Customer Reviews

Think for Yourself!: An Essay on Cutting through the Babble, the Bias, and the Hype (Speaker's Corner)

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

 

 

I'm now addicted to the Speaker's Corner series books. Having read and posted a review of Gary Hart's God and Caesar in America, I purchased Think for Yourself! an essay on Cutting Through the Babble, Bias and Hype. Let me start by saying that I dropped two philosophy classes in college, for the if/then statements were killing me!

I hopped aboard a flight to Portland with Hindes book in my bag and began reading at takeoff. Arriving in Portland my mind was swimming with ideas! Think begins with a crisp, clean, and simplified timeline on the history of logical thought. I've seen tomes on this subject, and in a matter of 40 pages, I gleaned more about the history than I had in two semesters of drudgery.

Then comes the analysis... Hindes carefully constructs the basis for logical thinking, in a user friendly manual great for everyone. I'm sure you've seen other reviews that state "everyone needs to read this book", but let me be clear - this "manual for thinking" SHOULD be read by anyone who stays abreast of current news, is in a position in life where tough choices need to be made, or is in a professional position (like sales or management) that requires constant interaction and decision making.

From the outside looking in, Think my appear daunting with chapters entitled (The Scientific Method in Everyday Though, and Rhetoric: The Tools of Persuaion, Available for Hire) yet I found myself engrossed, educated, and even laughed a few times at Hinde's easy reading style and carefully placed quips.

Hindes also doesn't shy from controversy and his chapter entitled "Religion, Tradition and Moral Codes" will leave you thinking hard about whether Science is just another Religion.

Bottom line - another great book and one for the shelves of anyone interested in public policy, logic or thought.

BUY IT

This book was written by an MD. When I first saw it in the bookstore Philosophy section my first thought was what makes an MD an expert in critical thinking? I was also somewhat put-off by the cover design. It looked like it was marketed for Soccer Moms. I quickly glanced through the pages, thinking the book was probably too elementary. I put it back on the shelf and walked away. Several weeks later I saw the same book again, only this time I decided to check it out a little closer. I bought it. I read it in one sitting and found it to be one of the best books I have ever read on critical thinking. I went out a bought one for each of my adult children. I highly recommend this book. The author's writing style is very engaging, upbeat, and the subject matter very complete and surprisingly easy to digest. He gives one of the best introductions for the scientific method I have ever read. It was a fun read.

Mostly this book is a review of what (at least I think) I instinctively know. But to read it so well organized and expressed by a knowledgeable thinker helps to alert me to all the pitfalls of succumbing to the weak reasoning and bias in poor speeches, writing, and "journalism". This is probably more important today than ever with the proliferation of so many opinion and distortion shows purporting to be "fair and balanced reporting." Even if you feel you already have a knack for recognizing bull, this is a great primer or just to brush up on logical thought and reasoned evaluation. If you're already close-minded, don't waste your time because you won't want to shine the light of reason on your cherished beliefs. But if you are a freethinker or aspire to be one, this is for you.

"Think for Yourself" by Steve Hindes

Surprisingly, Steve Hindes is a family physician, and a lecturer. Now to the book.

Hindes introduces a dichotomy between our faculties of Intuition and our Analysis, and characterizes the culture we live in as a saturating irrationality, and I'm appreciative of that. Anyone who hasn't quite gone mad yet, understands that "things" ain't all they're cracked up to be.

The Timeline of Western Culture begins with the formation of the Milky Way galaxy, which indicates that perhaps Steve Hindes has a grasp of the cosmic? I think so. I like the way in which the author has a very insightful understanding for many of the confused reasonings and expressions that articulate the voices of frustrated people who try to grasp and compare ideas. If the author is sympathetic to his audience, and truly knows them, it's a tremendous plus for him.

By page 51, the author asks:

"Is the Goal of the Discussion to Discover the Truth or Simply to 'WIN' the Debate?"

Being able to make that distinction is a credit to the author, in my opinion. By page 59, the author introduces the distinction between "Clarifying Reality and Clarifying Fictions."
Thank you, Steve Hindes, because I am tired of reading books on thinking/logic by academics who couldn't find their own hind end with a six-celled flashlight and a hand mirror. Here's a guy who really knows the distinction between TRUTH and FACT. Steve Hindes has done his homework.

The author clarifies bias, self-interest, and then on page 66 introduces us to definitions for Intuition and ....FAITH. Now it gets exciting. Here's a quote:

"Blind faith in political institutions can produce mindless orthodoxy and crude demagoguery. Blind faith in religious institutions has left a horrifying swath in the history of many societies." At this point, I'm wondering if author Steve Hindes is going to give mention to the profound definition of FAITH as given by the Apostle Paul, that so many are familiar with? It goes like this:

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen." -Apostle Paul

At any rate, at this juncture I am quite critical of author Steve Hindes for the subtlety with which he glosses over his own narrow-minded view of the religious topic. Look carefully at the quote from page 67. It defines ONLY "blind faith in RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS." Readers may note that there is a vast distinction between having faith in a "religious institution" as the author infers, and what the author omits, is having a FAITH, blind or otherwise, in GOD. I carefully read the following pages to see if the author engaged the idea of divinity in the context of being an object of faith. There is a powerful difference, you see, between the author's implication, that faith is an act between an INDIVIDUAL & "a PUBLIC INSTITUTION" and the understanding of many people, who indeed place their faith in a "HIGHER POWER". For, it is evident that a "HIGHER POWER" is distinctly NOT "a public institution". [And by the way, if anyone wants clarification on that issue, may I refer the reader to "THE UNDISCOVERED SELF" by C.G. JUNG. With author Hindes, I want to know if an author sees religious sentiment, or faith, as a participatory act in a religious "institution" or is it part of a relationship between a human being and a divine being? I'm wondering if the author is biased against religion or the idea of a "deity"? Could the author be an atheist or agnostic, and not make it clear that he held such a view? Is that fair?

By page 69, author Steve Hindes begins to reveal a little more of his personal perspective, I think. He writes;

"Egregious violations of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and intellectual integrity are not limited to only the remote history of the Church. As recently as the early twentieth century, both Catholic and Protestant churches continued doctrinal opposition to science and continued to compel their members to obey their directives." -p.69

I do not take exception to any author citing abuses committed by the Christian Church throughout it's long history; but I do take exception to the biased characterizations of "the church" as essentially negative. For example, I wonder if author Hindes realizes that it was conservative religious church members who were responsible for abolishing the practice of black slavery in the British Commonwealth in the 1800's? Yet author Steve Hindes makes no mention whatsoever of any ameliorating or benevolent activities of the Christian Church. Is that a biased view, do you think?

Oh, and here, it is also helpful to point out that St. Patrick, in his own lifetime, motivated the church in Britain to condemn the practice of slavery as practiced in the British Isles, Ireland, etc by certain chieftans and tribes. More can be read about this in "How the Irish Saved Civilization".

Remember that author Hindes is still discussing reason in the context of FAITH? Please remember that, for there is much more to clarify here. How typical it is of academicians (Hindes apparently lecutures at the University of Denver in Colorado) to adopt a critical tone regarding the Christian Church, and the fault I see in that is that many supposedly "educated" men and women in academia, never see FAITH in any context beyond the Christian FAITH, and the Christian Church, in it's long and colorful history, makes a very convenient scapegoat.

Perhaps we should turn a blind eye, as the author does so conveniently, to all the weapons of mass slaughter produced by modern science, cloaking scientists in white robes of Sainthood? I mean, come on, are you kidding?

Hindes is still writing up to page 72 on the 1998 Papal Encyclical, just prior to dropping all discussion of the notion of FAITH. Well, there's more than that. There's the notion of FAITH in the context of Hinduism, and the Muslim religion, and the Buddhist Religion, and far beyond those paths, there's FAITH in the context of esotericism.
So here, I indeed do fault author Hindes, although, without condemning his book. I think the author requires a little broadening of his perspective, that's all. He sure is a tonic to himself!

Is LOGIC a tool without flaws, weaknessess, or exceptions? No, and emphatically no. LOGIC is no better than the individual applying it. That is why it is a short journey to pass from being RATIONAL, through RATIONALISM, to finally arrive at being a DEMAGOGUE (an unthinking person, expounding specific ideas without analysis). Not every person knows what questions to ask. One sees this constantly in book reviews, by the way. Readers slap the highest rating on a book, combined with five or six lengthy paragraphs, and not challenging the author on a single assertion or claim.

On the other hand, the genuine rationalist, reads in such a way as to carefully note strong declarations of fact, with the intention of giving careful analysis to such claims later. My questioning of author Hinde's assertions regarding the church and religion generally are an example.

****DEEPER ISSUES******

One of the older maxims appended to human existence is that there is no such thing as SOMETHIN' FOR NUTHIN'. In order to get something, we must give something up. Books rarely mention this. However, especially for those who desire to arrive at a state of TRUTH or FACTUALITY, it is first necessary to make a decision within ourselves as individuals, that we will value LOGIC more than our personal feelings and desires as to the outcome. It is a very cold and calculating device. For some, this is a natural gift, and in others, it can be developed.

For example, did you ever notice that none of the books you read teach you....HOW TO THINK? To put this question another way, did you ever see a DEFINITION for "thinking". Sure, there is a dictionary definition; but did you notice that it possesses no particular power? For myself, I believe I once saw a fleeting reference in a book on essay writing that did touch briefly upon the subject, although in an oblique manner. The definition for what thinking is can be a key tool for the mind and its power, making it unncessary for the individual to know things for one's own self, independent of the fact that the truth may be unpopular or even unseen by most of humanity.

Hindes goes on to elaborate on Morality, Fallacies, and so forth, and I find "Think for Yourself" to be very thorough, erudite, and moreover, written in plain English so that any interested person would learn much that is necessary to fend off the voices of madness and outrageous irrationality. I rate the book Five Stars. The price of $12.95 is reasonable and the book will make an excellent addition to your shelf. -Bruce Bain

Pay careful attention to the title of this book. It is not HOW to Think for Yourself. This is not a how-to book. However this book will inspire you and explain why it is important to think for yourself. It will give you a basic definition of what critical thinking is and explain why it is important to everyone and in everyday life. I found the chapter/timeline of milestones in human thought unique and filled with patterns, some scary. I also found Mr. Hindes treatment of religion throughout the book honest, straightfoward, and objective. The later chapters were also good in that they asked the reader to examine their own foibles rather than feel superior simply because they read a book on thinking.