What do you think?
Rate this book
Conquer Logical Fallacies: 28 Nuggets Of Knowledge To Nurture Your Reasoning Skills
If you doubt your decision making skills, then this will be the most important message you ever read
Why do employers judge candidates on the first impression they make, even though they know it’s wrong and often misleading?
Why do people smoke, drink to excess, and eat things they know are bad for them?
How do normally intelligent people wind up believing fake news stories?
To find out, let’s take a trip back in time to Victorian England.
A famous story from the Victorian days is that women had to wear corsets. It’s debated how commonplace corsets actually were, but they squeezed a woman’s body like a snake - making the waist look smaller.
Corsets worked - but they were so tight, they caused internal damage to women. They also caused a woman’s lower back to atrophy.
In fact, corsets were so restricting that women often fainted wearing them!
But here’s the kicker…
Fainting from wearing a corset was actually considered to be a good thing! It was thought to be a sign of good breeding.
Or so the story goes.
Historians debate how often corsets were actually used. But they’re a testament to the power of a cognitive fallacy.
Poor reasoning, inability to tell facts from fiction and flawed decision-making cause these kinds of fallacies.
They’re the reason most people never live up to their potential.
Even the smartest people in the world are prone to unconscious bias. A Nature.com study in 2015 (“First results from psychology’s largest reproducibility test”) examined over 100 psychology studies to see if they could be reproduced.
Only around a third of the studies could be replicated! Researchers found a full two-thirds of the studies had been skewed by errors or unconscious biases. They couldn’t be trusted.
It’s not that most people are stupid; they just don’t know how to see biases and fallacies.
That’s why we wrote this book. Inside, you’ll
The false beliefs that led to Aztec human sacrifice, and how they’re STILL common todayThe ultra common fallacy you’ve probably already been exposed to in your DARE classThe easy-to-follow five basics steps of critical thinking. Apply them and you’ll make every decision with confidence!Rats spread pestilence and plague - but in India, a “Temple of Rats” was constructed because of this false beliefHow to make yourself “dumb” because smarter people are HARDER to teach!Why you should be skeptical of anyone quoting an authority figureHistoric Islamic banking projects, and what they can teach you about false logicWhy the supersonic Concorde jet flew so long - even though it was a MASSIVE money loser!...and much, much more!
Conquer Logical Fallacies explains the major cognitive biases and fallacies people encounter.
It goes over arguments and how to tell facts from fiction.
You might be thinking “Do I really need this?”
If you want to build stronger arguments, make more confident decisions, and spot logical errors - then yes.
If you have to work with a wide range of other people or analyze information, you’ll find this book INVALUABLE.
And you might be stunned by how many false biases you’re already carrying around.
Why do employers judge candidates on the first impression they make, even though they know it’s wrong and often misleading?
Why do people smoke, drink to excess, and eat things they know are bad for them?
How do normally intelligent people wind up believing fake news stories?
To find out, let’s take a trip back in time to Victorian England.
A famous story from the Victorian days is that women had to wear corsets. It’s debated how commonplace corsets actually were, but they squeezed a woman’s body like a snake - making the waist look smaller.
Corsets worked - but they were so tight, they caused internal damage to women. They also caused a woman’s lower back to atrophy.
In fact, corsets were so restricting that women often fainted wearing them!
But here’s the kicker…
Fainting from wearing a corset was actually considered to be a good thing! It was thought to be a sign of good breeding.
Or so the story goes.
Historians debate how often corsets were actually used. But they’re a testament to the power of a cognitive fallacy.
Poor reasoning, inability to tell facts from fiction and flawed decision-making cause these kinds of fallacies.
They’re the reason most people never live up to their potential.
Even the smartest people in the world are prone to unconscious bias. A Nature.com study in 2015 (“First results from psychology’s largest reproducibility test”) examined over 100 psychology studies to see if they could be reproduced.
Only around a third of the studies could be replicated! Researchers found a full two-thirds of the studies had been skewed by errors or unconscious biases. They couldn’t be trusted.
It’s not that most people are stupid; they just don’t know how to see biases and fallacies.
That’s why we wrote this book. Inside, you’ll
The false beliefs that led to Aztec human sacrifice, and how they’re STILL common todayThe ultra common fallacy you’ve probably already been exposed to in your DARE classThe easy-to-follow five basics steps of critical thinking. Apply them and you’ll make every decision with confidence!Rats spread pestilence and plague - but in India, a “Temple of Rats” was constructed because of this false beliefHow to make yourself “dumb” because smarter people are HARDER to teach!Why you should be skeptical of anyone quoting an authority figureHistoric Islamic banking projects, and what they can teach you about false logicWhy the supersonic Concorde jet flew so long - even though it was a MASSIVE money loser!...and much, much more!
