Crimes Against Logic: Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders 1st Edition

This book deserves the widest possible exposure in America, especially so close to the election, because it an excellent primer on how to guard yourself against the faulty reasoning that governs so much modern political discourse - and avoid adopting it yourself. I first heard about the book because one of its points was mentioned in an essay. The point was basically that just because someone has a motive to hold a certain position doesn't necessarily mean that the position is false. This seemed pretty obvious, but as I turned to the media I was amazed at how often politicians use this method, and how easily I had accepted their claims if they lined up with my political preferences.

Any damaging report against either side, for example, would frequently be denounced as a "partisan" attack, with occasional documentation of how the person who presented the report was tied to one party or another, as if this were the issue at hand. No attempt was made to address whether the report was true or not, the assumption being that exposing a bias - a motive for the potentially false information - was conclusive evidence.

Some of the things Whyte discussed in the book - for example, sample bias in statistics - are going to be familiar to many people, but just as frequently he comes up with something that all of us have probably used in an argument. For example, in the chapter "begging the question," he quotes a common pro-choice argument: "If you believe abortion is wrong, that's fine, don't abort your pregnancies. But show tolerance toward others who don't share your beliefs."

He points out that this ignores that actual position of anti-abortionists, that abortion is murder, morally equivalent to killing a live human being. The argument for tolerance takes for granted that the fetus is not really a person, and that therefore it should be possible for everyone to only be concerned with their own behavior. But as Whyte points out, anyone that actually wishes to confront the issue will have to address the question of whether the fetus is a human being. So many pleas for tolerance between certain feuding religions, he points out, have the same problem, because they skirt the genuine issue that is giving rise to the outrage - that, by the tenets of some religions, only one of them can be true.

I suspect Whyte's positions on religion will offend the most readers. He has no sympathy for familiar arguments about the un-knowable nature of god, or that the intricacy of life on earth necessarily implies a god (already taken apart by Hume in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion); he also presents a simple and conclusive refutation of Pascal's gambit that I've never come across before. Luckily, he does not exhibit the most annoying characteristic of many rationalists, smugness; instead, he seems to have a deep desire to get at truth, which I think we are more in need of today than any amount of vague piety.

The book will only take a couple of days to read, and is very clearly written. I remember an article that dealt with similar material that I read in high school, forgotten now because it ended up as an exercise in memorizing the Latin names of various fallacies. Whyte is conscientious about calling things by their common names. Buy the book, give it to your friends, and try to get at the bottom of why you believe what you do (and whether you still should).

Whyte brilliantly exposes the Motive Fallacy in Chapter 2, then occasionally slips into using it throughout the rest of the book, He doesn't descend to using it to refute arguments, but does use it to undermine credibility, e.g. "It gives them a thrilling fit of the cosmic heebie-jeebies."

Others did not detect smugness. I did, but am not bothered by it. It comes with the territory when writing about unclear thinking. As he invites the reader to share in it if one can but follow along, I doubt many people will be put off by it. He chooses some surprising examples to illustrate his points; some groups will be pleased at encountering a rare acknowledgement of their reasonableness.

There is a second weakness. Some questions are decided according to different standards of proof, as in the varieties of legal evidence: "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs. "clear and convincing" vs. "preponderance of the evidence." Whyte notes this accurately in some places, but neglects it in others, requiring proof where reasonableness might be enough.

Still, it's good. Amusing, instructive, and clear.

This is a very entertaining little book about bad reasoning. I laughed out loud on several occasions and have found myself reading sections to friends who I knew would enjoy them (or wouldn't, in some cases!).

I was already familiar with some of the fallacies, but a few were new to me, such as the fallacies of equivocation and begging the question.

Once explained, most of the fallacies Whyte highlights are easily understood. Which only makes it more incredible that they are so common, as shown by the incredibly wide range of examples Whyte draws on. I now find myself playing "spot the fallacy" when reading the paper or watching the news. It's fun for a while, until you start to get angry.

Whyte is pretty harsh on religion and some readers won't like it. But let's be honest, there is a lot of bad reasoning about religion. It would be ridiculous for a book on common fallacies to avoid the topic.

Apart from his apparent atheism, Whyte's substantive views are difficult to discern. He usually does a good job of sticking to the logic of arguments rather than the truth of their conclusions. And his occasionally angry tone, which some reviewers don't like, is usually appropriate and often very funny. I can highly recommend this book.