What do you think?
Rate this book
Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic
***LIMITED TIME PROMOTIONAL PRICE***
Your argument is valid and you know it; yet once again you find yourself leaving a debate feeling defeated and embarrassed. The matter is only made worse when you realize that your defeat came at the hands of someone’s abuse of logic—and that with the right skills you could have won the argument.
The ability to recognize logical fallacies when they occur is an essential life skill. Mastering Logical Fallacies is the clearest, boldest, and most systematic guide to dominating the rules and tactics of successful arguments. This book offers methodical breakdowns of the logical fallacies behind exceedingly common, yet detrimental, argumentative mistakes, and explores them through real life examples of logic-gone-wrong.
Designed for those who are ready to gain the upper hand over their opponents, this master class teaches the necessary skills to identify your opponents’ misuse of logic and construct effective, arguments that win. With the empowering strategies offered in Mastering Logical Fallacies you’ll be able to reveal the slight-of-hand flaws in your challengers’ rhetoric, and seize control of the argument with bulletproof logic.
Audible Audio
First published June 21, 2016
803 people are currently reading
1165 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
May 28, 2020
Too new at rhetoric to provide an informed review of the content.
The book design however, is top notch. Lots of color, white space and illustrations to help the mind digest all that heavy logic.
The book design however, is top notch. Lots of color, white space and illustrations to help the mind digest all that heavy logic.
February 23, 2017
I started out liking Michael Whitney’s book a lot. I thought the layout made sense, where after the chapter title, the author would present the logic statement (i.e., Person A makes claim P; person B states that A has a bad character; therefore, P is false). This is followed by a layman’s definition: Attacking a speaker’s argument by insulting the speaker. An example followed by a real-life example furnish more knowledge, and the author then demonstrates the mistake and shares the solution, or Comeback.
As I continued to read, I began to notice an irritating pattern. Political examples filtered in, and every example was a slam toward one of the American political parties. Here are a couple examples:
Trump’s “…wild denunciations of Washington, the media, immigrants, Muslims and other sundry figures, despite rendering him a figure of ridicule in the mainstream media, have been instrumental in the success of his presidential campaign.” This example of Appeal to Anger demonstrates the author’s contradiction in the very next argument he presents, Appeal to Authority. The author presents Trump as a figure or ridicule by presenting the mainstream media as an authority, and ignores the fact that a majority of people were not angry, but voted for Trump because he made sense to them. The mainstream media also presented the polls that said Trump would lose, which to me causes the mainstream media to lose credibility. Let’s try another…
We all know that numbers can be twisted to make them work for an argument, whether it is made by the Democrats or the Republicans. The author’s example for Appeal to Desperation, which was the 2012 Republicans proposal to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to try to stem the rising deficit, is refuted by Paul Krugman, noted for his economic views which run counter to Republican views, thus providing a slanted outlook that will obviously back up the author’s point. If you’re going to set up an example in a book claiming to rebuke logical fallacies, I would suggest finding credible examples that don’t have the author grinding a political ax.
Personally, I don’t care where the author’s political loyalties lie, but I didn’t purchase this book to learn his views on the current system in America today. I wanted to study logical fallacies, not detour around snarky political comments. At other times, religious views were used as examples. It is not a question of whether these were the best examples that could be found, and I am sure there were reliable examples that could be substituted. Instead, my question is why use examples that are guaranteed to rile your potential customer base? To me, THAT isn’t logical.
So – decent book if you don’t mind the periodic digs at religion and conservative thought. Three stars.