Conquer Logical Fallacies explains the major cognitive biases and fallacies people encounter.
It goes over arguments and how to tell facts from fiction.
You might be thinking “Do I really need this?”
If you want to build stronger arguments, make more confident decisions, and spot logical errors - then yes.
If you have to work with a wide range of other people or analyze information, you’ll find this book INVALUABLE.
And you might be stunned by how many false biases you’re already carrying around.
172 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 6, 2021
292 people are currently reading
213 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 - 15 of 15 reviews
May 31, 2022
وجدت نفسي أشاهد لقاء زعيم ديني مع طلاب إحدى الجامعات في دولة آسيوية. كان اللقاء على اليوتيوب ولا تسألني كيف وصلت إلى هناك. بعد أن ألقى الواعظ كلمته أتاح فرصة للطلاب كي يطرحون الأسئلة. بعد بضعة أسئلة ودودة، نهض طالب أنيق يسأله عن المبيعات في الموقع الخاص بالحركة الدينية إياها. يفترض الطالب بأن الحركة التي تزعم بأنها روحانية لا يجب أن تخصص كل تلك المساحة لبيع كم كبير من البضائع على موقعها الرسمي.
بدأ رجل الدين إجابته بتأكيد معرفته للتوجه الإيدولوجي الذي يعتنقه الطالب وأنه يدرك جيداً من أرسله. ثم أخبره بأن من يدخلون الموقع بشكل يومي يعدّون بالملايين، لذا فلا بد أن الموقع يقدم لهم فائدة عظيمة.
لم أسمع بقية الإجابة ولكن استوقفني استخدام اُلمجيب لمغالطتين شهيرتين، الأولى هي الشخصنة أو الهجوم على الشخص، وتنطوي على تقويض سمعة الشخص أو دوافعه أو معتقداته بدلاً من مناقشة حجته. أما الثانية فهي الاحتكام إلى الأكثرية وتعني أن ما يفعله أو يقوله عدد كبير من الناس هو بالضرورة شيء صحيح. نلاحظ أن المتحدث لم يجب على لُب السؤال وهو "لماذا تبيع حركة روحية بضائعاً ذات استخدامات دنيوية بسعر باهض؟". لست هنا بصدد مناقشة صوابية هذا الفعل، إنما أتحدث عن جودة الإجابة من حيث احتكامها إلى المنطق.
هذا ثاني كتاب أقرؤه عن المغالطات المنطقية، وإذا أعدت قراءة كتاب لنفس الموضوع فهذا يعني أنه يهمني بشكل خاص. في حقيقة الأمر، أتمنى أن تُدرّس هذه المغالطات في مناهجنا التعليمية بطريقة ما، إذ أنها تساعد على التحليل المنطقي والرد التلقائي على كل تلك المغالطات المبثوثة في كل وسائل الإعلام لتضليل الجمهور، لتلميع شخص ما أو الدفاع عن قضية معينة. لا شك أنك لو راجعت قائمة المغالطات لتذكرت بعض الحملات الإعلامية ، الرسمية وغير الرسمية، التي بُنيت على مغالطة ما. سبق أن ذكرت بعضاً منها في مراجعتي لكتاب سابق:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
يسعى هذا الكتاب إلى تقديم التفكير المنطقي من حيث طرح أسسه الأربعة. بعد ذلك ينتقل إلى مناقشة المغالطات المنطقية مع الأمثلة والردود. لا يهدف الكتاب فقط إلى الرد على من يتسلحون بالمغالطات، لكنه أيضاً يؤهلك لتصفية تفكيرك من شوائب المغالطات التي تعودنا على مراوغة أنفسنا باستخدامها. وجدت بعض الأمثلة ضحلاً ولكنها عامةّ كانت توضح المغزى المطلوب. بصفة عامة، الكتاب قصير ومبسط وموضوعه غاية في الأهمية.
فلتقرأ يا صديقي عن المغالطات المنطقية، ولتنشر ما تعرفه، وعلم أصدقائك وأولادك، فالمغالطات مستشرية والمنطق مهزوم في الكثير من صراعاتنا اليومية.
بدأ رجل الدين إجابته بتأكيد معرفته للتوجه الإيدولوجي الذي يعتنقه الطالب وأنه يدرك جيداً من أرسله. ثم أخبره بأن من يدخلون الموقع بشكل يومي يعدّون بالملايين، لذا فلا بد أن الموقع يقدم لهم فائدة عظيمة.
