
-Reddit's Change My View forums
-"Sceptics are not satisfied by any argument unless it rules out every contrary possibility and convinces everyone."
-When inductive generalisations are made, it's important to ask whether the premises are true (obvs), the sample size and whether the sample size might be biased (through the framing of the question for example or whether they were chosen from a specific areas which brings out certain biases).
November 15, 2019
I read this as an evaluation of resources for my Philosophy Cafe program at the library. All in all, I found the writing and the content to be accessible to the average person, and I thought the examples were timely and the politics in the background is what is needed for people right now. (The author shows how to structure an argument, how to win an argument and the structure of your opponents arguments as segments of the book.) Worth the time if you want to find, make, or understand the structure of arguments or their place in philosophy.
January 16, 2022
What I liked: the political inclination of the author is not visible throughout the book. It’s nice to not be biased towards left or right since we are usually surrounded by like-minded people. It would be an important book for whoever is very fanatic about one political party or ideology. Not exactly what I expected as it was more of an approachable version of the philosophy classes we had in college rather than a practical “guide” but it’s still a good reminder of all the fallacies we should be spotting in the speeches.
September 25, 2022
"Think Again: How to Reason and Argue" by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.
"Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is an American philosopher specializing in ethics, epistemology, neuroethics, the philosophy of law, and the philosophy of cognitive science. He is the Chauncey Stillman Professor of Practical Ethics in the Department of Philosophy and the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University." perhaps that is what wiki said Lmao. It's like " Philo" or ၾလေႃ,/ဖလော in Shan/Burma languages. "Philo" is one of the cheapest majors :/ I often heard people say.
Here's a link: click it for more detail about him
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_...
Without further ado, let's dive into the book, shall we?
The book is divided into three parts:
PART1: WHY TO ARGUE
INTERMISSION: FORM WHY TO HOW
PART2: HOW TO ARGUE
PART3: HOW NOT TO ARGUE
PART1: WHY TO ARGUE
There are so many reasons. Some might be seeking of amusement, some might be due to real problems and it's necessary to argue about the matter. The book mostly talks about the political conflict between two parties and Religion for example. "So Close and Yet So Far", why is this happening, one of the reasons is we rarely took our time and listen to our opponents and second we must agree to only our allies. Like social media feeds, we only follow the parties that we like not our opponents. And, so this leads to polarization. "These attitudes undermine respect, connection, and cooperation. You hold your position. I hold mine. I cannot comprehend how you could be so blind. You have no idea why I am so stubborn. I do not respect your views. You return the favour. We abuse and come to despise each other. I do not want to meet with you. You do not want to deal with me. I refuse to compromise. So do you. Neither of us is open to any possibility of cooperation. No progress is made. Sad!"
It's fun to read something like this because I think that's exactly what is happening in our countries.
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
The answer is that many people have stopped giving reasons of their own and looking for reasons for opposing positions. Even when they give and receive reasons, they do so in a biased and uncritical way, so they fail to understand the reasons on each side of the issue.
HOW DO WE GET OUT OF HERE?
I think what he wants to express here as the following present reasons and arguments are that Negotiation is one of the best keys . "You and me, we are arguing for example, when I give you my reason for you to justify my claim, my reason helps you understand why I believe that my claim is true. Similarly, when you give me a reason for your claim. your reason helps me understand why you believe your claim. Our reasons can achieve these goals without convincing either of us to change our minds at all. We might continue to disagree, but at least we understand each other better. That mutual understanding is what helps us work together."
This book also mentions so part of the political Trump, president of the United State. In his selection debate with commentator, Ben Shapiro, Trump said," The democrats are fully extreme. They are fully insane. They are nutcases, they are nuts. The democrats are out of their damn minds. They are out of their damn minds." It's one of the most disgusting speeches that he could have said to his opponents, in my opinion. Just by saying that, his opponent was crazy, he's simply blocking reasons and valuable arguments that could have been much better. 3.5 out of 5
"Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is an American philosopher specializing in ethics, epistemology, neuroethics, the philosophy of law, and the philosophy of cognitive science. He is the Chauncey Stillman Professor of Practical Ethics in the Department of Philosophy and the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University." perhaps that is what wiki said Lmao. It's like " Philo" or ၾလေႃ,/ဖလော in Shan/Burma languages. "Philo" is one of the cheapest majors :/ I often heard people say.