As I continued to read, I began to notice an irritating pattern. Political examples filtered in, and every example was a slam toward one of the American political parties. Here are a couple examples:
Trump’s “…wild denunciations of Washington, the media, immigrants, Muslims and other sundry figures, despite rendering him a figure of ridicule in the mainstream media, have been instrumental in the success of his presidential campaign.” This example of Appeal to Anger demonstrates the author’s contradiction in the very next argument he presents, Appeal to Authority. The author presents Trump as a figure or ridicule by presenting the mainstream media as an authority, and ignores the fact that a majority of people were not angry, but voted for Trump because he made sense to them. The mainstream media also presented the polls that said Trump would lose, which to me causes the mainstream media to lose credibility. Let’s try another…
We all know that numbers can be twisted to make them work for an argument, whether it is made by the Democrats or the Republicans. The author’s example for Appeal to Desperation, which was the 2012 Republicans proposal to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to try to stem the rising deficit, is refuted by Paul Krugman, noted for his economic views which run counter to Republican views, thus providing a slanted outlook that will obviously back up the author’s point. If you’re going to set up an example in a book claiming to rebuke logical fallacies, I would suggest finding credible examples that don’t have the author grinding a political ax.
Personally, I don’t care where the author’s political loyalties lie, but I didn’t purchase this book to learn his views on the current system in America today. I wanted to study logical fallacies, not detour around snarky political comments. At other times, religious views were used as examples. It is not a question of whether these were the best examples that could be found, and I am sure there were reliable examples that could be substituted. Instead, my question is why use examples that are guaranteed to rile your potential customer base? To me, THAT isn’t logical.
So – decent book if you don’t mind the periodic digs at religion and conservative thought. Three stars.
March 16, 2019
The book goes over a wide range of logical fallacies, or fallacies if not logical, are often found in people’s arguments. These fallacies are both formal or informal. All them can be counteracted in some manner.
I would not call this a definitive guide. It does cover a good range of fallacies, but whether or not it covers them all I do not know. And the practical aspects on how to deal with these fallacies when you come across them, is too brief to be definitive as well. Somewhere he claims that this is the only book you will need. To that I say “hardly.” I would be more comfortable with it being called a short guide.
If you looking for a brief guide to fallacies that show up in arguments or debates, this is a pretty good one. If you are looking for something more definitive, you will need to look elsewhere.
I would not call this a definitive guide. It does cover a good range of fallacies, but whether or not it covers them all I do not know. And the practical aspects on how to deal with these fallacies when you come across them, is too brief to be definitive as well. Somewhere he claims that this is the only book you will need. To that I say “hardly.” I would be more comfortable with it being called a short guide.
If you looking for a brief guide to fallacies that show up in arguments or debates, this is a pretty good one. If you are looking for something more definitive, you will need to look elsewhere.
January 19, 2021
A lot of the reviews of this book complain it is biased, which I find odd. It points out logical fallacies of the right, the left, religion, science, capitalism, Marxism, philosophers and every day people. It can't be helped that certain people and groups rely on faulty logic to uphold their arguments more than others. People complaining of bias have yet to disprove the fallacies themselves (at least the comments I have read, which has been many) The only reason I gave this book 4 instead of 5 stars is because I wish more examples would have been provided. Some of the more complicated fallacies could have used more concrete examples and some of the examples were from fictional movies or stories that I had a hard time coming up with real life examples.
July 20, 2020
I'm baffled that this kind of book is still being published these days. It's not so much of a guide to mastering fallacies as an encyclopedia-style list. A more comprehensive list can be found over at Wikipedia, where the fallacies are presented in a less dull format, with more examples and related fallacies.
I also have a problem with the "comeback" sections, where the implied scenario is a good-faith debate where the participants will accept a well-reasoned argument. There are potential issues with nearly every comeback in this book. For example, the "Anonymous Authority" entry says that
This is a weird example to use because I doubt scientists would speak in such certain terms, including Stephen Hawking. In the case of Hawking radiation, although there's a theoretical mechanism for it there's only very weak experimental evidence for it. It's far from well established that black holes emit radiation.
This is not unusual; science is full of uncertain things, with varying degrees of uncertainty. But the notion of an "authority" doesn't allow for that. This illustrates a general problem I have with focusing on fallacies as something to look for in a debate: because it removes the context of what's being talked about, it's not a very convincing way of striking down an argument. It's often used to compensate for lack of knowledge in the topic or lack of ability to formulate a proper retort.
Another example: "Appeal to the Moon" is the argument that if we've done some difficult task, then surely we can do another, also difficult, task. ("We've been to the moon, so why can't we cure cancer?") The comeback goes:
The first point is this paragraph is simply pointing out that this fallacy is a fallacy; I'm not sure this is very effective in a debate. The second point is just begging for an exploration of how hard a mission to the moon is and what the specific difficulties with cancer research are! You can't claim in good faith that one is easier than the other without getting into specifics.
This fallacy also illustrates another problem I have with classifying fallacies: most of them essentially amount to "B does not follow from A", also known as non sequitur. Often, the non sequitur fallacy is explained with such blatant examples that I can only imagine the person making the fallacious claim as acting in bad faith. But in practice, non sequitur is more nuanced: sometimes your opponent isn't able to formulate their reasoning clearly, and sometimes you just fail to be convinced. The solution to that is to debate the points until they're refined enough that it's either clear that B follows from A, or that it does not.
This might not be your goal if you just want to win the debate. But if your goal is winning then I don't see why you should be pointing to fallacies at all. It's useful to know about them, but more in terms of how you can use them to your benefit. Appealing to emotion can be quite effective, for example.
If your goal is to learn, then do not invoke fallacies in a debate. And do not read this book.
I also have a problem with the "comeback" sections, where the implied scenario is a good-faith debate where the participants will accept a well-reasoned argument. There are potential issues with nearly every comeback in this book. For example, the "Anonymous Authority" entry says that
There's no problem with appealing to authority when that alleged authority is in fact an expert on the topic in question. So, if I say, "Black holes emit radiation," I can justify this by appealing to the authority of Stephen Hawking.
This is a weird example to use because I doubt scientists would speak in such certain terms, including Stephen Hawking. In the case of Hawking radiation, although there's a theoretical mechanism for it there's only very weak experimental evidence for it. It's far from well established that black holes emit radiation.
This is not unusual; science is full of uncertain things, with varying degrees of uncertainty. But the notion of an "authority" doesn't allow for that. This illustrates a general problem I have with focusing on fallacies as something to look for in a debate: because it removes the context of what's being talked about, it's not a very convincing way of striking down an argument. It's often used to compensate for lack of knowledge in the topic or lack of ability to formulate a proper retort.
Another example: "Appeal to the Moon" is the argument that if we've done some difficult task, then surely we can do another, also difficult, task. ("We've been to the moon, so why can't we cure cancer?") The comeback goes:
First, point out that your opponent's argument is simply invalid: the fact that one difficult thing has been achieved doesn't mean that a different difficult thing may also be achieved. After all, the difficulties associated with the latter feat remain unaffected by the achievement of the first feat. You should then point out just how great these difficulties are; perhaps putting a man on the moon is in fact relatively simple compared to curing cancer.
The first point is this paragraph is simply pointing out that this fallacy is a fallacy; I'm not sure this is very effective in a debate. The second point is just begging for an exploration of how hard a mission to the moon is and what the specific difficulties with cancer research are! You can't claim in good faith that one is easier than the other without getting into specifics.
This fallacy also illustrates another problem I have with classifying fallacies: most of them essentially amount to "B does not follow from A", also known as non sequitur. Often, the non sequitur fallacy is explained with such blatant examples that I can only imagine the person making the fallacious claim as acting in bad faith. But in practice, non sequitur is more nuanced: sometimes your opponent isn't able to formulate their reasoning clearly, and sometimes you just fail to be convinced. The solution to that is to debate the points until they're refined enough that it's either clear that B follows from A, or that it does not.
This might not be your goal if you just want to win the debate. But if your goal is winning then I don't see why you should be pointing to fallacies at all. It's useful to know about them, but more in terms of how you can use them to your benefit. Appealing to emotion can be quite effective, for example.
If your goal is to learn, then do not invoke fallacies in a debate. And do not read this book.
July 19, 2018
Given the sheer amount of imprecision, anti-intellectualism, and pseudo-intellectualism prevalent in modern discourse, books like this are made all the more necessary. Withey has set up essentially an alphabetical list of common fallacies along with easy to understand examples and suggestions for how to avoid them, and, if confronted with said fallacy in a debate situation, how to counteract them. Although many of these specific fallacies are in fact just more specific cases of previous fallacies explored, the prevalence of these highly specific nuggets of idiocy in contemporary conversation merits the attention Withey pays to them. This is a very quick and enjoyable read that will remain a great reference, upon being finished, for anyone seriously interested in maintaining some semblance of logical consistency in their utterances.
March 4, 2018
The author is obviously a lib. What's ironic is that he commits some of the fallacies himself while making his points.
January 17, 2022
I am glad I received this on Christmas!
The book is a comprehensive self-help book that lists logical fallacies, how to ascertain them, why they are logically fallacious, why they are relevant in the real-world, and how to devise a comeback during debate.
This was an excellent extension of my previous knowledge of logical fallacies.
I enjoyed how the author used real-life examples of logical fallacies, instead of simply going by a devised, fictionalized version of a logical fallacy in application; it showed the relevance of refuting logical fallacies today. I also enjoyed how he made connections between different types of fallacies, as opposed to just listing them out in the conventional textbook-list format. For example, he was able to reason that the Appeal to Desperation has a relationship to Equivocation.
One thing that triggered me, and possibly some other readers, was some of the political bias. In the Appeal to Anger chapter, the author used Donald Trump as a real life example of a demonstration of the logical fallacy. He claimed that Trump appealed to his audience's anger to discredit certain religious groups, although the author did not utilize any quotations, nor paraphrased what Trump actually did that showed that he was discrediting religious groups through an appeal to anger. In other chapters, such as the one about the Abusive Ad Hominem fallacy, the author actually quoted sections of a speech that contained a logical fallacy. In the ad hominem chapter, he paraphrased a court case involving Cicero and the aristocracy in Rome, where a member of the aristocracy could not argue against Cicero's logic, so the member directly insulted him (or used the Abusive Ad Hominem) by asking him for his origins, which were pretty humble. The author even quoted the line containing the logical fallacy! However, there was not much elaboration on what Trump did. When I first read it, I just assumed that there must be some truth in what the author said, since everyone who reads the news seems to know that Trump used appeals to anger. (Oh wait---I just used the Appeal to Common Belief!) It would have been nice if the author paraphrased what Trump did and inserted a quote containing his logical fallacies. Using Appeal to Anger to demean certain religious groups is not cool, but I still wanted some evidence that it happened, since I hardly read the news.
The book was still really good, though. I might continue to reference it.
The book is a comprehensive self-help book that lists logical fallacies, how to ascertain them, why they are logically fallacious, why they are relevant in the real-world, and how to devise a comeback during debate.
This was an excellent extension of my previous knowledge of logical fallacies.
I enjoyed how the author used real-life examples of logical fallacies, instead of simply going by a devised, fictionalized version of a logical fallacy in application; it showed the relevance of refuting logical fallacies today. I also enjoyed how he made connections between different types of fallacies, as opposed to just listing them out in the conventional textbook-list format. For example, he was able to reason that the Appeal to Desperation has a relationship to Equivocation.
One thing that triggered me, and possibly some other readers, was some of the political bias. In the Appeal to Anger chapter, the author used Donald Trump as a real life example of a demonstration of the logical fallacy. He claimed that Trump appealed to his audience's anger to discredit certain religious groups, although the author did not utilize any quotations, nor paraphrased what Trump actually did that showed that he was discrediting religious groups through an appeal to anger. In other chapters, such as the one about the Abusive Ad Hominem fallacy, the author actually quoted sections of a speech that contained a logical fallacy. In the ad hominem chapter, he paraphrased a court case involving Cicero and the aristocracy in Rome, where a member of the aristocracy could not argue against Cicero's logic, so the member directly insulted him (or used the Abusive Ad Hominem) by asking him for his origins, which were pretty humble. The author even quoted the line containing the logical fallacy! However, there was not much elaboration on what Trump did. When I first read it, I just assumed that there must be some truth in what the author said, since everyone who reads the news seems to know that Trump used appeals to anger. (Oh wait---I just used the Appeal to Common Belief!) It would have been nice if the author paraphrased what Trump did and inserted a quote containing his logical fallacies. Using Appeal to Anger to demean certain religious groups is not cool, but I still wanted some evidence that it happened, since I hardly read the news.
The book was still really good, though. I might continue to reference it.
July 23, 2022
Read Mastering Logical Fallacies: The Definitive Guide to Flawless Rhetoric and Bulletproof Logic somewhere in 2018 and recall it being somewhat tedious after a point. Rereading ( skimming, revisiting notes made) it seems more as a reference tool.
There are better books about Logical fallacies, though author Michael Withey does a good job carving out the basics in each. He states the fallacy, provides an example, gives a real life example, shows the mistake, offers a comeback, and states significance. This clearly gives you foundation.
In an ironic turn, the author betrays his biases politically and spiritually in his examples which in some cases negates them.
There are better books about Logical fallacies, though author Michael Withey does a good job carving out the basics in each. He states the fallacy, provides an example, gives a real life example, shows the mistake, offers a comeback, and states significance. This clearly gives you foundation.
In an ironic turn, the author betrays his biases politically and spiritually in his examples which in some cases negates them.
January 25, 2022
This is a fantastic crash course in logical fallacies. The author breaks them down simply, gives real world examples as well as counters to each
2nd read:
I’ll keep this short and sweet. I wanted to read this again because it’s the best book I’ve read on logical fallacies, how to spot them, and how to defend against them. There are a lot of terrible arguments out there, and we need to be able to explain why they’re flawed to help extinguish them. Censorship and deplatforming aren’t the answers. Knowing how to fight against bad arguments is.
2nd read:
I’ll keep this short and sweet. I wanted to read this again because it’s the best book I’ve read on logical fallacies, how to spot them, and how to defend against them. There are a lot of terrible arguments out there, and we need to be able to explain why they’re flawed to help extinguish them. Censorship and deplatforming aren’t the answers. Knowing how to fight against bad arguments is.
January 18, 2019
Interesting and easy read, but not a lot of really useful information.
December 5, 2019
It’s a pretty basic book on logical fallacies. Honestly, you can get better explanations at a number of places for free on line. He contends at the beginning that this is some kind of complete work on the subject. It is far from that. He gives a basic and correct overview of common logical fallacies and adds very little. I guess I don’t like that he uses a lot of strawman arguments against his own political and social beliefs then uses these imaginary arguments to demonstrate the fallacy. That’s annoying, but tolerable and increasingly par for the course. But, what aggravated me most about this book is in his recommendations for countering fallacious arguments. Several times he suggests engaging in a fallacy similar to that of one’s opponent. That’s terrible advice. It sets your argument up to be rejected by both emotional and logical opposition. So, this isn’t a particularly scholarly work, it’s not an entertaining work, and it’s an awful source of general advice. Here’s an entertaining site that will basically cover everything in this book. http://www.ussmariner.com/2005/10/13/...
Thanks,
Thanks,
March 17, 2020
This book is just a long list of logical fallacies, ranging from ones with theoretical values to trivial argumentative tricks. Some of them are repetitive.
It is an interesting read, yet with little practical value. One cannot memorize all or most of the listed fallacies (with there Latin names) by reading the book. The fallacy list is not organized for easy search, either.
The format for each fallacy is the description, followed by examples, then a very short discussion of what is wrong and what should be the comeback. While this is a sensible format in general, it was held too mechanically in the book. Some fallacies are elementary to understand and deal with once they are recognized. Others require more logical training to master. Yet others come with interesting stories or famous quotes. The book would be much more enjoyable if a more flexible format is adopted. The book could also use a more hieratical organization, where the fallacies are grouped by type or characteristics, with some introduction or explanation to each group.
Overall, this is a book for fun rather than the “definitive guide” as advertised by the title.
It is an interesting read, yet with little practical value. One cannot memorize all or most of the listed fallacies (with there Latin names) by reading the book. The fallacy list is not organized for easy search, either.
The format for each fallacy is the description, followed by examples, then a very short discussion of what is wrong and what should be the comeback. While this is a sensible format in general, it was held too mechanically in the book. Some fallacies are elementary to understand and deal with once they are recognized. Others require more logical training to master. Yet others come with interesting stories or famous quotes. The book would be much more enjoyable if a more flexible format is adopted. The book could also use a more hieratical organization, where the fallacies are grouped by type or characteristics, with some introduction or explanation to each group.
Overall, this is a book for fun rather than the “definitive guide” as advertised by the title.
August 8, 2018
I started reading this book one evening and then just kind of forgot about it until recently. I picked it up again and devoured what was left.
As I was reading for the second time I realized how much I gained from my first go. It would be next to impossible for the lay person to remember all these arguments, but what it has done for me is given me the ability to look at an argument and figure out for myself why it is flawed. Enormously useful in today's political climate.
The book is well researched and sectioned well. Each argument is put out for the logical brain "If x equals y then z equals q" kind of thing. Then it gives a hypothetical situation, a real life situation, explains the fallacy behind the argument and gives you tools to combat it.
It's easy to ready, digestible, and would be an excellent resource to visit in the future. Well done.
As I was reading for the second time I realized how much I gained from my first go. It would be next to impossible for the lay person to remember all these arguments, but what it has done for me is given me the ability to look at an argument and figure out for myself why it is flawed. Enormously useful in today's political climate.
The book is well researched and sectioned well. Each argument is put out for the logical brain "If x equals y then z equals q" kind of thing. Then it gives a hypothetical situation, a real life situation, explains the fallacy behind the argument and gives you tools to combat it.
It's easy to ready, digestible, and would be an excellent resource to visit in the future. Well done.
January 28, 2017
This book is boring. I persevered through 40% of it before speed-reading the rest to the end. Each of the arguments is laid out one by one in a way that makes you feel like you are reading a dictionary. Some of the examples given were vaguely interesting but will become completely irrelevant in a few years as it heavily borrows from what is current in the news right now. If you want very detailed technical examples of logical fallacies with lots of jargon then you might like it, but this book doesn't relate to 'real life' very well and gets way too bogged down in academics.
January 24, 2021
Understanding logical fallacies and how to confront them should be a course taught to all college students. This book essentially offers a one-by-one list of the different kinds of logical fallacies/errors that politicians and those on Twitter like to put forward in the attempt to manipulate your thinking. The author provides real world examples as well as rebuttals to each of these erroneous attempts.
I understand why some people don't like this book. It seems more of an audiobook type book than one to be read.
If only everyone who used Twitter and/or Facebook read this book...
I understand why some people don't like this book. It seems more of an audiobook type book than one to be read.
If only everyone who used Twitter and/or Facebook read this book...
December 9, 2023
The author's vaunted claims about the superiority of his own book against all others on the subject should've raised a redder flag in my mind than it did. Continuing, I then became irritated by his repeated use of Christianity as a target. To me, he used strawman arguments about what he insists Christians believe, such as a denial of the existence of dinosaurs and the shape of the earth. We therefore have the irony of him using logical fallacies in a book about logical fallacies.
Such was the partiality shown that I abandoned the reading of the book.
Such was the partiality shown that I abandoned the reading of the book.
December 27, 2016
Like a catalog
This book is less a treatise and more a catalog. Logical fallacies are listed and described in a couple of paragraphs with a couple more paragraphs on how to thwart them. After a few such examples, it becomes a tiresome read. There's no skill taught, so I must assume the book is intended as a reference. That being the case, one would do better to beat one's opponent with it than to try to best him with it.
This book is less a treatise and more a catalog. Logical fallacies are listed and described in a couple of paragraphs with a couple more paragraphs on how to thwart them. After a few such examples, it becomes a tiresome read. There's no skill taught, so I must assume the book is intended as a reference. That being the case, one would do better to beat one's opponent with it than to try to best him with it.
October 3, 2021
Excellent logical toolkit for dealing with illogical (but sometimes persuasive) rhetoric
Really enjoyed reading this one and will likely return to it in the near future. Sometimes when trying to get better at something--like logic--it helps to know explicitly what not to do, in addition to learning best practice.
Really enjoyed reading this one and will likely return to it in the near future. Sometimes when trying to get better at something--like logic--it helps to know explicitly what not to do, in addition to learning best practice.
January 29, 2023
When I was looking for a book on logical fallacies, I sought something from a more reflective standpoint, a book focused on honing ourselves and opinions not debating another. Overall, I believe this book should be in the range of 2 or 2.5 stars, but I have rounded up to 3 because if you dive in the notes or context of the book, it elaborates further it’s focus on the debating individual. I will not punish the author or his rating for my failure to (ironically) read the description.
This book is a gotcha book, each fallacy is not traditionally defined by logic standards (usually in Latin) or given as much time as they are needed to understand if they are traditional ones.
Dr. Whitney’s research on philosophical topics (especially his Aristotle on the self and self love) is top notch.
This book lacks the depth he has put into his others. Each segment is no more than three pages with sometimes a visual entertainment to go along side. The arguments are given two types of examples, the mistake and some witty comeback to retort. These are seen as the end all be all of that topic. The book has the roots to be a strong guide to debating but it feels unfinished. Some arguments are simply left as “there is no outright way to prove this wrong”. Others are repeated and referenced back to previous arguments, and some are left half-finished leaving you wanting
This book is a gotcha book, each fallacy is not traditionally defined by logic standards (usually in Latin) or given as much time as they are needed to understand if they are traditional ones.
Dr. Whitney’s research on philosophical topics (especially his Aristotle on the self and self love) is top notch.
This book lacks the depth he has put into his others. Each segment is no more than three pages with sometimes a visual entertainment to go along side. The arguments are given two types of examples, the mistake and some witty comeback to retort. These are seen as the end all be all of that topic. The book has the roots to be a strong guide to debating but it feels unfinished. Some arguments are simply left as “there is no outright way to prove this wrong”. Others are repeated and referenced back to previous arguments, and some are left half-finished leaving you wanting
March 30, 2020
It presents its content well - I learned a lot, and its structured in a way where it starts with the syllogistic language first and then moves into easier, concrete examples. In that respect the book did its job. As an English teacher, rhetoric has always been my weakest area, so it's nice to see things like fallacies presented in an accessible, easy-to-understand way. I only take one star off because its got some thinly veiled political attacks that are approached in a very haha, look how clever I am-way where he presents political bait under the veil of being informative. Still, the book 99% accomplishes its job (at least in my experience). I would use this to teach fallacies to my seniors.
February 12, 2023
Errors in logic are everywhere you look - in everyday conversations, advertisements, political debates, social media posts, and almost every nook and cranny of modern life.
These errors can be innocuous or deadly, depending on what decisions they can lead you to make or not.
To inoculate yourself against bad logic and avoid the traps others have laid for you to fall into, this book can serve as a great primer or a quick refresher.
The book is laid out in such a way that you can open any chapter and refer the logical error and see how it works and the logical comeback(s) you can use to counter it.
A wonderful, necessary book. Highly recommended.