لم أسمع بقية الإجابة ولكن استوقفني استخدام اُلمجيب لمغالطتين شهيرتين، الأولى هي الشخصنة أو الهجوم على الشخص، وتنطوي على تقويض سمعة الشخص أو دوافعه أو معتقداته بدلاً من مناقشة حجته. أما الثانية فهي الاحتكام إلى الأكثرية وتعني أن ما يفعله أو يقوله عدد كبير من الناس هو بالضرورة شيء صحيح. نلاحظ أن المتحدث لم يجب على لُب السؤال وهو "لماذا تبيع حركة روحية بضائعاً ذات استخدامات دنيوية بسعر باهض؟". لست هنا بصدد مناقشة صوابية هذا الفعل، إنما أتحدث عن جودة الإجابة من حيث احتكامها إلى المنطق.
هذا ثاني كتاب أقرؤه عن المغالطات المنطقية، وإذا أعدت قراءة كتاب لنفس الموضوع فهذا يعني أنه يهمني بشكل خاص. في حقيقة الأمر، أتمنى أن تُدرّس هذه المغالطات في مناهجنا التعليمية بطريقة ما، إذ أنها تساعد على التحليل المنطقي والرد التلقائي على كل تلك المغالطات المبثوثة في كل وسائل الإعلام لتضليل الجمهور، لتلميع شخص ما أو الدفاع عن قضية معينة. لا شك أنك لو راجعت قائمة المغالطات لتذكرت بعض الحملات الإعلامية ، الرسمية وغير الرسمية، التي بُنيت على مغالطة ما. سبق أن ذكرت بعضاً منها في مراجعتي لكتاب سابق:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
يسعى هذا الكتاب إلى تقديم التفكير المنطقي من حيث طرح أسسه الأربعة. بعد ذلك ينتقل إلى مناقشة المغالطات المنطقية مع الأمثلة والردود. لا يهدف الكتاب فقط إلى الرد على من يتسلحون بالمغالطات، لكنه أيضاً يؤهلك لتصفية تفكيرك من شوائب المغالطات التي تعودنا على مراوغة أنفسنا باستخدامها. وجدت بعض الأمثلة ضحلاً ولكنها عامةّ كانت توضح المغزى المطلوب. بصفة عامة، الكتاب قصير ومبسط وموضوعه غاية في الأهمية.
فلتقرأ يا صديقي عن المغالطات المنطقية، ولتنشر ما تعرفه، وعلم أصدقائك وأولادك، فالمغالطات مستشرية والمنطق مهزوم في الكثير من صراعاتنا اليومية.
August 30, 2021
I don’t understand the 2 star reviews to this book. I learned a lot about logical fallacies although I already had some knowledge about the subject.
I definitely recommend reading this book.
I definitely recommend reading this book.
November 23, 2021
A useful summary of ideas about logic and fallacies, but some tighter editing would have improved the text.
The main body of the book did a good job introducing logic and listing fallacies. The presentation is clear and avoids unnecessary complexities. Howeve, rather than just listing the fallacies and expecting the reader to wades through them, I think it would have been helpful if the book could have grouped them a little more: procedural fallacies, fallacies affecting premises, etc.
Tighter editing would have been beneficial on some of the claims in the book. For example, we hear in the introduction that logic is ‘objective scientific, coldly discerning…’ (3%). Yes, that is definitely one view of logic. But Empiricist approaches to logic take a very different view. Copenhagenists insist that Quantum Mechanics can evidence the existence of contradictions, so they would consider the so-called ‘objective’ insistence on rejecting contradictions as, in reality a ‘subjective’ (dogmatic) bias.
A short book doesn’t have the scope to explore complicated issues like this, but it could avoid making the kind of bold claims about the objectivity of logic which then present a one-sided view of the issues.
Sometimes the ordering of content seemed a little out of kilter. For example, the distinction between soundness and validity is initially stated in terms of truth and honesty (7%) in a passage which seems to be clumsily trying to avoid using the word ‘valid.’ Yet the word is introduced as a technical term a few pages later (10%). Editing the text to introduce the distinction earlier would have made the earlier text clearer.
There was also the occasional odd interpretation. Apparently the difference between a deductive and inductive argument lies in the intention of the arguer (14%). Really? So, if I see an argument written on a page, I cannot tell whether it is inductive or deductive unless I know what was in the mind of the writer? That is a very odd view.
Overall, this is a short simple introduction to some important ideas about fallacies and logic. It could have been clearer in places, but it is still eminently accessible to readers of all backgrounds.
The main body of the book did a good job introducing logic and listing fallacies. The presentation is clear and avoids unnecessary complexities. Howeve, rather than just listing the fallacies and expecting the reader to wades through them, I think it would have been helpful if the book could have grouped them a little more: procedural fallacies, fallacies affecting premises, etc.
Tighter editing would have been beneficial on some of the claims in the book. For example, we hear in the introduction that logic is ‘objective scientific, coldly discerning…’ (3%). Yes, that is definitely one view of logic. But Empiricist approaches to logic take a very different view. Copenhagenists insist that Quantum Mechanics can evidence the existence of contradictions, so they would consider the so-called ‘objective’ insistence on rejecting contradictions as, in reality a ‘subjective’ (dogmatic) bias.
A short book doesn’t have the scope to explore complicated issues like this, but it could avoid making the kind of bold claims about the objectivity of logic which then present a one-sided view of the issues.
Sometimes the ordering of content seemed a little out of kilter. For example, the distinction between soundness and validity is initially stated in terms of truth and honesty (7%) in a passage which seems to be clumsily trying to avoid using the word ‘valid.’ Yet the word is introduced as a technical term a few pages later (10%). Editing the text to introduce the distinction earlier would have made the earlier text clearer.
There was also the occasional odd interpretation. Apparently the difference between a deductive and inductive argument lies in the intention of the arguer (14%). Really? So, if I see an argument written on a page, I cannot tell whether it is inductive or deductive unless I know what was in the mind of the writer? That is a very odd view.
Overall, this is a short simple introduction to some important ideas about fallacies and logic. It could have been clearer in places, but it is still eminently accessible to readers of all backgrounds.
Want to read
May 14, 2024p. 2 Four laws: 1. The thing can mean only one thing. If its means two, it's the fallacy of equivocation.
2. Law of Excluded Middle: A proposition can't contradict itself. If it does, only one things can be true. Either Arthur is a faithful husband or Arthur is having an affair. Both can't be true. 3. Law of Non-Contradiction: Contradicitory propositions can't be true at the same time and in the same sense, but make sure that they're truly contradictory, because two things can often be true. A german shepherd can't be a terrier, but Benjamin Franklin can be a statesman and a scientist. 4. Law of Sufficient Reason: basically, ask "why". There has to be an underlying reason. If someone is willing to sell you an expensive car for $200--why?
P. 4 Concepts in Logic: CLAIM--statement or proposition. If it's supported then it becomes a conclusion.
INFERENCE--
ARGUMENT--claim used to persuade or convince. Start with issue, support with premise 1 and premise 2, leads to a conclusion. Premise 1: everything I say is true Premise 2: I said that Conclusion: What I said is true
p. 6 Exercise Critical thinking by 1. identifying BASIC questions 2. Be Aware of Assumptions/your own thinking 3. Be Aware of mental shortcuts to conclusions based on intuition (heuristics), often these come from cognitive biases and personal prejudices 4. Reverse the equation: yes it looks like the bus hit the person, but could the person have jumped in front of the bus? 5. Evaluate source of information and try to find additional corroborating evidence from reliable sources.
2. Law of Excluded Middle: A proposition can't contradict itself. If it does, only one things can be true. Either Arthur is a faithful husband or Arthur is having an affair. Both can't be true. 3. Law of Non-Contradiction: Contradicitory propositions can't be true at the same time and in the same sense, but make sure that they're truly contradictory, because two things can often be true. A german shepherd can't be a terrier, but Benjamin Franklin can be a statesman and a scientist. 4. Law of Sufficient Reason: basically, ask "why". There has to be an underlying reason. If someone is willing to sell you an expensive car for $200--why?
P. 4 Concepts in Logic: CLAIM--statement or proposition. If it's supported then it becomes a conclusion.
INFERENCE--
ARGUMENT--claim used to persuade or convince. Start with issue, support with premise 1 and premise 2, leads to a conclusion. Premise 1: everything I say is true Premise 2: I said that Conclusion: What I said is true
p. 6 Exercise Critical thinking by 1. identifying BASIC questions 2. Be Aware of Assumptions/your own thinking 3. Be Aware of mental shortcuts to conclusions based on intuition (heuristics), often these come from cognitive biases and personal prejudices 4. Reverse the equation: yes it looks like the bus hit the person, but could the person have jumped in front of the bus? 5. Evaluate source of information and try to find additional corroborating evidence from reliable sources.
January 18, 2023
Disclaimer: Review is for value if buying the book. I read this on kindle unlimited, so it was "free," in sense cost was built in. For a "free," book, it is 5 stars.
Quick Breakdown of Common Types of Logical Fallacies
At least 1 Example for every type brought up
Occasionally misses the mark entirely in the example, or uses an overly simple one, but the examples are still welcomed.
If i had read this in high school 15 years ago, I would have had a better time seeing in what ways people were arguing with clouded perspectives. As an adult who has studied similar topics for 8 years, I found this to be a nice quick reference and refresher on official titles. I worry people will think this is the end of the knowledge journey for logic and practically applying it, rather than a percent of a percent that's to be learned.
Quick Breakdown of Common Types of Logical Fallacies
At least 1 Example for every type brought up
Occasionally misses the mark entirely in the example, or uses an overly simple one, but the examples are still welcomed.
If i had read this in high school 15 years ago, I would have had a better time seeing in what ways people were arguing with clouded perspectives. As an adult who has studied similar topics for 8 years, I found this to be a nice quick reference and refresher on official titles. I worry people will think this is the end of the knowledge journey for logic and practically applying it, rather than a percent of a percent that's to be learned.
December 31, 2022
Loved it!!
To be an adroit rhetorician, you need to perceive and interpret logical fallacies and untruths in reasoning by mistake or intent. You can then proceed to avoid them yourself and can point them out in another person's argument. I have performed this in court when an arrogant lawyer for the plaintiff assume that we, the jury, were barely capable of tying out own shoes much less to see how condescending his argument and treatment of us was. He went on to demonizing the defendants adding straw man after straw man. When I was asked a question I stated that his opening argument was seriously flawed and as a result I was told my services were no longer needed. This book got me out of jury duty. Five stars seems a trifle low...
To be an adroit rhetorician, you need to perceive and interpret logical fallacies and untruths in reasoning by mistake or intent. You can then proceed to avoid them yourself and can point them out in another person's argument. I have performed this in court when an arrogant lawyer for the plaintiff assume that we, the jury, were barely capable of tying out own shoes much less to see how condescending his argument and treatment of us was. He went on to demonizing the defendants adding straw man after straw man. When I was asked a question I stated that his opening argument was seriously flawed and as a result I was told my services were no longer needed. This book got me out of jury duty. Five stars seems a trifle low...
October 30, 2021
I received a free review copy of this audiobook.
I like and care about logic. I find fallacies a worthy field of study. I didn’t feel this book did overly well with presenting its points. In particular, I think that some biased examples made it into the explanations of some fallacies, and whether I agree with those biases or not, this reduces the usefulness of this book. This is still valuable as a means of review, but is less likely than I would like for introducing someone to the principles involved.
I like and care about logic. I find fallacies a worthy field of study. I didn’t feel this book did overly well with presenting its points. In particular, I think that some biased examples made it into the explanations of some fallacies, and whether I agree with those biases or not, this reduces the usefulness of this book. This is still valuable as a means of review, but is less likely than I would like for introducing someone to the principles involved.
November 15, 2021
A nice little overview
This is much what I was looking for when searching for books on logical fallacies. There were some typos and I wish it would have been slightly more in-depth, but the length made it less intimidating to dive into something that seemed a little intimidating to me at first. A great place to start.
This is much what I was looking for when searching for books on logical fallacies. There were some typos and I wish it would have been slightly more in-depth, but the length made it less intimidating to dive into something that seemed a little intimidating to me at first. A great place to start.
June 23, 2023
Great primer for aiding in proper thinking!
What a great read! Well-written, basic logic patterns explained so well that anyone can understand! A must have for anyone trying to navigate the world of the 2000's!
What a great read! Well-written, basic logic patterns explained so well that anyone can understand! A must have for anyone trying to navigate the world of the 2000's!
August 4, 2023
Repetitive, but makes some very important points. We liberals sneer at conservatives who "won't listen", and we won't listen to them. Because we KNOW. But they also KNOW. What we have here really IS a failure to communicate.
May 11, 2024
"Awareness of our propensity to commit logical errors is the first step towards correct reasoning. The second is to gain familiarity with the tools necessary to develop logical skills. This book acquainted us with these tools." loc. 1488
November 3, 2021
Good book, useful to corporate life
Good book, useful to corporate life, you may refer to this at some conflict cases or simply reference it to win arguments.
Good book, useful to corporate life, you may refer to this at some conflict cases or simply reference it to win arguments.
May 5, 2022
Working on becoming logical thinkers, protects us from manipulative people.
June 14, 2023
Khá hay, giúp ta học thêm kỹ năng phản biện những tình huống thao túng, định hướng theo ý người khác
March 8, 2024
Critical Thinking
A brainy book that goes through scenarios of how people think & how to choose the best result for the situation.
A brainy book that goes through scenarios of how people think & how to choose the best result for the situation.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews