Customer Reviews

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

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

 

 

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!

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.

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

watziznaym@gmail.com

Read the content and stop caring about typos. I didn't notice one typo because I was concerned about the content and I'm not a high school grammar teacher- I'm a board-certified neurosurgeon This book says many good things that would help a lot of people so focus on that. I found it very valuable and give it 5 stars. I noticed my previous review was not posted. Read this book.

This book has helped to change the way I analyze language. It is a very interesting read due to the varied examples and well-reasoned analyses. The author's tone gets annoying at times, but it is tolerable. I am perplexed by the book's constant errors of grammar. There is one glaring mistake on nearly every page. It greatly reduces the readability of this title. I would still recommend the book to anyone who wants to more accurately tell fact from fiction and truth from lies, but you'll be very frustrated with all the mistakes along the way.

This book is not poorly written. It is annoyingly written. The author's inflated ego oozes out of every page and makes the book untenable. It is not unreadable, it is simply not enjoyable. If it weren't required reading for a course I am taking, I would not have gotten through the introduction. Other reviews praising this book are from other academia doing that mutual praise thing. BAAAAAD book.

I was really enjoying the chapter regarding generalization but I started to run across gratuitous swipes at the political right. At first I thought they were odd comments but then, with recurrence, they became quite annoying and, thus, distracting from the principal points about logic.

If Bernie was genuinely trying to be a teacher of clear thinking, then he should have left his political comments for a different venue. Instead, he indulged his ego with unnecessary and irrelevant comments about Republicans and "the right". That may have made Bernie feel better but those comments will likely distract many readers from his principal objective: Teaching clearer thinking.

I'm not a Republican but am, instead, an independent voter. But, I get sick and tired of politics seeping into books like this. If you aspire to be a teacher, then, just provide analytical tools for your readers to make their own normative evaluations and leave your own political views out of this.

One of the most confusing things about logic and reason is that it all necessarily depends on what you mean by the words you use, which is to say... it all depends. I note for example, in the introductory chaper, page 1, "Overgeneralization", there are a couple major overgeneralizations. That's why they needed to invent math and science, where nothing is real except precise definitions, and logic works wonderfully. Using reason with actual real things takes more than logic.

Another book I Ordered and I never got around to reading. Scanned it And it looked pretty.

Despite the typographical errors, I think this book is absolutely wonderful. The author is informative and funny enough to make me smile and want to continue reading.

Definitely a great book for people who are just starting to dab their fingers into stuffy critical thinking and self improvement. Very fun.