Here's a link: click it for more detail about him
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_...
Without further ado, let's dive into the book, shall we?
The book is divided into three parts:
PART1: WHY TO ARGUE
INTERMISSION: FORM WHY TO HOW
PART2: HOW TO ARGUE
PART3: HOW NOT TO ARGUE
PART1: WHY TO ARGUE
There are so many reasons. Some might be seeking of amusement, some might be due to real problems and it's necessary to argue about the matter. The book mostly talks about the political conflict between two parties and Religion for example. "So Close and Yet So Far", why is this happening, one of the reasons is we rarely took our time and listen to our opponents and second we must agree to only our allies. Like social media feeds, we only follow the parties that we like not our opponents. And, so this leads to polarization. "These attitudes undermine respect, connection, and cooperation. You hold your position. I hold mine. I cannot comprehend how you could be so blind. You have no idea why I am so stubborn. I do not respect your views. You return the favour. We abuse and come to despise each other. I do not want to meet with you. You do not want to deal with me. I refuse to compromise. So do you. Neither of us is open to any possibility of cooperation. No progress is made. Sad!"
It's fun to read something like this because I think that's exactly what is happening in our countries.
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
The answer is that many people have stopped giving reasons of their own and looking for reasons for opposing positions. Even when they give and receive reasons, they do so in a biased and uncritical way, so they fail to understand the reasons on each side of the issue.
HOW DO WE GET OUT OF HERE?
I think what he wants to express here as the following present reasons and arguments are that Negotiation is one of the best keys . "You and me, we are arguing for example, when I give you my reason for you to justify my claim, my reason helps you understand why I believe that my claim is true. Similarly, when you give me a reason for your claim. your reason helps me understand why you believe your claim. Our reasons can achieve these goals without convincing either of us to change our minds at all. We might continue to disagree, but at least we understand each other better. That mutual understanding is what helps us work together."
This book also mentions so part of the political Trump, president of the United State. In his selection debate with commentator, Ben Shapiro, Trump said," The democrats are fully extreme. They are fully insane. They are nutcases, they are nuts. The democrats are out of their damn minds. They are out of their damn minds." It's one of the most disgusting speeches that he could have said to his opponents, in my opinion. Just by saying that, his opponent was crazy, he's simply blocking reasons and valuable arguments that could have been much better. 3.5 out of 5
January 9, 2021
End of Week 41: Book 41 Completed: Think Again – Walter Sinnott-Armstrong #myread4change #read2lead #read4life #books
Word Argument has very negative connotation to it. Like it quoted by many famous authors.
I have come to the conclusion that there is only one way under high heaven to get the best of an
Argument, and that is to avoid it. - Dale Carnegie
Arguments are to be avoided, they are always vulgar and often convincing. – Oscar Wilde
Author of Think again differs and claims that “although we cannot always reason with everyone, that limitation does not show that arguments and reasoning are not useful”
Think again teaches how to gain win-win outcome, learn, teach and adapt without losing our cool, sanity and end up hating others or being hated.
What we can gain from Argument –
•Learning – when we are open to reason with someone opposite view we can learn new perspective and then it’s up to us change our position.
•Respect – When we are open and ask for reason, we show respect to other person and their view and others will be more considerate to listen to our reason.
•Humility – Apart from showing and gaining respect, we learn humility if we are open to reason and ask appropriate questions. Author suggest to ask ‘HOW’ rather than ‘WHY’.
•Abstraction – Arguments can also undermine polarization. If people are more humble and modest, they are less likely to adopt extreme positions.
•Compromise – As both parties have opponents reason for their position and what they value most, it will be much easier to draw middle path.
Points to be considered for healthy argument-
•Don’t simply declare what you believe. Give reason.
•Ask questions or reason for others position.
•Listen attentively with open mind.
•Be critical of your own reasoning. Don’t think that you have all the answers. Be humble.
