ATTACKING FAULTY REASONING is the most comprehensive, readable, and theoretically sound book on the common fallacies. It is designed to help one construct and evaluate arguments. The overriding purpose of the text is to help the students recognize when they construct or encounter a good or successful argument of a particular action or belief. This one skill is reinforced on every page of the text, from the first three chapters that focus on the criteria for a good argument, through the four major chapters on the fallacies or ways that arguments can go wrong. The emphasis is on resolving issues rather than pointing out flaws in arguments.
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shop the Amazon.com Textbooks Store and save up to 70% on textbook rentals, 90% on used textbooks and 60% on eTextbooks. |
|
There is a newer edition of this item:
|
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
T. Edward Damer received his Ph.D. from Boston University and currently teaches at Emory and Henry College.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
110 of 111 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This is one of the first texts on critical thinking to incorporate traditional logical fallacies in a unified theory of fallacies and arguments. Damer lists four criteria of a "good argument," then defines a "fallacy" as a violation of one or more of these criteria. He then groups all of the traditional fallacies by the criterion that they violate. Thus, the readers are not just learning a list of fallacies in an intellectual vaccuum; they are learning a holistic system that makes sense intuitively and logically, and will enable them not only to critique flawed arguments, but to construct logically sound arguments of their own.
Damer also includes "A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion," twelve principles for civilized, intelligent discussion of issues. These twelve principles include the four criteria of a good argument, thus connecting all the ideas of the book in one logical and easily understood structure. It's noteworthy that the author includes a discussion of ethics, and the "right" and "wrong" way to argue. He even has strategies on how to point out flawed arguments without being judgemental or intellectually condescending. Knowledge is power, after all, and intellectual might doesn't necessarily make right.
It's refreshing to see a critical thinking text acknowledge the ethical responsibility that comes with superior critical thinking skills. Damer takes this responsibility very seriously, and encourages readers to seek truth over victory. This is apparent in the Code of Conduct, which includes "The Fallibility Principle," "The Truth-Seeking Principle," and "The Principle of Charity."
The author includes numerous, excellent examples of the fallacies, taken from a wide variety of contexts. He also gives examples of three different methods for attacking fallacies: logical deconstruction, counterexamples, and absurd examples. The absurd example is a particularly powerful method which is easy to understand and effective with even the most subtle fallacies. Damer excels in demonstrating this method with many effective examples.
If you only buy one book on critical thinking, make it this one! This is the closest thing I've seen to a critical thinking "Bible," incorporating ethical principles, and a practical definition of a good argument, and wrapping it all up with the traditional fallacies in a sensible and intuitive logical structure.
Damer also includes "A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion," twelve principles for civilized, intelligent discussion of issues. These twelve principles include the four criteria of a good argument, thus connecting all the ideas of the book in one logical and easily understood structure. It's noteworthy that the author includes a discussion of ethics, and the "right" and "wrong" way to argue. He even has strategies on how to point out flawed arguments without being judgemental or intellectually condescending. Knowledge is power, after all, and intellectual might doesn't necessarily make right.
It's refreshing to see a critical thinking text acknowledge the ethical responsibility that comes with superior critical thinking skills. Damer takes this responsibility very seriously, and encourages readers to seek truth over victory. This is apparent in the Code of Conduct, which includes "The Fallibility Principle," "The Truth-Seeking Principle," and "The Principle of Charity."
The author includes numerous, excellent examples of the fallacies, taken from a wide variety of contexts. He also gives examples of three different methods for attacking fallacies: logical deconstruction, counterexamples, and absurd examples. The absurd example is a particularly powerful method which is easy to understand and effective with even the most subtle fallacies. Damer excels in demonstrating this method with many effective examples.
If you only buy one book on critical thinking, make it this one! This is the closest thing I've seen to a critical thinking "Bible," incorporating ethical principles, and a practical definition of a good argument, and wrapping it all up with the traditional fallacies in a sensible and intuitive logical structure.
44 of 45 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
I like the *idea* of this book - the book it *could* be, if you will - very much. But actually using it to teach a critical thinking course last year revealed serious flaws.
According to the ad copy and the first chapter or so, the overall goal is to present a coherent theory of argumentation, and of fallacies as failures to meet the obligations that theory imposes. A good argument has feature X, while a deviation from X is a type of fallacy, basically. This is a good idea for a way to structure a critical thinking textbook, and particularly for a way to work the fallacies into it so that they don't feel like an afterthought. Another feature I liked was the incorporation of that theory of argument into a larger theory of argumentative *conduct*, where we have obligations, not just to do our best to make our arguments as good as possible, but to be charitable and fair-minded toward our opponents as well. This is a point that needs to be stressed in any CT course and it's very good that Damer makes sure to do so at the outset.
However, the book has a number of serious flaws. For one thing, the "theory" of argumentation it's supposedly built around really isn't. The theory is little more than a list of five features a good argument should have (except when it doesn't; the Structural criterion doesn't apply to all arguments, at least not in a uniform way). Actually, more like eight features or so, since some of his five criteria are themselves bundles of distinct, only loosely related concepts. The reader expecting Damer to tie these features together in some way - to tell us what it is they have in common that allows them to play this role - is going to be disappointed; there is no serious, non-circular attempt to do this. Perhaps the average first-year student using this as a textbook wouldn't notice this, or wouldn't care, but it made teaching this book far less satisfying than I had hoped.
I wish to discuss three other notable flaws, each arguably less deep, but more pedagogically significant. First of all, many of the examples - both of types of fallacy, and of specific (supposed) instances of fallacies - simply aren't arguments, fallacious or otherwise. Not every instance of ambiguity, rationalization, misuse of a principle or wishful thinking involves an argument, but Damer sometimes uses a very large and unwieldy sledgehammer to make them look as though they do Similarly, several of Damer's specific examples, such as the landlord on page 200, refer to things as arguments that simply aren't (in this case the landlord's "argument" is better described as an explanation). In teaching a critical thinking class, it is of the first importance that students learn to distinguish between arguments and other bits of language, especially explanations, that are not arguments. Stronger students will understand the distinction intuitively but I found many of my students last year to be very ill-served by Damer in this regard. When I switched to Govier this past summer, the proportion of my students who consistently had problems distinguishing arguments from explanations dropped - I kid you not - from about 50% to *ZERO*.
Another very serious problem concerns Damer's explanation of Aristotelean categorical logic. Traditionally, the I statement ("Some S are P") is defined as meaning that at least one S is also a P, and similarly the O statement ("Some S are not P") as "At least one S is not a P". Damer, on the other hand, defines the I statement as meaning at least one S is a P *but not all of them are*, and similarly for the O statement. But then the I statement means "there's at least one S that's a P, and at least one that isn't" and so does the O statement; therefore, by Damer's definitions, the two are exactly equivalent! But Damer goes on to explain the traditional logical properties of the two, which are quite different, blissfully unaware that he's erased the distinction between them. As anyone who knows this material will quickly realize, this implies many logical absurdities, such as that "All S are P" and "No S are P" are equivalent (the "proof" of this, using the traditional rules of immediate inference plus Damer's inadvertent equation of the I and O statements, is very easy and left as an exercise for the reader). Getting something like this wrong is a recipe for confusing, not helping, the thinking of one's students.
The final problem I will mention lies with the title and emphasis of the book. Despite starting on the right foot, with an emphasis on mutual respect and intellectual honesty, the fact that most of the book is devoted to fallacies, combined with the title, creates an undesirable emphasis on finding fault with one's opponents rather than searching for common ground. Damer warns against this approach several times, but those warnings fly in the face of the message the title and overall contents of the book send. The current state of public discourse demands that books like this do all they can to discourage this approach, but instead Damer, at best, sends mixed messages on this point.
Add to this the problems with some of the examples that even the positive reviews acknowledge and you have a textbook that lays claim to some admirable ambitions, but doesn't live up to them and has some serious problems from a pedagogical standpoint into the bargain. Factor in its expense and you can do a very great deal better. As mentioned above, I switched to Trudy Govier's outstanding, albeit even pricier, A Practical Study of Argument, and got much better results in every way. For one thing, though Govier doesn't trumpet the fact the way Damer does, she is at least as successful as Damer (not that that's setting the bar very high) in building a genuine *system* of informal logic - and isn't that supposed to be Damer's main selling point?
According to the ad copy and the first chapter or so, the overall goal is to present a coherent theory of argumentation, and of fallacies as failures to meet the obligations that theory imposes. A good argument has feature X, while a deviation from X is a type of fallacy, basically. This is a good idea for a way to structure a critical thinking textbook, and particularly for a way to work the fallacies into it so that they don't feel like an afterthought. Another feature I liked was the incorporation of that theory of argument into a larger theory of argumentative *conduct*, where we have obligations, not just to do our best to make our arguments as good as possible, but to be charitable and fair-minded toward our opponents as well. This is a point that needs to be stressed in any CT course and it's very good that Damer makes sure to do so at the outset.
However, the book has a number of serious flaws. For one thing, the "theory" of argumentation it's supposedly built around really isn't. The theory is little more than a list of five features a good argument should have (except when it doesn't; the Structural criterion doesn't apply to all arguments, at least not in a uniform way). Actually, more like eight features or so, since some of his five criteria are themselves bundles of distinct, only loosely related concepts. The reader expecting Damer to tie these features together in some way - to tell us what it is they have in common that allows them to play this role - is going to be disappointed; there is no serious, non-circular attempt to do this. Perhaps the average first-year student using this as a textbook wouldn't notice this, or wouldn't care, but it made teaching this book far less satisfying than I had hoped.
I wish to discuss three other notable flaws, each arguably less deep, but more pedagogically significant. First of all, many of the examples - both of types of fallacy, and of specific (supposed) instances of fallacies - simply aren't arguments, fallacious or otherwise. Not every instance of ambiguity, rationalization, misuse of a principle or wishful thinking involves an argument, but Damer sometimes uses a very large and unwieldy sledgehammer to make them look as though they do Similarly, several of Damer's specific examples, such as the landlord on page 200, refer to things as arguments that simply aren't (in this case the landlord's "argument" is better described as an explanation). In teaching a critical thinking class, it is of the first importance that students learn to distinguish between arguments and other bits of language, especially explanations, that are not arguments. Stronger students will understand the distinction intuitively but I found many of my students last year to be very ill-served by Damer in this regard. When I switched to Govier this past summer, the proportion of my students who consistently had problems distinguishing arguments from explanations dropped - I kid you not - from about 50% to *ZERO*.
Another very serious problem concerns Damer's explanation of Aristotelean categorical logic. Traditionally, the I statement ("Some S are P") is defined as meaning that at least one S is also a P, and similarly the O statement ("Some S are not P") as "At least one S is not a P". Damer, on the other hand, defines the I statement as meaning at least one S is a P *but not all of them are*, and similarly for the O statement. But then the I statement means "there's at least one S that's a P, and at least one that isn't" and so does the O statement; therefore, by Damer's definitions, the two are exactly equivalent! But Damer goes on to explain the traditional logical properties of the two, which are quite different, blissfully unaware that he's erased the distinction between them. As anyone who knows this material will quickly realize, this implies many logical absurdities, such as that "All S are P" and "No S are P" are equivalent (the "proof" of this, using the traditional rules of immediate inference plus Damer's inadvertent equation of the I and O statements, is very easy and left as an exercise for the reader). Getting something like this wrong is a recipe for confusing, not helping, the thinking of one's students.
The final problem I will mention lies with the title and emphasis of the book. Despite starting on the right foot, with an emphasis on mutual respect and intellectual honesty, the fact that most of the book is devoted to fallacies, combined with the title, creates an undesirable emphasis on finding fault with one's opponents rather than searching for common ground. Damer warns against this approach several times, but those warnings fly in the face of the message the title and overall contents of the book send. The current state of public discourse demands that books like this do all they can to discourage this approach, but instead Damer, at best, sends mixed messages on this point.
Add to this the problems with some of the examples that even the positive reviews acknowledge and you have a textbook that lays claim to some admirable ambitions, but doesn't live up to them and has some serious problems from a pedagogical standpoint into the bargain. Factor in its expense and you can do a very great deal better. As mentioned above, I switched to Trudy Govier's outstanding, albeit even pricier, A Practical Study of Argument, and got much better results in every way. For one thing, though Govier doesn't trumpet the fact the way Damer does, she is at least as successful as Damer (not that that's setting the bar very high) in building a genuine *system* of informal logic - and isn't that supposed to be Damer's main selling point?
33 of 33 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Damer pulls off a next to impossible task-naming, describing, exampling, and attacking 60 fallacies while structuring them neatly within four criteria of a good argument: relevance, acceptability, sufficient grounds and rebuttal. The last chapter discusses the specifics of "A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion." I used this test as a key element of my Ph.D. research and continue to use it in my later work. This should be required study for every politician and philosopher. A simpler version should be required study for every middle school and high school student. Discovering what is true would be so much easier with good arguments absence of fallacy. Be the first to rid your "neighborhood" of polemics. Study this book.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
2.0 out of 5 stars
Misleading Postin
This posting ledge to purchase a book that was only had selected chapters from the full book. Now I have a book that is not complete.
Published 16 months ago by Nathan
1.0 out of 5 stars
Misleading
Purchased book and realized when received that it's the wrong edition. The edition was not displayed and I purchased the wrong one now. Read more
Published 19 months ago by Dali
1.0 out of 5 stars
Missing pages
Book was in tge condition promised except it was missing pages. Didn't find out until later. Make sure when you're buying textbooks that you check for that
Published 20 months ago by Pjrv2010
5.0 out of 5 stars
One of the greatest books I have read.
Considering anyone picking up this book to seriously read it would only do so if they had a keen interest in debate, rhetoric, or pragmatic argument, this book is one of the most... Read more
Published on January 6, 2011 by Michel
3.0 out of 5 stars
Attacking Faulty Reasoning
This is a common college text for debate courses. However, I read it to prep for my interest in being a better advocate on social issues. Read more
Published on July 12, 2008 by Jean Fagan
3.0 out of 5 stars
Great Book, but...
I found this to be a great text with very clear description of creating a good argument. However, I want to warn potential buyers that the copy I received was a truncated, abridged... Read more
Published on January 8, 2008 by el Profeta
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good for GRE Preparation
I bought this book to prepare for the written part of the GRE. I did not take any philosophy or reasoning classes. I found it very useful, short and easy to read. Read more
Published on September 20, 2007 by S. Lewis
2.0 out of 5 stars
Coverage Does Not Match Its Introduction
The Introduction says see the sample answers and explanations at the end of the text. They don't exist. Read more
Published on July 10, 2007 by R. Hamill
5.0 out of 5 stars
The ideal guide for making and breaking arguments
So many significant decisions are made in the workplace based on majority opinion or by the highest ranking person in the room. Read more
Published on September 10, 2005 by Kevin Mackie
3.0 out of 5 stars
Even the best of us sometimes disappoint, ironically, and otherwise
As you can read from the excellent reviews of the fourth Edition of Attacking Faulty Reasoning (which anyone contemplating buying this volume should), Damer's "positive theory of... Read more
Published on September 4, 2005 by cvairag
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Listmania!
|
|
So You'd Like to...
Look for Similar Items by Category
- Books > Education & Reference
- Books > New, Used & Rental Textbooks > Humanities > Philosophy > Logic
- Books > New, Used & Rental Textbooks > Reference
- Books > New, Used & Rental Textbooks > Science & Mathematics > Mathematics
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Logic & Language
- Books > Science & Math > Mathematics
