Customer Reviews

How to Think Straight: An Introduction to Critical Reasoning

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

 

 

Oh dear. It seems the Amazon book-review section has become another battleground for the IDers.

A few points in response:

1. The previous "review" is, in fact, nothing more than a stale old newspaper editorial that was copied and pasted here without any updating. This particular item dates from almost a year ago. At that time, though, Professor Flew publicly denied rumors that he had converted to theism, releasing a statement titled "Sorry to Disappoint, But I'm Still an Atheist" (Rationalist International Bulletin #137, 12 December 2004). Since then, however, he has been doing a coy little maybe-I-am-and-maybe-I'm-not fan dance about his supposed deism (not theism, please note). He's obviously enjoying all the attention he's been getting recently, and the last thing I want to do is deny an old man one last frolic in the limelight. But I don't think we should read too much into his latest pirouette.

2. Professor Richard Lewontin is hardly "stacking the deck" in his statement about the nature of science. Science simply *is* the search for materialistic explanations for natural phenomena. And it is precisely *because* science has adhered to this rigorously disciplined approach that it has been so spectacularly successful for the last 400 years. Science has nothing whatsoever to say about the existence of God, either pro or con. That's a question that lies completely outside the proper scope of science. (It's true that the discoveries of science, particularly in biology and geology, contradict biblical literalism. But then, biblical literalism is not synonymous with religion in general, or even with Christianity as a whole.)

3. For Intelligent Design to be considered a genuine scientific theory, capable of replacing Charles Darwin's very highly confirmed theory of evolution by natural selection, it must do more than just point to a few spots at the cutting edge of science (e.g., the emerging field of protobiology) where our knowledge is perforce a bit fuzzy. ID must do two things: it must do a better job than the reigning theory does of accounting for all the data, and it must make more accurate predictions than the reigning theory does. If ID doesn't do these two things, then it's utterly useless and cannot qualify as a scientific theory. And in fact, ID fails on both counts. How well does it account for all the data? Very poorly indeed. Has it made any accurate predictions? None whatsoever. Can it even generate any testable hypotheses? No. Basically, ID is just our old friend "The God of the Gaps", an old and dodgy maneuver whereby the arguer asserts that any natural phenomenon not currently explained by science must be the result of divine intervention. One glaring and amusingly ironic problem with this maneuver is that it puts God in a rather precarious and vulnerable position: Whenever science successfully explains a previously unexplained phenomenon, God (as defined by the IDers) is forced to retreat a little further, gradually disappearing as our scientific knowledge increases. The smart move, you'd think, would be to *avoid* putting God in a sure-lose situation.

Anyway, "How To Think Straight" is not one of Professor Flew's best books. It has its good points, but overall I agree with those who complain about its turgid, sloppy prose. I much prefer Flew's Dictionary of Philosophy, one of the best books of its kind.

Strangely enough, I agree with both of the previous reviews. Flew provides useful, practical insights into the practice of thinking. Unfortunately, Flew's own prose tends to slip into something that Orwell might have used in his examples of "vague and imprecise". Still, if you work at it, you will find some of the best ideas on thinking. It should also be noted that Flew does lean toward the right in his social ideas; but this book is not about social ideas. It is about thinking, and Flew's social preferences don't mean much here. Read it, if you really feel the need for help with Clear Thinking.

Far from being "closely written," Flew's book is often flabby and clumsy. See T. Bachmann's review below for an example (and there are many more like it throughout the book). As other reviewers have noted below, there are plenty of much better introductions to critical reasoning. Try R. Feldman's "Reason and Argument," which may be the best intro to informal logic.

I have to agree with those who say this book is more complicated than it needs to be. I've slogged through it to chapter 6. After decrypting some of Flew's meandering sentences and rephrasing them in plainer English, the concepts themselves weren't that difficult or mysterious. But we're all very busy, so why read and reread something unclear when you can find another book that conveys the same concepts in a clear, efficient style?

The negative reviews here are accurate. Professor Flew, aping the long-winded, meandering, lamely facetious lecture style of an Oxbridge don, writes very turgid, dull prose, which needlessly obscures what are actually rather simple concepts. (Flew would do well to read Strunk & White's "Elements of Style" and make it his bible.) And even though I am sympathetic to his political point of view, his examples of good and bad reasoning are so one-sided as to be embarrassing. To read Flew, you would think that only libertarians can reason correctly about anything.

Skip this book and look elsewhere for a good guide to clear thinking. An identically titled, similarly intended, but vastly superior book is Robert Thouless's "How to Think Straight," which seems to have been the model for Flew's unsuccessful imitation. It's out of print, but you can easily find a used copy through internet book dealers (try Advanced Book Exchange). Jamie Whyte, in his short, pithy "Crimes Against Logic," says everything Flew has to say, and says it with considerably more clarity, concision, and wit. If you are a complete beginner to this subject, you might want to start with introductory textbooks by Irving Copi, Daniel Bonevac, or Robert Fogelin: These are far more systematic and comprehensive than Flew's book, which, despite its subtitle, is definitely not an "introduction" to logic and critical thinking.

Other books that help hone your critical-thinking skills are Darrell Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics," John Allen Paulos's "Innumeracy" and "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper," Keith Stanovich's "How to Think Straight about Psychology," and Thomas Gilovich's "How We Know What Isn't So." You might also want to check out David Zarefsky's taped lecture course "Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning." There are some useful resources on the internet, too: Try Googling "fallacies" or "critical thinking."

Only on a few occasions have I ever finished a book and turned back to the first page to immediately begin re-reading it. That is what I did with this excellent book. Give it seven stars. Unfortunately, Flew makes his points by picking apart the logical flaws in contemporary arguments. Although he repeatedly states that true propositions can be supported by flawed arguments, and that he seeks to make no value judgements on the underlying propositions, just the arguments supporting them, readers are likely to get their noses out of joint.

It makes no difference what your political, religious, or philosophical persuasion, if you can express your propositions clearly, support them with valid reasoning, and admit when you've made a mistake, I'm willing to listen to you. Flew is willing to do all of the above and more.

Most of what passes for political, religious, and philosophical discourse this day and age is no more than shouting and name calling. When that happens, allegedly sober news shows begin to look like no more than lowbrow talk shows complete with black shirted security guards ever vigilant to break up the fist fights.

Flew's approach is demonstrated by the praise he gives to Charles Darwin's methodology. Darwin was careful to note down all objections to his theories--not so he could shout them down, so he could reason through them. In the spirit of Darwin, Flew suggests that the first thing you do is thoroughly analyze your own position to make sure you are not fooling yourself. Cast the beam from your own eye before you undertake to remove the mote from your brother's. (Another telling point Flew makes is that just because an argument is trite or time worn, that doesn't mean it is wrong).

The book suffers from complex sentence structure (It apparently was intended for use as a college text, and we all know that college texts must be written in obscure language), but patient re-reading of obscure sentences will eventually elucidate the point Flew is trying to make.

I must agree with several of the previous reviewers: This book is politically tendentious and stylistically opaque.

First, every example of poor reasoning comes from a liberal point of view, while every example of sound reasoning comes from a right-libertarian point of view. This leaves the reader with the impression that only liberals engage in flawed thinking and that conservatives always think rigorously and clearly. This is a blatant political bias on the part of Professor Flew.

Second, the style is dense, the structure meandering, and the terms non-standard (Flew invents his own non-intuitive names for common fallacies), which makes the subject seem more difficult than it actually is.

A previous reviewer wanted to know if there are better books on critical thinking than this one. Indeed there are:

The Art of Reasoning, by David Kelley. Although Kelley is a libertarian, his bias isn't blatant. He makes an attempt to be non-partisan. His book is well-written and well-organized.

Introduction to Logic, by Irving Copi and Carl Cohen.

Critical Reasoning: A Practical Introduction, by Anne Thomson.

Reasoning, by Michael Scriven.

Reason and Argument, by Richard Feldman.

Any of these books would be better than Flew's tendentious and opaque book.

I am surprised at many of the reviews of this book. If the reviewer isn't attacking Flew's political positions, then she's complaining that the book is too difficult. First, Flew's politics are a small part of the book. I feel that he uses well chosen examples to get the reader to engage in critical thinking, especially about positions one is tempted to dismiss out of hand because they don't pass the ideological litmus test.

The purpose of this book is to get the reader to develop a habit of critical thinking; the examples Flew uses serve that purpose well.

The book is not difficult to read for anyone with a moderately decent education. I am currently a sophomore at the University of Florida, and found little trouble with Flew's writing. A few times it did seem that Flew's point was unclear, but I rarely felt this way and the point in question was usually minor. Also, rereading the relevant passage always cleared it up.

His discussion of the relationship between a person's integrity and that person's desire for the truth is well written. His use of historical examples from various thinkers and disciplines helps to bring out the importance of applying critical thinking to all areas of discourse. Flew also discusses very basic but important logical points, both formal and informal.

The difficulty people seem to experience with this book may arise from the fact that Flew appears to take for granted that people know what he's talking about. He appears to move from point to point quickly, and often uses prior developed points in later areas of the book. If the reader finds following him difficult, then any basic introduction to informal logic will make this books easier and more enjoyable.

I was scared away from Flew's book by reading the reviews on this site claiming it was confusing and difficult. I finally decided to try it and found that it really is not as bad as the people here make it out to be.

Like Mr Greenfield, I am surprised that so many reviewers seem to have invested time in trying to infer Professor Flew's political opinions and denounce them. One might as well criticize "Statistical Inference" by Casella and Berger for lack of character development.

I found this short book an excellent and challenging introduction to a valuable subject. It is closely written, requiring concentration, but every sentence rewards further thought. This book has the potential to transform the way you think.

I must admit that getting into this book is like hitting a brick wall. While probably very clear for a philosophy graduate, it is, for us mere mortals, very difficult to read and hence unclear.

To check this, I had a look at some of Flew's other books ("Thinking about Social Thinking", "Rational Animal") and found them just as difficult.

The writing style is like you would expect from an old English grammar teacher and really not typical of modern British writers (even philosophers).

I found the content very disorganised and often found it hard to understand what point he is attempting to convey.

I can recommend "Clear Thinking" by R F Holt published by Pitman. It is easy to understand, clearly classified and provides illustrations on how to analyse arguments. Unfortunately this book is no longer available new, but may be purchased second hand.

Can other reviewers recommend better books on this subject that are in print?