One must avoid below points for healthy argument-
•Don’t let others merely announce their positions. Ask questions about their reasons.
•Don’t interrupt. Listen carefully to their reason. (This is the most difficult for most people)
•Don’t attack opponents too soon. Interpret their reason charitably.
•Don’t insult or abuse opponents.
It is one time read for gaining good knowledge when to argue, how to argue and how not to argue.
Word Argument has very negative connotation to it. Like it quoted by many famous authors.
I have come to the conclusion that there is only one way under high heaven to get the best of an
Argument, and that is to avoid it. - Dale Carnegie
Arguments are to be avoided, they are always vulgar and often convincing. – Oscar Wilde
Author of Think again differs and claims that “although we cannot always reason with everyone, that limitation does not show that arguments and reasoning are not useful”
Think again teaches how to gain win-win outcome, learn, teach and adapt without losing our cool, sanity and end up hating others or being hated.
What we can gain from Argument –
•Learning – when we are open to reason with someone opposite view we can learn new perspective and then it’s up to us change our position.
•Respect – When we are open and ask for reason, we show respect to other person and their view and others will be more considerate to listen to our reason.
•Humility – Apart from showing and gaining respect, we learn humility if we are open to reason and ask appropriate questions. Author suggest to ask ‘HOW’ rather than ‘WHY’.
•Abstraction – Arguments can also undermine polarization. If people are more humble and modest, they are less likely to adopt extreme positions.
•Compromise – As both parties have opponents reason for their position and what they value most, it will be much easier to draw middle path.
Points to be considered for healthy argument-
•Don’t simply declare what you believe. Give reason.
•Ask questions or reason for others position.
•Listen attentively with open mind.
•Be critical of your own reasoning. Don’t think that you have all the answers. Be humble.
One must avoid below points for healthy argument-
•Don’t let others merely announce their positions. Ask questions about their reasons.
•Don’t interrupt. Listen carefully to their reason. (This is the most difficult for most people)
•Don’t attack opponents too soon. Interpret their reason charitably.
•Don’t insult or abuse opponents.
It is one time read for gaining good knowledge when to argue, how to argue and how not to argue.
August 8, 2024
"This book is not about winning arguments or beating opponents. Instead, it is about understanding each other and appreciating strong evidence. It teaches logic instead of rhetorical tricks."
This book took me months to read. Not because it is arduous to comprehend, but the limited time that I have now and it doesn't make me have the urge to come back for more. Don't get me wrong. It is an enjoyable and methodological book that is structured coherently for the reader to understand why the argument is important and also why reasons are imperative. Just that, I think an argument is likewise a sport, which cultivates and learns from empirical practices. But of course, having to read the book made me realize the foundation of epistemology. For instance:
Argument makers indicate the presence of argument – but not always. We cannot simply look at the words. We need to think about what they mean in context.
This reminds me of the philosophical school from Bertrand Russell, Analytic Philosophy. Which he elaborates as "Philosophical Syntax".
Another one:
To avoid skepticism, we just need to moderate our desires, hopes, and standards. We need to learn to live with what we can accomplish, even if that is not all that skeptics might have wished.
A very true post-modernist thought that advocates the way of pragmatism. The author believes, that arguments can often achieve important practical goals, even if these practical goals are limited. It applies in the domain of public service, political spectrum, economic value, and more.
Nonetheless, It is a book that is easy to comprehend in a very structural essay with few chapters on the importance of arguments and also how to evaluate arguments. Also, most importantly, it is the last few chapters that dissect the strategic way to refute arguments with reasons and create doubt for the premises of each argument that sparks my interest to keep going to read. Overall, a very good book to begin with for those who ought to know more about rhetorical and easy to comprehend too.
October 24, 2020
This book was not what I expected
The more I read, the more I find that the author is not lacking in knowledge or experience on the subject, but that perhaps it would be more productive to read a structured logic book as such. At the end of the book I do not rescue much more than a very long and convoluted collection of examples of types of syllogisms and fallacies.
And as a result of this reading, I am even more pessimistic about reasoning as a tool for understanding, because it seems much closer to utopia than reality.
Unhappy examples (to my liking) in many cases. The depth varies throughout the book and makes each individual analysis seem correct, but it does not hold up as a whole. It is obvious that the forest and the tree are not confused when viewed at the correct distance, but it is also obvious that there is no "correct" distance in common for all cases. That there will always be a point where it is not clear what the object of analysis is if the depth of the analysis is varied. You cannot see an elephant coming when you are concentrating on following the ants.
Even worse. There is not even a consensus about the "logic" of an argument. He says "The absurd is sometimes in the eye of the beholder."
I think I can summarize the book in a quote from the same book: “Arguments will never satisfy anyone whose standards are too high, such as those who seek certainty; but they can still be very useful for people with reasonable goals, like justifying their conclusion to reasonable moderates with open minds. "
My conclusion is that I didn't have read this book if I had known that I am only going to understand those who I already understand.
For me, a BIG waste of time.
The more I read, the more I find that the author is not lacking in knowledge or experience on the subject, but that perhaps it would be more productive to read a structured logic book as such. At the end of the book I do not rescue much more than a very long and convoluted collection of examples of types of syllogisms and fallacies.
And as a result of this reading, I am even more pessimistic about reasoning as a tool for understanding, because it seems much closer to utopia than reality.
Unhappy examples (to my liking) in many cases. The depth varies throughout the book and makes each individual analysis seem correct, but it does not hold up as a whole. It is obvious that the forest and the tree are not confused when viewed at the correct distance, but it is also obvious that there is no "correct" distance in common for all cases. That there will always be a point where it is not clear what the object of analysis is if the depth of the analysis is varied. You cannot see an elephant coming when you are concentrating on following the ants.
Even worse. There is not even a consensus about the "logic" of an argument. He says "The absurd is sometimes in the eye of the beholder."
I think I can summarize the book in a quote from the same book: “Arguments will never satisfy anyone whose standards are too high, such as those who seek certainty; but they can still be very useful for people with reasonable goals, like justifying their conclusion to reasonable moderates with open minds. "
My conclusion is that I didn't have read this book if I had known that I am only going to understand those who I already understand.
For me, a BIG waste of time.
November 17, 2020
This book is about argumentation and reasoning. It briefly and adequately outlines the rules of proper logical reasoning as well as the social contexts under which we reason. The principle conclusion is that reasoning in general is a good thing that people should engage in and try to improve it in themselves as it can lead to better decisions, improving your ideas and that of others. This conclusion being contrary to many peoples belief of the degraded value of good reasoning and argumentation. He discusses how people should come to arguments with the right mind set. One that begins with civility that accepts that the other person has reasons themselves and that you need to be open to their points of view and evaluate them as objectively and without bias to the greatest extent possible.
He also discuses the current state of polarization in the world where no one seems to really care about getting at the truth but rather only care about maintaining a mindset, a belief etc, regardless of any conflicting or counterfactual information. He states that we have forgotten how to argue and therefore forgotten about the underlying values that support good argumentation. Values such as
modesty (or not claiming to possess the whole truth),
graciousness (including conceding opponents’ good points),
patience (in waiting for audiences to think through our points), and
forgiveness (when an opponent refuses to concede our own good points).
I think this part of the book is the most important as it examines why we should argue and what value can come of it . it is a difficult but rewarding endeavour that can lead us to a better and more open/just society. I thoroughly recommend this book.
He also discuses the current state of polarization in the world where no one seems to really care about getting at the truth but rather only care about maintaining a mindset, a belief etc, regardless of any conflicting or counterfactual information. He states that we have forgotten how to argue and therefore forgotten about the underlying values that support good argumentation. Values such as
modesty (or not claiming to possess the whole truth),
graciousness (including conceding opponents’ good points),
patience (in waiting for audiences to think through our points), and
forgiveness (when an opponent refuses to concede our own good points).
I think this part of the book is the most important as it examines why we should argue and what value can come of it . it is a difficult but rewarding endeavour that can lead us to a better and more open/just society. I thoroughly recommend this book.
