What do you think?
Rate this book
Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language
Nonsense is the best compilation and study of verbal logical fallacies available anywhere. It is a handbook of the myriad ways we go about being illogical―how we deceive others and ourselves, how we think and argue in ways that are disorderly, disorganized, or irrelevant. Nonsense is also a short course in nonmathematical logical thinking, especially important for students of philosophy and economics. A book of remarkable scholarship, Nonsense is unexpectedly relaxed, informal, and accessible.
245 pages, Paperback
First published April 25, 2002
93 people are currently reading
1283 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 47 reviews
January 27, 2011
This is a downright excellent book IMHO. Mr. Gula would be proud of my adding IMHO, because saying it's excellent would not necessarily make it true.
In the beginning of the book the author says this "It is a natural human tendency to be subjective rather than objective, the untrained mind will usually take the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance is rarely through reason." That being said I think everyone who can read should read this book. The value comes from his ability to offer a simple verbal illustration of each item it offers. He critiques the way we speak, hear, make decisions and understand a myriad of things.
The author points out that most, if not all people, at some time or another project their own biases or experiences upon situations, generalizing from a specific event, getting personally involved in the analysis of an issue and letting their feelings overcome a sense of objectivity. Many people are not good listeners, nor critical readers, they hear selectively and read words that aren't there to help them argue a point. If you are honest with yourself you will see mistakes you've made from cover to cover in this book.
Today is the day to say no more red herrings, straw men, double standards, appeals to fear, over simplification, hasty generalizations, and for pete's sake no more Tu quoque, no one cares if your parents, siblings or friends are dumb as a rock you don't have to be. :)
5 stars for the layman, 3 to 4 for someone who has taken courses in logic, debate, philosophy etc.
In the beginning of the book the author says this "It is a natural human tendency to be subjective rather than objective, the untrained mind will usually take the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance is rarely through reason." That being said I think everyone who can read should read this book. The value comes from his ability to offer a simple verbal illustration of each item it offers. He critiques the way we speak, hear, make decisions and understand a myriad of things.
The author points out that most, if not all people, at some time or another project their own biases or experiences upon situations, generalizing from a specific event, getting personally involved in the analysis of an issue and letting their feelings overcome a sense of objectivity. Many people are not good listeners, nor critical readers, they hear selectively and read words that aren't there to help them argue a point. If you are honest with yourself you will see mistakes you've made from cover to cover in this book.
Today is the day to say no more red herrings, straw men, double standards, appeals to fear, over simplification, hasty generalizations, and for pete's sake no more Tu quoque, no one cares if your parents, siblings or friends are dumb as a rock you don't have to be. :)
5 stars for the layman, 3 to 4 for someone who has taken courses in logic, debate, philosophy etc.
January 15, 2020
How many times have you seen people caught up in an argument just for the sake of having an argument? or trying to establish that they're right? or being a know-it-all or a smart-aleck? Well, this book helps you realize how you can have an effective argument for the purpose of pinpointing what is true and what is not. This book is helpful, especially if you're a beginner and not familiar with popular logical fallacies. Allegedly we humans are logical beings. But the more you read this book, the more you realize how faulty our logic can be. We have biases of all sorts. We appeal to emotions almost all the time trying to justify our position. We attack people and their personality instead of their line of reasoning. We often add irrelevant details to our arguments. We use invalid syllogisms. Most of the time, we oversimplify facts and reduce them to absurdity. We tend to confuse cause and effect. We confuse a sufficient cause with a necessary cause. “Smoking causes lung cancer” is a faulty statement since smoking is not a necessary or sufficient cause for cancer. It's merely a contributory cause. There may be hundreds of other ways for you to get cancer. The statement should be rephrased: “Smoking may cause lung cancer”. We make faulty comparisons and use wrong analogy. We apply half-truths to our arguments and avoid giving a straight answer. We twist what people say and turn it into a straw man...
September 1, 2017
Resourceful.
Beats baloney.
Needs conscious practice.
Beats baloney.
Needs conscious practice.
March 10, 2015
This is an excellent book for anyone wanting to learn how persuasive language and faulty logic can used to influence us. It has numerous examples which are clear and easy to understand.
January 12, 2025
Now more than ever, everyone needs the ability to know the difference between strong arguments and weak ones. This book promises to teach you all the different types of logical fallacies so that you can sound smart at parties as you demolish the arguments of people who don’t believe the same things you do. This book started out strong and then lost me once we got halfway in. One of the last chapters is about syllogisms. Syllogisms are necessary for students of philosophy and no one else, in my opinion, and that chapter lost me completely. Nothing in this book is wrong, it’s just way more complex than even a smart average person needs.
August 27, 2018
The book was organized/written in a very straight-to-the-cut and concise way. Definitely an eye-opener for me, and for anyone who’s interested in doing some research on debate/critical thinking.
August 7, 2015
Bland
This book put me to sleep. The premise sounded so interesting, but it reads like one long boring lecture. Unfortunately it never got any better.
This book put me to sleep. The premise sounded so interesting, but it reads like one long boring lecture. Unfortunately it never got any better.
June 30, 2023
الكتاب تربوي بشكل رهيب, احب اتصفح مثل هذهِ الكتب
January 4, 2023
Containing at least 170 examples of fallacies and biases, it is difficult to identify a precise number as there are overlaps of similarities and some subtle confusions in arguments do not necessarily have specific names. Overall, it is a comprehensive introduction to how not to argue or reason.
The book has a slightly ‘old fashioned’ feel to it, as it is essentially pages of text. It reads a bit like a pile of encyclopaedia entries. Some readers will appreciate its simplicity. Some will no doubt find it q bit boring and off-putting.
More problematically the book has a few mistakes. For example it refers to the Appeal to Fear and gives its Latin name as ‘argument ad mentum.’ The Latin word ‘mentum’ usually means chin. The more usual term for fear is ‘metum.’ Its easy to see how the words may have been confused in the text. But the mistake is repeated in the appendix listing the fallacies covered by the book. This suggests that tighter editing would have benefited the book.
The fact that the book gives Latin names for fallacies also raises the question whether it doesn’t sometimes over-complicate some of its material. Some fallacies are cited more than once, as they can be categorised under different headings. Perhaps that complexity could have been avoided?
In chapter 4 there was also a reference to a ‘pretentious’ advert which read ‘hair colouring.’ It wasn’t clear how that was pretentious unless it was supposed to be a use of an English spelling in an US market (?). Even so, would that be pretentiousness, or just cheapness as a company puts its products into multiple markets without changing the spelling on its labels?
Some of the ways that the fallacies are included also raise questions. Slogans are cited as a distinct type of fallacy, but aren’t they actually a type of ambiguity which work by meaning different things to different people? Chapter 5 tells us that a fallacy is ‘when anything goes wrong in the reasoning process.’ But that is a little imprecise. Fallacies arise when there is a problem in the reasoning of inference. However there are other types of reasoning which contains errors, and yet can still count as a type of (non-fallacious) rationality. For example, when people have personal gain, it can be rational for them to be irrational.
Overall this is a well researched and informative introduction to fallacies. It could have been improved in places, but it nevertheless does well to summarise a complex list of reasoning errors.
The book has a slightly ‘old fashioned’ feel to it, as it is essentially pages of text. It reads a bit like a pile of encyclopaedia entries. Some readers will appreciate its simplicity. Some will no doubt find it q bit boring and off-putting.
More problematically the book has a few mistakes. For example it refers to the Appeal to Fear and gives its Latin name as ‘argument ad mentum.’ The Latin word ‘mentum’ usually means chin. The more usual term for fear is ‘metum.’ Its easy to see how the words may have been confused in the text. But the mistake is repeated in the appendix listing the fallacies covered by the book. This suggests that tighter editing would have benefited the book.
The fact that the book gives Latin names for fallacies also raises the question whether it doesn’t sometimes over-complicate some of its material. Some fallacies are cited more than once, as they can be categorised under different headings. Perhaps that complexity could have been avoided?
In chapter 4 there was also a reference to a ‘pretentious’ advert which read ‘hair colouring.’ It wasn’t clear how that was pretentious unless it was supposed to be a use of an English spelling in an US market (?). Even so, would that be pretentiousness, or just cheapness as a company puts its products into multiple markets without changing the spelling on its labels?
Some of the ways that the fallacies are included also raise questions. Slogans are cited as a distinct type of fallacy, but aren’t they actually a type of ambiguity which work by meaning different things to different people? Chapter 5 tells us that a fallacy is ‘when anything goes wrong in the reasoning process.’ But that is a little imprecise. Fallacies arise when there is a problem in the reasoning of inference. However there are other types of reasoning which contains errors, and yet can still count as a type of (non-fallacious) rationality. For example, when people have personal gain, it can be rational for them to be irrational.
Overall this is a well researched and informative introduction to fallacies. It could have been improved in places, but it nevertheless does well to summarise a complex list of reasoning errors.
February 25, 2018
格言警句、陈词滥调、标语口号、箴言谚语、老生常谈有时候可作为权威论证以使人确信或说服他人。比如，“哪里有希望，哪里就有出路”这种说法取代了深入思考，而且只给人以油腔滑调的鼓励。
使用幽默、讽刺、嘲弄、暗讽、戏仿，或身体姿态可以导致注意力分散。通过利用这些手段引发对方的情绪反应，从而改变讨论的进程。对方感觉受辱可能会准备言辞反击以挽回颜面，也就忘记继续讨论的问题了。
意见、推论、推测和态度通常被混淆为事实。这种误解通常以谣传的形式展示自己。
有种非常危险的谬误，发生在人们把所有与有些混淆，或者把一个与大多数混淆时。许多人如此推定，因为有些公民有特定的感受，所以这就是所有公民或者大多数公民的感受。更糟糕的是，许多人将一家之言投射为整体的想法：因为一个人有这种感受，所以每个人都有这种感受。上一段引用的例证就是一个典型。布朗夫人把一个人的意见作为生活在阿根廷的全体美国人的代表意见。这是合成谬误的一个变式，但是，合成谬误假定若对各部分而言是真实的，那么对整体而言也是真实的，而所有/有些或者一个/大多数谬误则假定若对有些部分而言是真实的，那么对所有部分而言也是真实的，或者若对其中一个而言是真实的，则对大多数或者所有而言也是真实的。
当一种临时现象被混淆为一种因果关系时，因果关系就被滥用了。比如，有事后归因谬误（post hoc fallacy），这个名称来自拉丁语词组post hoc，ergo propter hoc：“发生在它之后，所以正是因为它。”这个谬误发生在有人论证说，因为Y事件发生在X事件之后，所以它是因为X事件才发生的。
..............................
自前述章节中收集到的可能最重要的原则如下：
a.要警惕任何使用绝对口吻说话的人：他们使用这样的词语，所有、没有、没人、从来没有、总是、每个人、必须、一……就……他们谈到一群人时仿佛所有成员都具有同样的特征、信念或态度。
b.要警惕一概而论，尤其是没有支撑的一概而论，或者只有一两个特定的、不常见的或极端的例子支撑的以偏概全。
c.要警惕所有使用感性语言、主观评价性语言而不考虑客观情况和事实的人。
d.不要把意见、态度、个人偏见、推测、个人保证或无支撑的一概而论与真凭实据混淆。
e.确定所讨论的问题清晰而明确，它的盘根错节与复杂性都已确认无误，它的目标已经确认无误，并且语言和概念已经做好定义。
f.确定证据与所讨论的特定主题相关，而不是与某些有关联的主题相关。
g.当提到权威时，不要自动承认权威，除非他/它的资格与所讨论的问题有关。
h.确保结论是由证据推断而来。
i.确保你没有置他人于不得不做推测的境地，确保自己没有处于不得不做推测的境地。换而言之，确保论证的必要步骤没有省略，避免做出假设。
j.无论何时，不要让理性的讨论变成激烈的争论。当讨论变得激烈之后，停止讨论，确定问题的根源，澄清所有误解，然后将讨论重c.要警惕所有使用感性语言、主观评价性语言而不考虑客观情况和事实的人。
d.不要把意见、态度、个人偏见、推测、个人保证或无支撑的一概而论与真凭实据混淆。
e.确定所讨论的问题清晰而明确，它的盘根错节与复杂性都已确认无误，它的目标已经确认无误，并且语言和概念已经做好定义。
f.确定证据与所讨论的特定主题相关，而不是与某些有关联的主题相关。
g.当提到权威时，不要自动承认权威，除非他/它的资格与所讨论的问题有关。
h.确保结论是由证据推断而来。
i.确保你没有置他人于不得不做推测的境地，确保自己没有处于不得不做推测的境地。换而言之，确保论证的必要步骤没有省略，避免做出假设。
j.无论何时，不要让理性的讨论变成激烈的争论。当讨论变得激烈之后，停止讨论，确定问题的根源，澄清所有误解，然后将讨论重新带回主题。当人们有不同意见时，确保他们知道意见分歧的具体性质。k.确保证据是完整的，而不是有选择性的。l.不要诡辩，不要为争论而争论。m.严谨地思考。不要不假思索地放过谬误；即使你不说什么，也要对自己说“这是荒谬的”。n.无论何时听到一个论证方式，在接受它的结论之前要仔细检查。问三个问题：·命题（前提条件、制作出来用作论据的要点）真实吗？·论据是完整的还是片面的？·结论是无可辩驳地来自论据吗？还是有其他不同的结论也可以轻易地从论据中推出？o.最后，无论你变得多么精通辩论，永远别忘记埃德加·爱伦·坡的《一桶阿蒙帝亚度酒》（The Cask of Amontillado）中的开场白：
对于福尔图纳托加于我的无数次伤害，我过去一直都尽可能地一忍了之，可在那次他斗胆侮辱了我以后，我就立下了以牙还牙的誓言。
这个世界不需要另一个聪明的傻瓜。
使用幽默、讽刺、嘲弄、暗讽、戏仿，或身体姿态可以导致注意力分散。通过利用这些手段引发对方的情绪反应，从而改变讨论的进程。对方感觉受辱可能会准备言辞反击以挽回颜面，也就忘记继续讨论的问题了。
意见、推论、推测和态度通常被混淆为事实。这种误解通常以谣传的形式展示自己。
有种非常危险的谬误，发生在人们把所有与有些混淆，或者把一个与大多数混淆时。许多人如此推定，因为有些公民有特定的感受，所以这就是所有公民或者大多数公民的感受。更糟糕的是，许多人将一家之言投射为整体的想法：因为一个人有这种感受，所以每个人都有这种感受。上一段引用的例证就是一个典型。布朗夫人把一个人的意见作为生活在阿根廷的全体美国人的代表意见。这是合成谬误的一个变式，但是，合成谬误假定若对各部分而言是真实的，那么对整体而言也是真实的，而所有/有些或者一个/大多数谬误则假定若对有些部分而言是真实的，那么对所有部分而言也是真实的，或者若对其中一个而言是真实的，则对大多数或者所有而言也是真实的。
当一种临时现象被混淆为一种因果关系时，因果关系就被滥用了。比如，有事后归因谬误（post hoc fallacy），这个名称来自拉丁语词组post hoc，ergo propter hoc：“发生在它之后，所以正是因为它。”这个谬误发生在有人论证说，因为Y事件发生在X事件之后，所以它是因为X事件才发生的。
..............................
自前述章节中收集到的可能最重要的原则如下：
a.要警惕任何使用绝对口吻说话的人：他们使用这样的词语，所有、没有、没人、从来没有、总是、每个人、必须、一……就……他们谈到一群人时仿佛所有成员都具有同样的特征、信念或态度。
b.要警惕一概而论，尤其是没有支撑的一概而论，或者只有一两个特定的、不常见的或极端的例子支撑的以偏概全。
c.要警惕所有使用感性语言、主观评价性语言而不考虑客观情况和事实的人。
d.不要把意见、态度、个人偏见、推测、个人保证或无支撑的一概而论与真凭实据混淆。
e.确定所讨论的问题清晰而明确，它的盘根错节与复杂性都已确认无误，它的目标已经确认无误，并且语言和概念已经做好定义。
f.确定证据与所讨论的特定主题相关，而不是与某些有关联的主题相关。
g.当提到权威时，不要自动承认权威，除非他/它的资格与所讨论的问题有关。
h.确保结论是由证据推断而来。
i.确保你没有置他人于不得不做推测的境地，确保自己没有处于不得不做推测的境地。换而言之，确保论证的必要步骤没有省略，避免做出假设。
j.无论何时，不要让理性的讨论变成激烈的争论。当讨论变得激烈之后，停止讨论，确定问题的根源，澄清所有误解，然后将讨论重c.要警惕所有使用感性语言、主观评价性语言而不考虑客观情况和事实的人。
d.不要把意见、态度、个人偏见、推测、个人保证或无支撑的一概而论与真凭实据混淆。
e.确定所讨论的问题清晰而明确，它的盘根错节与复杂性都已确认无误，它的目标已经确认无误，并且语言和概念已经做好定义。
f.确定证据与所讨论的特定主题相关，而不是与某些有关联的主题相关。
g.当提到权威时，不要自动承认权威，除非他/它的资格与所讨论的问题有关。
h.确保结论是由证据推断而来。
i.确保你没有置他人于不得不做推测的境地，确保自己没有处于不得不做推测的境地。换而言之，确保论证的必要步骤没有省略，避免做出假设。
j.无论何时，不要让理性的讨论变成激烈的争论。当讨论变得激烈之后，停止讨论，确定问题的根源，澄清所有误解，然后将讨论重新带回主题。当人们有不同意见时，确保他们知道意见分歧的具体性质。k.确保证据是完整的，而不是有选择性的。l.不要诡辩，不要为争论而争论。m.严谨地思考。不要不假思索地放过谬误；即使你不说什么，也要对自己说“这是荒谬的”。n.无论何时听到一个论证方式，在接受它的结论之前要仔细检查。问三个问题：·命题（前提条件、制作出来用作论据的要点）真实吗？·论据是完整的还是片面的？·结论是无可辩驳地来自论据吗？还是有其他不同的结论也可以轻易地从论据中推出？o.最后，无论你变得多么精通辩论，永远别忘记埃德加·爱伦·坡的《一桶阿蒙帝亚度酒》（The Cask of Amontillado）中的开场白：
对于福尔图纳托加于我的无数次伤害，我过去一直都尽可能地一忍了之，可在那次他斗胆侮辱了我以后，我就立下了以牙还牙的誓言。
这个世界不需要另一个聪明的傻瓜。
December 19, 2023
The book provides most of the logical fallacies and the methods to catch and avoid them. It argues about how we should not be easily persuaded to accept anything by any emotional or social appeal. We should seek a valid reason in our discussion and from those we listen to. The later chapters go into detail on some of the logical fallacies with great examples. It was a little confusing with some of the examples, but in the appendix, the editor states that there were mistakes in some of the examples provided.
The only downside to the book is that it felt repetitive with the topics it provided. Some of the concepts, like "appeal to tradition" or "bad inference," got repeated throughout the book. The book was also oversaturated with examples that felt verbose and unnecessary. I felt the book could be shorter.
great book that I recommend to all.
The only downside to the book is that it felt repetitive with the topics it provided. Some of the concepts, like "appeal to tradition" or "bad inference," got repeated throughout the book. The book was also oversaturated with examples that felt verbose and unnecessary. I felt the book could be shorter.
great book that I recommend to all.
October 15, 2017
The structure of the book could be better. Perhaps more focus on the more common fallacies. All in all an okay introduction to logical fallacies and argumentation, but for me personally, it tried to cover too much for its size and therefore felt somewhat superficial and cluttered. I therefore cannot recommend it and hope to find better books on the topic.
January 5, 2020
Nonsense making so much sence!
Such an interesting and substantial explanation of how our language becomes so muddied with misleading and confused wording. Great examples of simple word mistakes used in simple arguments. Very helpful with understanding over simplified and leading usage of words. Would read again simply to understand point of view.
Such an interesting and substantial explanation of how our language becomes so muddied with misleading and confused wording. Great examples of simple word mistakes used in simple arguments. Very helpful with understanding over simplified and leading usage of words. Would read again simply to understand point of view.
April 27, 2022
This book was fun to read, for the most part, but what is it?
It is not a text book. No exercises, laid out more like a reference book.
But, it's not really a reference book in that it is easier to read through than to use to look up things.
Hundreds of logical fallacies, both formal (If X then Y) and informal (Strawman) are explained with short examples.
It is not a text book. No exercises, laid out more like a reference book.
But, it's not really a reference book in that it is easier to read through than to use to look up things.
Hundreds of logical fallacies, both formal (If X then Y) and informal (Strawman) are explained with short examples.
January 19, 2018
Nice work! A book where words and logic still have objective meaning.
April 14, 2020
Very helpful book on clear thinking and argumentation. Everyone should read this book in order to avoid the traps of bad arguments.
July 22, 2020
Nonsense by Robert J Gula is a book of how to not BS and how not to be fooled by BS.
A resourceful guide. Read it multiple time!
A resourceful guide. Read it multiple time!
January 7, 2023
A Review of the Most Common Bad Arguments
Essentially a review of many of the most common bad arguments and argumentative techniques that one hears all the time to time in daily life.
Essentially a review of many of the most common bad arguments and argumentative techniques that one hears all the time to time in daily life.
September 12, 2024
Informative, but extremely technical. When read like a book on rhetoric, it is very useful.
April 14, 2025
Nonsense is about understanding the common logical fallacies we encounter in everyday life. While there weren't many concepts I didn't know before, it was still pretty interesting to have scattered bits of knowledge in my mind organized into a coherent framework.
September 5, 2025
It is a decent primer on the various fallacious forms of reasoning; however, many of Gula’s examples are somewhat ambiguous and, at times, imprecise.
October 4, 2025
Some bits were quite repetitive and could have been summarized better or omitted. Very insightful and you can tell Robert is knowledgeable. Would not recommend if you aren’t taking the LSAT lmao
October 12, 2025
I remember reading it in Aug or Sep 2022.
this was very insightful for me
this was very insightful for me
June 22, 2020
It is a book that you can easily gift to anyone who is either illogical or logically inept.
I believe that it is a must read if you want to introduce yourself to logic and common logical fallacies in extremely simple language.
By the end of the book (last 3-4 chapters) the style seems inconsistent, though. And I lost interest too.
The language seemed diluted many times across chapters. But that's a tradeoff I guess.
Some chapters are valuable and can be referred back to in times of need. While reading the book, I was feeling embarrassed to have committed so many of the avoidable logical mistakes and was a victim of fallacies.
Found this book around the time when Gautam Bhatia published his views on one court's judgement on his blog. He stated how metaphors were used instead of logic. It was also the time when I was contemplating about logical fallacies in everyday life. While searching for some term on Google Books, I ended up discovering this book. Ultimately, I came across this book by mistake, but it is a valuable find in the end.
I believe that it is a must read if you want to introduce yourself to logic and common logical fallacies in extremely simple language.
By the end of the book (last 3-4 chapters) the style seems inconsistent, though. And I lost interest too.
The language seemed diluted many times across chapters. But that's a tradeoff I guess.
Some chapters are valuable and can be referred back to in times of need. While reading the book, I was feeling embarrassed to have committed so many of the avoidable logical mistakes and was a victim of fallacies.
Found this book around the time when Gautam Bhatia published his views on one court's judgement on his blog. He stated how metaphors were used instead of logic. It was also the time when I was contemplating about logical fallacies in everyday life. While searching for some term on Google Books, I ended up discovering this book. Ultimately, I came across this book by mistake, but it is a valuable find in the end.
February 10, 2017
It's called handbook of "logical" fallacies, but most of it are just different ways to tell you, that "authority said this" and emotions are not valid arguments.
The book should (and could) be written in more condense way. This is just neverending list of fallacies. Usualy discussion of tham lacks clear argumentation why it is fallacy. Yes, sometimes it obvious, but sometimes not and mostly you just think "yeh, that kinda looks like fallacy, but this opinion should be justified more rigidly".
More general topics (e.g. validity) as even worse. Unsatisfyingly short and argumentation of some more nuance problems was unconvincing.
And format of book is terrible, hundreds of little tiny pages. Why?
This book certainly has something for you to learn, but I think there better sources to choose (like wikipedia).
The book should (and could) be written in more condense way. This is just neverending list of fallacies. Usualy discussion of tham lacks clear argumentation why it is fallacy. Yes, sometimes it obvious, but sometimes not and mostly you just think "yeh, that kinda looks like fallacy, but this opinion should be justified more rigidly".
More general topics (e.g. validity) as even worse. Unsatisfyingly short and argumentation of some more nuance problems was unconvincing.
And format of book is terrible, hundreds of little tiny pages. Why?
This book certainly has something for you to learn, but I think there better sources to choose (like wikipedia).
December 11, 2012
As the title suggests, this is an entire book dedicated to fallacies of argument and logic. It's a slim little volume, fairly inexpensive and doesn't take up a lot of space. Therefore, I highly suggest this to anyone studying writing, literature, history, critical thinking, communication ... well, just about everything, really. Learn how to fill up the holes in your logic while simultaneously pointing out the gaps in others'! Seriously, though, having this book on hand will greatly refine your writing and analytical skills. Oh, and don't be confused by the edition with a red cover; it's the same content as the blue edition.
December 13, 2015
I really enjoyed this book. I have heard a lot about it being boring and too factual, but that logic is the base premise of the whole book! Its intention feels like an informational handbook, so going into it thinking that made it really enjoyable for me. I recommend it, it is a great book to read parts of if you want to understand logic and language better (especially near an election, we all should be equipped with knowledge to combat politicians fallacies)!
December 24, 2013
This book is a fun, educational and easy to read guide on the different types of propaganda and logical fallacies. Highly recommend especially if you follow commentary by talking heads on the news and news reporters. It is also a good primer if you happen to encounter a political discussion or arguement.
October 29, 2016
This book should be required reading before anyone is allowed to post things on the internet. The beginning was the most helpful because he used a lot of examples. The chapters toward the end were more technical, the chapter on syllogisms too much so. Overall, a useful book. It made me think a lot about the assumptions and inferences I make when speaking and listening.
June 18, 2010
Nice review, or introduction -- whichever is the case -- of informal logic, with a bit of syllogistic logic thrown in. If you've had a course in logic, this is a good review. If not, it's a good introduction. Recommended to those who like clear thinking.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews