Customer Reviews

The Art of Deception: An Introduction to Critical Thinking : How to : Win an Argument, Defend a Case, Recognize a Fallacy, See Through a Deception,

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This book is one of those cases where the title really does sum up the nature of the book. This book is everything that its title implies.

If you are looking for a quick read (perhaps you have a tough debate tomorrow) on how to recognize fallacies, present arguments and a basic introduction into informal logic then you will like this book (in fact, in this case, I would highly recommend it). If, however, you are seeking a formal introduction to the theoretical framework of logic then maybe "Introduction to Logic" by Copi is better suited to your needs.

Overall, this book fulfilled its purpose. You'll do well in your tough debate after reading this book.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ONE: INTRODUCTION. What is Logic? What is an Argument? When is an Argument Acceptable?

TWO: IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS. Arguments. Difficulties in Identifying Arguments. Grammar, Punctuation , and Reading Comprehension. Rules for Identifying Premises and Conclusions.

THREE: FORMAL ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS. Idal of Logic. Syllogisms. Rules for Valid Syllogisms. Soundness and Informal Logic.

FOUR: PRESENTING YOUR CASE. Gaining a Sympathetic Audience. Presenting the Facts. Driving Home the Conclusion. Nonverbal Devices. Advertising as a Case Study.

FIVE: ATTACKING AN ARGUMENT. Audience Reaction. Anatomy of Refutation. Attacking the Conclusion. Face-to-Face Debate.

SIX: DEFENDING YOUR CASE. Counterattack. Winning the Argument. Going for a Tie.

SEVEN: CAUSE-AND-EFFECT REASONING. History of the Concept of 'Causation'. Hume's Definition of Cause and Effect. Causal Reasoning as Practical. Mill's Methods. Fallacies of Causal Reasoning. Problems with the Concept of 'Causation'.

Good luck!

Who open scroll always profit says an ancient Chinese motto. The same applies to books. I profited from reading this one, but I didn't profit much or enough. The work is uneven and needs focus. The title is poor because it misnames the subject of the book which is, incidentally, not how to win an anrgument, but how to think clearly. Some of the author's points would have passed me by and probably other points would have been downright confusing had I not had a background in logic. And one wonders about a book on the Art of Deception deceiving people into believing that the book is one thing when it is really about something else. Perhaps some well meaning editior or PR person mispersuaded the author to use this fake and phony title in the hope of increased sales. A few bones: I don't like the word argument because of its two meanings. Demonstration is better. The formal analysis of arguments (my demonstrations) in chapter three hits the reader on the head: Although it is technically correct, without a background in formal logic you might get lost fast. The chapter could have done better explaining the differences between contraries and contradictions and the reasons for the other errors which are never clearly stated. The author just assumes the reader will get it when I have a feeling derived from teaching logic for years that they won't and don't. For intstance, why the undistributed middle term invalidates a proof is clear to me only because I knew it from previous studies, and thought long and hard about it, not from what the author says here in his book. And the worst sin of all: Somewhere in the middle of the discussion of groupthink, the author seems to get bored with his own discussion. No wonder the reader nods off. Those interested in improving their critical thinking should read Asking the Right Questions. Those interested in understanding errors in logic might consult The Art of Argument by St. Aubyn, a book that hits hard where we need improvement by showing us the common errors of thinking of overgeneralization, false analogy, vague definition, and partial selection of the evidence.

I appreciate what the author was trying to do: teach logic and rhetoric in a fun how-to-succeed format. I don't think it works very well, though. It's too disjointed to be helpful to the beginner and too familiar to be interesting to more advanced students.

For the beginner: To learn logic, start out with David Kelley's "The Art of Reasoning" and Irving Copi's "Introduction to Logic". To learn rhetoric and argumentation, try David Zarefsky's audiotape course on "Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning" and his books on public speaking.

More advanced students will want to check out Chaim Perelman's books on rhetoric and Douglas N. Walton's studies of informal fallacies. An excellent but out-of-print book is William J. Brandt's "The Rhetoric of Argumentation" which gives detailed analyses of effective and ineffective rhetorical strategies in essay-writing.

Ironically, this book's TITLE can be deceptive to the unsuspecting reader. This book does not attempt to extoll the virtues of deception or dispense Machiavellian thought to the masses. Instead, the book is meant as a comprehensive guide to the finer points or argumentation and debate.

A persevering reader may leave this book with a deeper appreciation for the art of argumentation. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the same holds true for the average reader. A few interesting points are left scattered in a book that is often too long and too confusing.

I would imagine that this book would appeal to logicians, philosophers, and lawyers who have labored in the fields of logic, debate, and argumentation throughout the majority of their adult lives. But for others who would like to become more eloquent speakers, I recommend that you look elsewhere.

I would like to second the reviews by Mr. Patten and Mr. Gorman. "The Art of Deception" is itself deceptively titled. The author takes a pseudo-Machiavellian tack and tries to promote elementary critical thinking skills in the guise of a handbook for unscrupulous debaters. Cute idea, but it sort of defeats itself. Sadly, it could actually be used as a handbook for the unscrupulous--and probably has been. And, as others have pointed out, the book is alternately sketchy and tedious. I, too, would have been baffled by several discussions in the book if I hadn't already taken several college courses in logic and rhetoric.

For a much better book on this subject, read Howard Kahane's "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric".

I read the book. As a lawyer, I'm always looking to improve my skills. I believe it was Aristotle (or some dead Greek) who warned about bad men in command of good rhetoric, and I suppose the same could be said about intentionally deceptive people, as Capaldi illustrates. (Without `fingering' any particular public person from the last few years.)
"It takes one to catch one," as the saying goes regarding thieves. If you want to catch someone not `playing' fairly, for example, a prosecutor condemning the heinous crime of murder, when the issue is the guilt or innocence of the defendant, this book illustrates things you need to keep in mind. I thought the intent of the title was obvious but it was apparently not clear to some readers.
I did not understand him to advocate the use of deceptive logic; however, of course one can be a sophist with logic. I believe all Capaldi does is try to provide the rules and then show how they are broken. He points out that even after taking his course many students still can't spot simple informal logical fallacies. In sum, even if you are a `straight shooter'--or try to be--that doesn't mean the other guy is.
After a careful re-reading of this book, I believe it allows you to at least make a choice in the new year whether you want to be `good' (dazzle 'em with logic) or `bad' (baffle 'em with, well, you know).
USA! (ad populum)

For those with a desire to increase their skill at argumentation, from formal debates to quiet negotiations at home to shouting matches in the street, this book offers some of the most powerful and effective weapons you will ever add to your arsenal. I question anyone who didn't find it of help, since the techniques held in this manual you do not use....you wield! I recommend "How to Win an Argument" By Michael Gilbert for those new to argumentation, as "Deception" will make much more sense with foreknowledge of the subject. Then move on to "Deception" and prepare to enter a training ground that will give you weapons and techniques so powerful, so devastating that they may be more than you even wanted. The strategies here are incredibly powerful, and are remarkably effective. Each chapter you will grow stronger and stronger until by the end you will be able to win or draw every argument you will face, and tear some people to pieces in the process. Believe me when I say that I have made people scream in fury at me, scream that they hate me after dismantling them with what I learned in this book. In some ways the book is too powerful. In some ways you will not even know your own strength after reading it. I recommend using Dale Carnegie techniques most of the time in life, but when you need to defend yourself in a verbal battle or lock up with another in a good old fashion argument, then "The Art of Deception" will provide you with an invaluable arsenal that will ready you for war. Watch in pleasure and even disbelief as you feel yourself roll effortlessly over your opponent, picking them apart like a bug, and watch in delight as they finally lose their temper and begin screaming in defeat. Ready yourself for the very fast paced types of arguments where you seem to be unable to even get a word in, but God help them when it's your turn, for you will usually be able to defeat your opponent in thirty seconds or less in this situation. Please be careful however, because some of the artillery that this book provides is so devastating that you can crush even a good friend in an argument easily and make them very angry, and you may not even mean to.
Learn the basic argument structures such as valid and sound syllogisms which form the building blocks of argumentation. Learn how to build and present a nearly invincible case. Learn how to refute an opponent's argument, and defend you own from attack. Then learn how to catch people in fallacies and tear them apart by identifying weak points in their case. Be trained how to attack and defend brilliantly from any front and direction. Additionally, one of the most devastating weapons, learn how to use fallacies themselves as valid weapons and watch your hapless opponent writhe in agony and drown in a pool of defeat. If you're going to get into verbal confrontations in the future, this is the next best thing to punching them in the face. Become invincible in argumentation, read the masterpiece, "The Art of Deception"

I give this book 3 stars because the information in the book is consistent with the title, and I neglected to give it the remaining 2 stars due to the weak presentation. As you could infer from the title, this book is about deceiving others in a debate type scenario. This book runs into a problem, however, because the tricks that he advocates are rather elementary from even a semi-educated point of view. I am only 15 years old, but I am really into logic, and had read some logic books prior to this one. With the knowledge I had gleaned from an introductory level logic book, I was able to see through most of the tricks he shows in this book. The vast majority of his deceptive tricks are basic logical fallacies. For this reason, I find the book an interesting read, but due to the almost primal simplicity of his deceptive tools, I would not advise anyone to take his methods seriously. If anyone tried to use his methods against any intelligent person, they would almost certainly be crushed without a fight. To summarize, buy the book, but not with the intent of taking it to heart, but rather as an exercise in exposing logical fallacies.

Whether you are an experienced arbitrator looking for an easy reference or someone just interested in learning more about the many techniques of winning your point, this book is for you. The structure of this book is logical and easy to follow. You'll become familiar with such terms as "theoretical constructs" ,"red herrings", and many more which you'll learn to use as you develop your point and sway your opponents. This book is an invaluabe reference for those with arbitration experience and those looking to get some. I have found the tools inside this book to be extremely usefull in settling large claims where tensions are high and points need to be made. Read it, enjoy it, and learn from it. If you enjoy the art of arguing, you'll definately enjoy this book.

I bought this book because I had read several good reviews of it. I thought that it would be able to help me improve my arguing skills using legitimate methods. However, the book has turned out to be an absolute waste of my time and money. It is hardly an "Introduction to Critical Thinking" as it claims to be. The author advocates using ambiguity, trickery, and insulting your opponent to try to win arguments. For example, he states that you should not use the words "all" or "some" or that you should use vague terms so that later on you can claim any of a number of different meanings. He also states that you must have a deep voice in order to be successful at arguing, so I guess if you are a woman then you will be unsuccessful. He even has some ridiculous suggestions, like if you don't agree with certain ideas, then you should attack all knowledge in general, and claim that there is a conspiracy among those people who support those ideas. In addition, he often suggests that you attack your opponent rather than their argument. This might be a good strategy for elementary school kids, but not for adults! He also states that you should never admit defeat, and you should refuse to be convinced of your opponent's argument. It really sounds like the author has an ego problem. If you are able to communicate your ideas to your opponent and are able to analyze and understand their ideas and you still lose, then so be it. The presentation of your ideas and the analysis of your opponent's ideas are the key aspects of arguments. Unfortunately the book does not understand that.