September 13, 2024
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's Think Again: How to Reason and Argue is a refreshing departure from the typical self-help book. Instead of focusing on personal growth or motivation, Sinnott-Armstrong delves into the world of critical thinking and argumentation.
The premise is simple: We all make mistakes in our reasoning, and these mistakes can have serious consequences. Sinnott-Armstrong offers a clear and concise guide to avoiding these pitfalls and becoming a more effective thinker.
What I liked:
Clear and concise: The book is well-organized and easy to follow, even for those who aren't familiar with philosophy or logic.
Practical examples: Sinnott-Armstrong uses real-world examples to illustrate his points, making the material more relatable.
A sense of humor: The book is surprisingly entertaining, with a few witty observations and anecdotes thrown in for good measure.
What I didn't like:
A bit academic: While the book is accessible to a general audience, there are some sections that might be a bit dense for those who aren't interested in the nitty-gritty of logic.
A focus on Western thinking: The book primarily focuses on Western philosophical traditions, which might not be representative of all cultures.
Think Again is a valuable resource for anyone who wants to improve their critical thinking skills. It's a thought-provoking and informative book that will help you become a more rational and effective thinker.
Just a word of warning: Don't expect to become a master debater overnight. It takes practice and patience to develop your critical thinking skills. But with Sinnott-Armstrong's guidance, you'll be well on your way.
The premise is simple: We all make mistakes in our reasoning, and these mistakes can have serious consequences. Sinnott-Armstrong offers a clear and concise guide to avoiding these pitfalls and becoming a more effective thinker.
What I liked:
Clear and concise: The book is well-organized and easy to follow, even for those who aren't familiar with philosophy or logic.
Practical examples: Sinnott-Armstrong uses real-world examples to illustrate his points, making the material more relatable.
A sense of humor: The book is surprisingly entertaining, with a few witty observations and anecdotes thrown in for good measure.
What I didn't like:
A bit academic: While the book is accessible to a general audience, there are some sections that might be a bit dense for those who aren't interested in the nitty-gritty of logic.
A focus on Western thinking: The book primarily focuses on Western philosophical traditions, which might not be representative of all cultures.
Think Again is a valuable resource for anyone who wants to improve their critical thinking skills. It's a thought-provoking and informative book that will help you become a more rational and effective thinker.
Just a word of warning: Don't expect to become a master debater overnight. It takes practice and patience to develop your critical thinking skills. But with Sinnott-Armstrong's guidance, you'll be well on your way.
February 27, 2021
El libro es una introducción muy útil y completa al proceso de argumentar y razonar. Es curioso que llamó mi atención debido a tener el mismo título que un curso de Coursera al que me apunté y que acabé por no completar. No fue así con este libro, que he devorado bastante rápido. Estructuralmente, el libro parte de una explicación de la problemática situación actual, en la que la argumentación brilla por su ausencia en el espacio público, para a continuación explicar por que la discusión argumentada y el razonamiento "públicos" son importantes - para encontrar la verdad (o algo que se le acerque) de un modo más fiable y para evitar silenciar voces disidentes minimizando la alienación y facilitando que contribuyan a la construcción de la verdad.
A continuación el libro pasa a explicar el proceso argumentativo y como analizar argumentos para verificar su validez y su solidez. Puntos clave son la discusón de los objetivos diferenciados de los argumentos deductivos, que buscan la valided generalizada, y los inductivos, que se centran en casos específicos y por tanto no buscan validez generalizada sino simplemente solidez. Por otro lado la discusión al respecto del análisis argumental profundo y la explicación del proceso de reconstrucción argumental para descubrir la solidez de los argumentos y encontrar sus fallos es muy ilustrativa.
A continuación el libro pasa a explicar el proceso argumentativo y como analizar argumentos para verificar su validez y su solidez. Puntos clave son la discusón de los objetivos diferenciados de los argumentos deductivos, que buscan la valided generalizada, y los inductivos, que se centran en casos específicos y por tanto no buscan validez generalizada sino simplemente solidez. Por otro lado la discusión al respecto del análisis argumental profundo y la explicación del proceso de reconstrucción argumental para descubrir la solidez de los argumentos y encontrar sus fallos es muy ilustrativa.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews