Most helpful critical review
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
In the post 9/11 era, effective definitions of classical logic must be suppressed.
on October 13, 2014
By Laura B.
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-George Orwell, 1984
"The Philosopher's Toolkit" by Julian Baggini is yet another example of state controlled academia shamelessly manipulating the perceptions of the masses. If you have any interest in trying to understand real-world deception this book very deliberately and conspicuously offers you no real assistance. (Of course, if your government really wanted you to understand classical logic they would have taught it to you while you attended state controlled schools for over a decade.)
Please allow me to offer you the following information that will help to clarify my claims ( adapted from a definition given in an early edition of Howard Kahane's book "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric").
"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
"All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowledge."
-Aristotle, Posterior Analytics
Cogent (logical) reasoning, reasoning designed to strongly appeal to the intellect rather than the emotions, should meet 3 conditions:
1. It should begin with justified premises (true propositions well supported by solid verifiable evidence).
2. It should contain all of the known relevant evidence. (The suppression, or improbable absence, of relevant evidence is a good indication of deception. Relevant evidence is any evidence that would tend to make an argument more likely or less likely to be true.)
3. It should be properly structured, so that it comes to a conclusion which logically follows from the premises. (In the case of valid deductive arguments this conclusion would "necessarily" follows from the premises. In the case of very strong inductive arguments it would follow "beyond a reasonable doubt". In both cases it would be free of contradiction and consistent with the facts.)
When an argument meets these conditions (ie. verifiably true premises, all relevant evidence, and properly structured) it is said to be sound or cogent, and very likely to be true. When an argument does not meet these conditions it is said to be fallacious (faulty/deceptive reasoning).
So, having said that , here are my complaints about this book:
1. This book doesn't mention that cogent reasoning requires that premises be supported by verifiable evidence.
2. This book doesn't once mention the logical fallacy of suppressed evidence.
3. This book doesn't offer definitions of such primary informal logical fallacies as argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad misericordiam, argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad ignorantiam, etc..
Just imagine that you were going to be tried in a court that had no idea that (1) charges must be supported by verifiable evidence, (2) that relevant evidence must not be suppressed, and (3) that coercive and emotionally manipulative tactics must not be used on the jury. What do you think your chances would be of getting a fair trial?
In the real world skilled liars like politicians, lawyers, and academics (1) present elaborate arguments with premises which only appear to be true, (2) deliberately suppress relevant evidence, and (3) use every manipulative and coercive logical fallacy that they think they can get away with.
I expect that 9 out of 10 of you will immediately dismiss this argument and go right back to sleep.
For the 1 in 10 of you who have a deep desire to see the world as clearly as you are able, and try to improve it, I hope this is of some assistance.
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
Here are some refutations of fallacious arguments that our government has subjected us to that rely entirely upon contrived evidence, suppressed evidence, and a host of logical fallacies to seem plausible.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
9-11 Missing Links
Dr Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College
Bishop Richard Williamson
Ernst Zundel (http://ihr.org/books/kulaszka/falsenews.toc.html)
G. Edward Griffin
Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez
AIDS and HIV:
Dr Kary Mullis (winner of the Nobel Prize)
Dr Robert Willner
Dr Peter Duesberg
Michael Collins Piper
Dr Kevin Barrett
Sandy Hook shootings:
The Moon Landing:
"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" by Bart Sibrel
All can be found on youtube.