Customer Reviews

Bad Thoughts

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Please be aware that "Bad Thoughts" is the UK version, and "Crimes Against Logic" is the US version. They differ only in some of the examples used to illustrate various fallacies (the UK version references Tony Blair and soccer a lot, the US version uses more examples from American politics and media). Otherwise, same good book.

This is the UK version of "Crimes against logic". The order is a little different and I think this one has a tiny bit more in it but they are almost identical!

It's a great book, I have purchased about 4 copies as presents now!

Dan

If you are interested in making sure your own thinking is logical, this is the book for you. If you are interested in spotting where others are twisting logic or manipulating the truth, you will find this book indispensable.

better. At least I am very confident that the author can demonstrate better writing skill with his very strong academic background.

Content wise, this book is about fallacies and how to spot them in everyday life. I like the author's elaboration with plenty of examples. However, usage of easier English will definitely help simple minds like me to grasp the briliant ideas that the author wanna teach. No matter what, it's a good book which certainly helps mortals to cleanse "bad thoughts". For sure not a bad buy!

p.s. With all the great examples, I like the following in the chapter about "Empty words" the most.

1. "Science no longer holds any absolute truths."...The first sentence of a passage but already with one obvious falsehood and two serious confusions...Pg 30-32

2. Bad example:- Benchmarked against best in class peers, intellectual capital leverage reveals significant upward potential moving forward. What it really means:- Companies like yours make better use of their employees' knowledge. Pg 53-56

Whyte fails to reconcile the tasks of writing both a dispassionate philosophical text and a popular and amusing account of faulty thinking. More concern should have been given to make sure asides and irreverent statements were commensurate with the books broader objectives. For example he states:
'...as for policemen and priests, well, let us just charitably say that they are not all bigots or pederasts'.
This is a merely a crass flippant comment implying, without recourse to sound argument or evidence, that the majority of policemen and priests are bigots. The most questionable example is when Whyte is so pleased with his wit and insight in exposing a statistical miscalculation by the British Medical Association, that he comes perilously close to belittling the actual incidence of deaths of young women from anorexia. These lazy statements would be better suited to a tabloid columnist shooting from the hip than a supposedly ultra-rationalist philosopher.

In one section of the book Whyte also clearly betrays some of the principles that he strongly advocates. In a section which makes reference to the banning of the British blood sport foxhunting, he states that:
'Fox hunting clearly differs from fishing and shooting in some respects. For example, it is practised primarily by wealthy non-Labour voters on horseback and is hated by left-wing members of the Labour Party who often feel Mr Blair does too little for them.'
However, fox hunting also differs from fishing and shooting in that it is the most visible and ritualistic of blood sports in this country. It should also be obvious that different animals are also hunted under each sport. For example, a crucial distinction between hunting and fishing is that the target of the hunt, the fox, is a mammal. Its mammalian brain includes a limbic system: this is linked with sophisticated emotional states, attachment to offspring, and also a greater capacity to suffer from fear and torment than a fish, which has a relatively simple reptilian brain. So perhaps there are some differences between blood sports that are distinct from the internal machinations of the Labour Party.

However, the key point is that Whyte contradicts an argument he makes earlier in the book. He argues against the motive fallacy:
'The announcement of a new policy is greeted, not with a discussion of its alleged merits, but with a flurry of speculation from journalists and political opponents regarding the politician's motives for announcing it. He wants to appease the left-wing of his party, or curry favour with middle-England...'
But Whyte blatantly lapsed into this fallacy when focusing on Tony Blair's motives for banning hunting. It's faulty thinking when someone else does it, but when Whyte can't perceive any sound ethical basis to a policy then it's obviously OK to go right ahead and appeal to extraneous motives. He can't see any difference between fishing, shooting and hunting (so there clearly can't be any) so in this instance it's appropriate to commit the motive fallacy. This gives the impression that Whyte is as prone to faulty thinking as the rest of us.