These errors can be innocuous or deadly, depending on what decisions they can lead you to make or not.
To inoculate yourself against bad logic and avoid the traps others have laid for you to fall into, this book can serve as a great primer or a quick refresher.
The book is laid out in such a way that you can open any chapter and refer the logical error and see how it works and the logical comeback(s) you can use to counter it.
A wonderful, necessary book. Highly recommended.
May 17, 2025
I really liked this book and it was brief which was good in some ways but also the author really could have done more with his hypo and real life examples. The explanations were pretty clear overall however. This book, Pinker’s Rationality, and Schoppenhauer’s Art of Controversy are the best argumentation books I’ve read. Really a better title of this book would be “how to use critical thinking in rhetoric” because the actual formal logic included in the book is pretty sparse. But sadly in this mindnumbing age of a dearth of independent thought and mass charlatanism which is perversely idealized through social media and a superficial partisan charade this book is extremely needed.
February 9, 2022
3.5/5 stars. I really liked learning about the different types of fallacies, and the examples were clear. You start to notice fallacies in everyday conversation, TV, and the news after reading this. Some of his examples very clearly stated his political and religious opinions though, which took away somewhat from the point he was making. It's interesting that a lot of the examples were current for the time (published mid-2016) and assumed that Donald Trump would lose the election. Having them be so time-sensitive was distracting from the actual points he was trying to make.
May 9, 2024
A few of the explanations gave me new insights, but I found the mix of logical fallacies and "this is actually not a logical fallacy but just annoying/a psychological issue/plain stupid" a bit - annoying. Also, the number of times that the author will, under the header of "real-life example", present an example from The Simpsons/Southpark/Downton Abbey/some other work of fiction, is flabbergasting. I would much have preferred REAL real-life examples, which would usually be a bit more ambivalent and therefore more helpful to train the mind to recognize a specific fallacy.
June 30, 2018
Important read for anyone. Thinking about the individual fallacies helped me identify instances where I've used some myself and where others have used some against me. Somewhat redundant at times, as there are some fallacies whose difference is difficult to spot. Some of the examples may be biased against conservative thought, but not much. I tend to be more conservative, but did not feel offended by them. Keep in mind that the book has a catalogue style.
October 10, 2022
Достоинства: это хорошая реструктуризацию материала. Все очень чётко, и главное, что с примерами. В начале были разобраны интересные ошибки в аргументации, что нельзя заметить невооружённым глазом, то чем пользуются современные СМИ. Но к концу книги качество материала начало падать: разбирались странные варинты аргументации, которые можно было бы отправить в одноимённую папку. Поэтому конец книги повлиял на мою финальную оценку. Но с точки зрения оформления и структуры- просто блеск !
January 10, 2023
A philosopher's dictionary
This book is good for philosophers that are trying to navigate through the jungle of logical fallacies. For the lay person, it might be a slow read, but definitely worth it.
This book refers to many sub fallacies under "major fallacies" and I miss a hierarchy/branching tree that shows which ones are under which. This might be a project for a later publication.
This book is good for philosophers that are trying to navigate through the jungle of logical fallacies. For the lay person, it might be a slow read, but definitely worth it.
This book refers to many sub fallacies under "major fallacies" and I miss a hierarchy/branching tree that shows which ones are under which. This might be a project for a later publication.
November 7, 2023
Awful examples that often don’t fit the fallacy if you think about them for more than 20 seconds. Just read a wiki article on the subject. It seems like there could have been broader ideas presented as the examples and then discussed in a more thoughtful way. Also, each fallacy has a “real life example” section and the author should probably look at a dictionary to figure out what “real life” means. The art was mostly nice.
March 16, 2018
I wish I'd had this book back in school. Each fallacy is explained in plain English with examples. The tone is good-humored, which keeps the topic from being as dry as it's capable of being. I'd say this is a good introduction to the subject. It doesn't go very in depth, but you can move on to a book that does without getting lost.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews