.Free E-pub ♢ How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic ♖ eBooks or Kindle ePUB free

I am planning to re read this.This book is basically an alphabetical list of all mainstream tricks and pitfalls skilled arguers use to get their points accros Plenty of examples are provided throughout that make the concepts stick But way too much info in one book definitely will have another go. The book is an A Z of fallacies people make while putting forward arguments listed by their Latin title Each fallacy is described with examples and things to look out for when they are being committed Once you have read this book you ll find yourself spotting the fallacies all the time when chatting to your friends, watching TV interviews or reading opinion pieces A worthy read and really handy for people who like to debate and argue. Very good source of information, and had some genuinely awesome insights It was, however, a bit too dry, and often read like a highly structured textbook, which made it difficult to read for longer than 10 minutes at a time. I came across this book by accident at a Barnes Noble in Bakersfield It looked interesting, so I picked it up I study logic and philosophy, and teach it to homeschool kids, so I thought this might be a book that illustrates these fallacies in an entertaining way Unfortunately, as I read through it, it seems that Pirie doesn t quite have a great handle on some of the arguments he uses as examples in this book, which frankly puts the credibility of the rest of the book in severe doubt.Let me I came across this book by accident at a Barnes Noble in Bakersfield It looked interesting, so I picked it up I study logic and philosophy, and teach it to homeschool kids, so I thought this might be a book that illustrates these fallacies in an entertaining way Unfortunately, as I read through it, it seems that Pirie doesn t quite have a great handle on some of the arguments he uses as examples in this book, which frankly puts the credibility of the rest of the book in severe doubt.Let me give an example from his section Conclusion which denies premises on pp 66 68 of his book.Pirie describes an this type of fallacy as follows The conclusion which denies its premises is one of the oh dear I forgot what I started to say fallacies It starts by maintaining that certain things must be true, and ends up with a conclusion which flatly contradicts them This seems to be another way of stating that the conclusion is self defeating because it relies on contradictory premises.One of the examples he uses is one of the standard arguments of Christian apologetics, the Kalam Cosmological Argument Pirie describe the argument as follows Everything must have a cause That, in turn, must result from a previous cause Since it cannot go back forever, we know that there must be an uncaused causer to start the process The conclusion is that God exists as the uncaused causer , but one of the premises in the argument is that everything has a cause, and God would be part of everything , so God must have a cause Nanny nanny boo boo.However, there are two glaring issues with this argument The first is that Pirie is conflating two separate arguments for God s existence, the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Contingency Argument The second is that no Christian thinker, in the long history of Christian thinkers, has ever defended the proposition that everything must have a cause Pirie even has the audacity to claim that Aristotle and Aquinas used this kind of argument, of course without citation so you can t check to make sure his understanding of these thinkers is correct Now, the proposition defended by Christian thinkers, such as modern philosopher William Lane Craig, is that Everything that begins to exist has a cause This is an important different Christians have always believed that God does not have a cause because God did not have a beginning, being uncreated and self existent This is the same blunder that Richard Dawkins fell into with his book The God Delusion the one that made atheist philosopher Michael Ruse ashamed to be an atheist , except that Dawkins at least has the excuse that he s not a trained philosopher Pirie doesn t have such a recourse to explain such an elementary blunder and if it seems I m being a bit harsh, it s only because this is such an easy to avoid falsehood yet I see it all the time from atheists who don t bother to learn about what they want to criticize.It s also worth noting that the Big Bang had not yet been discovered by the time of Aristotle and Aquinas To them, the universe existing forever was a valid possibility much less valid now So they had no idea whether or not the universe, itself, had a beginning, requiring a cause to start it The arguments Aquinas defends will succeed even if the universe was eternal and therefore, not having a prior cause.So let me separate the two arguments First, the Kalam Cosmological Argument P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2 The universe began to exist.C Therefore, the universe had a cause.Now, one can infer God from this argument, but the argument, itself, does not lead to the conclusion that God exists, only to the conclusion that the universe had a cause Thinkers like Dr Craig use this argument as part of a cumulative case for God s existence, since it does not lead to the existence of the Christian God on its own.Aquinas does defend a similar argument as does Aristotle, but I m less familiar with his version , an Argument from Motion I will not defend it here, because it would require a lot of space to do so, but I will give a very brief and basic treatment of the argument The universe moves and to Aquinas, movement was not necessarily simply locomotion, but a movement from potency to actuality Since the universe moves, it has potentials that need to be actualized But a potential must have something outside itself to actualize it e.g wood has the potential to catch fire, but something that can produce fire needs to set it on fire This means that the universe, having potentials that need actualizing, must have something outside itself to do the actualizing This would require something that is pure act with no potentials at all, otherwise you are left with an infinite regress, which would be impossible This thing of pure act we call God.The second argument is the Contingency Argument The argument essentially states that the universe, and everything in the universe, are contingent things Since the universe itself is contingent e.g we know the universe will one day die in a heat death , something that is contingent requires something outside itself for its existence, a necessary entity This necessary entity we call God.Again, a different argument from the one Pirie outlined in his book Pirie tries pay lip service to saving the argument, trying to give what he thinks would be a Christian attempt to save the argument as I just showed, there is no need for a Christian thinker to save the argument because Christian thinkers are not as dumb as Pirie apparently thinks they are by changing everything has a cause to everything in the universe must have a cause outside itself then argues against that statement Again, of course, he s wasting his time because the real statement doesn t need to be adjusted, and the one he adjusted it to is clearly a poor statement, as well since obviously the universe is not inside the universe.That s all I ll say about that.There are other problems with the book, such as Pirie also not understanding the political atmosphere very well or perhaps he only looks to the uneducated members instead of the good thinkers holding positions he disagrees with He speaks of the argumentum ad antiquitam and argumentum ad novitam arguments, which collectively fall under the umbrella chronological snobbery argumentum ad antiquitam being that the old is better because it s old, and argument ad novitum being that the new is better because it s new He states that the argumentum ad antiquam argument finds it home among Conservatives This can be true, but he also fails to mention that many Conservatives make arguments for their positions I oppose same sex marriage, not because all cultures have traditionally rejected the concept which is true , but because of what marriage is , and gender complimentarity is an essential property of marriage.Now, he goes on to say that while Liberals use to be the home of argumentum ad novitam, curiously he argues that it now makes it home among Conservatives which is news to me, since conservatives literally want to conserve the status quo He states that Liberals are now looking back to the time of social reform likely making a comparison of trying to win certain rights for homosexuals based on social reform for blacks and women But this comparison is a false analogy, for a couple of reasons It was conservatives, not liberals, who fought for and won rights for blacks and women Lincoln was a Republican, and most of the civil rights pioneers, like Martin Luther King, Jr., were conservative Christians Second, opposition to interracial marriage was based on racism but was still considered marriage, whereas opposition to same sex marriage is not based on homophobia but on the fact that two people of the same sex just do not make a marriage As Lincoln once said, you can call a dog s tail a leg, but that doesn t change the fact the dog has four legs Calling same sex marriage marriage does not make it so.Unfortunately the negatives here outweigh the positives, as they don t exactly inspire confidence that this is an objective look at these fallacies There are much better books that can teach you how to logic and reason well One of the best technical books on logic and fallacy, I enjoyed reading this book, although most of the fallacies introduced in this book are from Western logic, but they can also be used in Eastern I recommend this for philosophy students, and mostly for critics writing It helps to understand the structure of fallacious sentences and have a logical structured writing. Montreal Freethinkers Book Club pick for this September 2013 I found it in pdf online and thought it sounded interesting It was okay I think I would have preferred if the fallacies were listed by category rather than alphabetically to better illustrate the subtle difference between some of them The examples are very good and the advice on how to use each fallacy to your advantage quite humurous All in all though, most of the fallacies are pretty obvious and I didn t find the book particula Montreal Freethinkers Book Club pick for this September 2013 I found it in pdf online and thought it sounded interesting It was okay I think I would have preferred if the fallacies were listed by category rather than alphabetically to better illustrate the subtle difference between some of them The examples are very good and the advice on how to use each fallacy to your advantage quite humurous All in all though, most of the fallacies are pretty obvious and I didn t find the book particularly insightful .Free E-pub ♴ How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic ☳ This is the book your friends will wish you hadn t read, a witty and infectious guide to arguing successfully Each entry deals with one fallacy, explaining what the fallacy is, giving and analysing an example, outlining when where why the particular fallacy tends to occur and finally showing how you can perpetrate the fallacy on other people in order to win an argument Originally published to great acclaim inas The Book of Fallacy , this is a classic brought up to date for a whole new generation Paradisul pierdut a witty and infectious guide to arguing successfully Each entry deals with one fallacy Spearwood Academy explaining what the fallacy is L'Epicurisme giving and analysing an example High Intensity Interval Training Body Weight Edition: Beginner Level outlining when where why the particular fallacy tends to occur and finally showing how you can perpetrate the fallacy on other people in order to win an argument Originally published to great acclaim inas The Book of Fallacy Lab Rats: Why Modern Work Makes People Miserable this is a classic brought up to date for a whole new generation This book gives a good description of all fallacies concerning logic It is thorough but not at all dry The author is good at distinguishing fine differences that might easily be confused The examples are also humorous and down to earth. The content of the book is good Madsen Pirie managed to explain the different fallacies commonly found in arguments do the the soundness of the logic contained A lot of different types of logical fallacies were explained, and they were really interesting Madsen included witty examples, sometimes forcing us to think and smile as we understood the fallacies Some fallacies which he explained are really technincal and quite to grasp, while others are commonly practiced in our everyday experience The content of the book is good Madsen Pirie managed to explain the different fallacies commonly found in arguments do the the soundness of the logic contained A lot of different types of logical fallacies were explained, and they were really interesting Madsen included witty examples, sometimes forcing us to think and smile as we understood the fallacies Some fallacies which he explained are really technincal and quite to grasp, while others are commonly practiced in our everyday experiences Hence, to get the most out of this book, one has to really internalize the different types of logical fallacies and practice it in our daily life.I wish the author could have arranged the materials in the book muchclearly, topically grouped, preferably, each containing an introduction for each group I feel it would make the materials in the book much easier to digest, rather than listing them alphabetically and jumping from one type of fallacy to another Shortly put, there seems to be almost no flow between one fallacy and the next, making understanding the broad topic adaunting task There is a short illustration of the groupings of the fallacies at the end of the book, but that makes it inconvenient to refer to everytime I arrive at every fallacy.As Maden puts it in the book, in the hands of the wrong person, this isof a weapon than a book, and I plan to be one of those, hehehe A great beginners guide to understanding, recognizing and unfortunately using some of the most common types of logical fallacies The book is essentially an alphabetical list of common fallacies with definitions, explanations, and examples A generous helping of dry wit is used extensively throughout the book, injecting puns and the like into the examples, which helps to liven the relatively dry material something I appreciated, though others may find annoying I found it unfortunate that th A great beginners guide to understanding, recognizing and unfortunately using some of the most common types of logical fallacies The book is essentially an alphabetical list of common fallacies with definitions, explanations, and examples A generous helping of dry wit is used extensively throughout the book, injecting puns and the like into the examples, which helps to liven the relatively dry material something I appreciated, though others may find annoying I found it unfortunate that the author structured the writing in a way that encourages the strategic use of the fallacies, rather than how to avoid and counter them when presented by an opponent in a debate Although you can still take it any way you d like, I would have liked aencouraging message of How to Win Every Argument by avoiding logical fallacies