Truth, Knowledge, or Just Plain Bull: How to Tell the Difference [Paperback]

Bernard M. Patten (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 2004

In this erudite yet entertaining handbook on critical thinking, Dr Bernard M Patten uses neuroscience, psychology, and psychiatry to teach you to do all this and more. He shows you that clear thinking is not just fun but also keeps you out of trouble, makes you more efficient, helps you develop and maintain prosperity, and generally gives you an edge in both your personal and business life.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Patten, formerly a neurologist at Baylor College of Medicine and now a lecturer in logic at Rice University, doesn’t mince words: "It’s important for you to recognize bullshit when they hand it to you." Bullshit comes in all forms, and "clear thinking," says Patten, "can protect us" from scams, lies and the illogic of groupthink, among other dangers. In lively, straightforward prose, Patten lays out some general principles of clear thinking ("Because there are no simple answers, a simple answer is likely to be wrong") then, chapter by chapter, examines various forms of false reasoning to which we might fall victim—overgeneralization, vague definition (in discussing abortion, what do we mean by "life"?) and false analogy, among others. Patten doesn’t minimize the mental effort required to master clear thinking, but his own clear writing and down-to-earth tone make it as painless as it can be to strengthen your ability to reason and see the faults in the reasoning of others.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

DR. BERNARD M. PATTEN, now retired, was formerly the chief of the Neuromuscular Disease Division, vice chairman of the Department of Neurology, and attending neurologist at the Baylor College of Medicine. He now lectures on clear thinking, mental gymnastics, logic, and neuroscience at Rice University and the Women's Institute of Houston.

Product Details

• Paperback: 363 pages
• Publisher: Prometheus Books (October 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1591022460
• ISBN-13: 978-1591022466
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #849,881 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Currently Doctor Patten teaches courses on memory, neuroscience, and logic at Rice University and at the Women's Institute of Houston. Formerly he was Vice Chair of the department of Neurology and Chief of Nerve and Muscle diseases at the Baylor College of Medicine. He was a member of the team of physicians who discovered the L-DOPA treatment for Parkinson's Disease and has been a visiting professor at the University of Montpellier in France (1980-81), the Charcot Clinic in Paris (1990-91), and at the Karolinska in Stockholm. He holds an A.B. from Columbia College summa cum laude and graduated second in his class from Columbia's Medical School with an MD. He interned at Cornell, did his Neurology training at the Neurological Institute of New York where he was Chief Resident Neurologist. Then he was the Memory Fellow of the New York Academy of Medicine and set up the first memory clinic and memory consultation service in America. After completing his draft obligated service as the assistant chief of medical neurology at the National Institutes of Health, he joined the faculty of Baylor College of Medicine where he published over 100 scientific papers and where he was the vice chair of the Department of Neurology and the chief of Nerve and Muscle diseases. Doctor Patten has eight non-medical books in print: Three novels, two books of poetry, one travel book, and two books on informal logic. Since 1994, Doctor Patten has been included in Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

134 of 150 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars There are better logic books out there, April 5, 2005

By 

Reviewer - See all my reviews

This review is from: Truth, Knowledge, or Just Plain Bull: How to Tell the Difference (Paperback)

I was disappointed in this book--especially after reading the other stellar reviews (which are all, weirdly, from Texas, where the author lives).

When it's a book about logic and clear thinking, a reader expects that book to be free of typographical errors, imprecise logic, and muddled thinking. Needless to say, I almost put the book down after reading the introduction because of the missing words and typographical errors. Exampe from page 11: "Because the real is out there, we must effectively with it...." Here's another gem from the same page: "I am sorry to have to tell you that fact, but that is the way things are. That is the nature of nature. That is the reality of reality."

Look at page 33. The author states, "Why when one exception is uncovered, multiple other exceptions surface almost right away is not entirely clear.... Probably this has something to do with the way we humans view reality." Very disappointing--hasn't this author studied any cognitive psychology? It's called confirmation bias and it's entirely clear.

One more example! On page 60, the author states that Barbara Boxer, a senator from California, "doesn't know the difference between a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol" and is "unlikely to shed intelligent light on the relative safety of either gun." Ouch. How does he know what Barbara Boxer knows or doesn't know? She's actually very well-versed on the difference between the two; has he heard her speak on the subject? It comes across as more of an ad hominem attack than anything.

Anyway, save your money on this book and instead buy Jamie Whyte's CRIMES AGAINST LOGIC. Now that's a well-written book!

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Libertarian Logic, June 25, 2007

By 

George R Dekle "Bob Dekle" (Lake City, FL United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: Truth, Knowledge, or Just Plain Bull: How to Tell the Difference (Paperback)

Patten gives a good exposition of a number of different ways that people can go wrong with their thinking. The problem is, in his book he himself commits almost every one of the logical errors he so lucidly defines. He decries overgeneralization and then goes on to discuss how all lawyers are liars. "Attorneys as a group are people who like to twist the truth and make things seem real that are not. They are advocates. Bending the truth is part of their business." p. 135. Granted, some lawyers bend the truth, but so do some authors. Patten talks about truth value in pp. 28-29, and pontificates that all scientific knowledge is hypothetical and tentative because inductive reasoning is hypothetical and tentative. Karl Popper, in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Routledge Classics) posits that the essence of scientific knowledge is that it is falsifiable. That's why we have the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution, because there is always the possibility that data will be discovered which will falsify the theories. But then, when Patten talks about the theory of evolution, he passionately tells us that it "is a fact, not a theory." p. 196. Ironically, in the next paragraph he tells us that the more passionately something is believed, the more likely it is wrong.





Patten decries partial selection of the evidence, but the book abounds in examples he gives where he has partially selected the evidence in order to arrive at conclusions congenial to his predetermined libertarian agenda. He confronts and "solves" numerous knotty conundra in a few paragraphs where experts have devoted volumes to the problems without a clear resolution. One example of this is his two page treatment of the trial of Jesus. Libraries have been written on this subject. E.g. The Trial and Death of Jesus; The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth; Six Trials of Jesus, The. His exposition on the trial betrays his total lack of insight as to the issues. Per Patten, Jesus stood trial because he told the truth about current conditions among the Hebrews. p. 195. The Gospels suggest a number of reasons for Jesus' trial -- his claim to the son of God, his claim to be Messiah, his cleansing of the Temple, his raising of Lazarus, the fear of the Sanhedrin that he would provoke a tragically unsuccessful uprising against Rome -- but not the reason stated by Patten. It is quite a coincidence that Patten divines a reason for Jesus' trial which is so congenial to Patten's libertarian agenda. Time and again Patten does this, cherry-picking his facts to make his superficial analysis coincide with his preconceptions.





Patten warns the reader to watch out for reasoners who have a hidden agenda, but he himself appears to have a hidden agenda of validating his libertarian views by putting them in a book on critical thinking and passing them off as good examples of critical thinking. Two much better books on critical thinking are Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (8th Edition) and How to Think Straight: An Introduction to Critical Reasoning.

8 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Abounding with the Errors He Warns Against (and Some He Doesn't), May 25, 2007

By 

watzizname "watzizname" (Murfreesboro, Tennessee) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Truth, Knowledge, or Just Plain Bull: How to Tell the Difference (Paperback)

Dr. Patten warns us against accepting unsubstantiated assertions. This is good advice. But on p. 61, Dr. Patten says "Barbara Boxer, senator from California, who doesn't know the difference between a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol, is unlikely to shed intelligent light on the relative safety of either gun." That statement consists of an unsubstantiated assertion, followed by a conclusion based on that assertion. But what if she is actually very knowledgeable about guns. She could be, for all I know. So the conclusion is in doubt.

Then Dr. Patten goes on to say "Yet Boxer considers herself fully qualified to frame laws on subjects about which she obviously knows little." Could it be that she considers herself qualified to frame laws because she IS so qualified by virtue of having been elected by the people of California to do just that? This hostile mind-reading ("She considers . . . .") is beginning to seem very like a hatchet job. Why does Dr. Patten make such an effort to disparage Senator Boxer? On the same page 61, Dr. Patten says "Biased authority is, to the extent of the bias, not reliable." By the evidence of his own words, I suspect Dr. Patten is biased against Senator Boxer, and is therefore not to be trusted on that subject. I COULD BE WRONG! The proof, either way, is not to be found in the book or in this review.

Another example of what appears to be hostile mind-reading is on p. 97: "The rationale at the root of the government's attitude is . . . ." If the government has explicitly so stated its rationale, then I apologize for doubting it. But if this is a rationale assumed by Dr. Patten and represented as fact, it may be misleading. An almost certain indication of an unreliable (and defamatory) claim to follow is "They want to"

On p. 160, "Classic false analogy: . . . the brain is like a computer. . . . The brain is not a computer AND IT IS NOT LIKE A COMPUTER." (emphasis added) Then follows a long list of differences between a brain and a computer, followed by the question "Is the analogy helpful?" But Dr. Patten entirely misses the point. Dr. Patten is using the technique of "setting up a straw man and knocking it down," which is to grossly overstate what is claimed (in this case an analogy) and then refute that gross overstatement. "The brain is like a computer" does NOT mean that the brain is precisely isomorphic with a computer in every respect. It merely means that there are points of similarity. The analogy is useful in understanding certain aspects of what brains and computers do. If you want to cut rabbits in two (split hares) say that a human brain, when its Adult ego state is cathected, can perform many of the same functions as a computer. No, the brain doesn't do it the same way the computer does it. For that matter, neither does the computer. My brain can add 36 and 48 and get the correct answer, 84. So can a computer. But I can think of four computers that I have programmed (in assembly language) that perform that simple task in four different ways, albeit they would all get the same result my brain did using a fifth way.

On p. 209, Dr. Patten proves that he is not extremely knowledgeable in the field of economics. He claims that the calculation of the national debt is "skewed" because it does not take into account the nation's assets. But debt is not the same thing as net worth. Net worth, if positive, is the excess of total assets over total debt. If total debt exceeds total assets, then net worth is negative. OF COURSE our national assets "are never considered in calculating the national debt." Debt is what is owed. Assets are not. The calculation of the national debt is not skewed because it is not a correct calculation of national net worth.

Chapter 7 is a useful description of "Scams, Deceptions, Ruses, Swindles, Hoaxes and Gaslights. The latter term comes from the movie "Gaslight," and refers to a campaign to confuse and disorient the victim.

On p. 250, Dr. Patten attempts a definition of relevance (of evidence). He says that "Evidence is relevant if it pertains directly and unemotionally to the merit of the position at issue AND SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION. (emphasis added) Consider the following in the light of this definition. (1) A crime was committed in Boston last Saturday. (2) Conclusion: Joe was the perpetrator. (3) Evidence declared not relevant by the above definition: Proof that Joe has been in Tokyo for the last two weeks, and has not yet left Tokyo. This evidence is declared not relevant because it does not support the conclusion. I don't think I'd like that standard of evidence if I were the defendant. Granted, Dr, Patten gives a better definition on the next page (251), but that is no excuse for giving a bad definition on page 250.

If you want a book on logic, pass this one up; there are better choices, e.g. Introduction to Logic, by Irving Copi, or Crimes Against Logic, by Jamie Whyte

[e-mail]