Think Again How to Reason and Argue Walter Sinnott Ebook

• Abode
• My Books

Open Preview

See a Problem?

Nosotros'd love your help. Allow us know what'southward wrong with this preview of Recall Once again past Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.

Cheers for telling u.s. about the trouble.

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends idea of this book, delight sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions near Recollect Again, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question almost Retrieve Over again

Customs Reviews

 · 401 ratings  · 65 reviews

Start your review of Think Once more: How to Reason and Argue

Apr 06, 2021 Socraticgadfly rated it really liked it

A solid volume of not just how to contend, just why we need to argue, and how and why to argue well.

To explicate further, this is a volume that offers up some basic tenets of informal logic, but in a good-sneaky way. Sinnott-Armstrong does then in the process of explaining what argumentation is, how to analyze an argument, how to see its strength or weakness, how to make a reasonably but not naively charitable attempt to construct a structured informal logic argument out of something lacking structure and

A solid book of not just how to contend, but why we need to debate, and how and why to argue well.

To explain further, this is a volume that offers up some basic tenets of informal logic, but in a skillful-sneaky way. Sinnott-Armstrong does so in the procedure of explaining what argumentation is, how to analyze an argument, how to encounter its strength or weakness, how to make a reasonably but not naively charitable attempt to construct a structured breezy logic argument out of something lacking structure and more.

That said, per some other reviewers that gave either iv or three stars, non five? I retrieve he does, even without encouraging naivete, encourage people to bend over backward too much. Plus, his ain statement, peculiarly if we follow his own schema for how to analyze an argument and how to excerpt a structured statement from something that is not structured, that we're in a uniquely uncivil era, doesn't ring true. Perhaps he's viewing modern America from Eisenhower-era rose-colored glasses behind a white picket fence, simply the reason that era looked ceremonious is that lots of people "knew their identify."

Women and minorities of that era aside, is there some show that nosotros've gotten somewhat more uncivil than at *certain times* in the past? Yes. But, without beingness naively charitable, per his ain analysis suggestions, I call up he's made a merits that, if not absolutist, is too close to absolutist. Look at the debates over the Constitution. Or Congress in the 1850s. Or to jump across the pond, the British Parliament over Irish Home Dominion.

Or, this great Politico piece about political activism in the Gold Age, that politics as ersatz religion ain't necessarily new: https://world wide web.politico.com/news/magazin...

...more

Dec 10, 2018 Nicky rated it liked information technology

Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.

I always meant to take the Coursera class this is based on, but I never quite got round to it, and so when I saw it'd been made into a book, well, that seemed likely to be a format that would work for me (and wait for me to become round to it, though as it happened, information technology didn't have to await long). I call up information technology does have some good suggestions and some good analysis of ways to argue, merely there are a couple of things I notice difficult.

One is the claim that the world is increasing

Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.

I always meant to take the Coursera grade this is based on, but I never quite got round to it, so when I saw it'd been made into a volume, well, that seemed likely to be a format that would piece of work for me (and wait for me to get circular to information technology, though as information technology happened, it didn't have to wait long). I recollect it does have some proficient suggestions and some good assay of ways to argue, but in that location are a couple of things I notice difficult.

One is the claim that the globe is increasingly polarised and things were better, people were more than polite, in ye olde days of yore. Sure, information technology's very clear that the discourse has inverse, and Sinnott-Armstrong does accept the receipts to evidence that we are more polarised in terms of our political view. On the other paw, I have a difficult job seeing that equally but a symbol of our current times: countries have been split by civil war earlier. People haven't always been more polite or known how to argue or how to disagree civilly, and maybe the less-polarised times he'south holding up as a meliorate fourth dimension had their own problems (like people feeling unable to express their opinions, possibly fifty-fifty feeling unsafe to exercise so, in the cases of a lot of minorities).

The other thing is the way Sinnott-Armstrong pushes always being civil, ever giving the other person the do good of the doubt. On the i hand, it feels like the correct thing — I would love more civility in debates. But there are some views which are legitimised by beingness engaged with, and there are some things that are indefensible. Now it's truthful that he does say that it's not e'er the time to argue, but it really wasn't articulate to me that he understood the position his insistence on civility and hearing both sides would put some people in: debating with someone who believes that it's only a fact that they and everyone like them should exist cleansed from the world, and request them why, charitably reframing their argument… Ew. No. It comes beyond every bit very "good people on both sides", and information technology's non truthful.

Perhaps it's a fault of it being a rather curt book and express space, but given he'southward constantly framing the effect in terms of the political divide in the US, I wonder. I don't feel that he quite gets out of it by simply stating that sometimes information technology isn't the correct time to argue. Possibly it'south just a matter of proverb that y'all simply can't argue productively with some people/views, and he'southward automatically discounting those correct away. It didn't experience similar it, though, with some of his examples.

The volume did make me want to try debating more instead of constantly either passing arguments past or dismissing people as too biased to carp. I exercise think it could exist pretty useful when both parties are willing to fence in proficient faith. I uncertainty it'll be an antidote to political polarisation right now, though, for most people — I think for many people, the other side (whichever that is) merely isn't willing to talk anymore. There'southward as well much at stake, and it's too exhausting.

...more

Mar 31, 2018 Eric rated it really liked it

TL;DR

Retrieve Over again past Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues effectively for improving recognition, evaluation, and consideration of political arguments. This timely, nonpartisan book of instructions teaches logical statement construction in a relatable, understandable method and is badly needed for tense political discussions. Recommended.

Disclosure

Oxford University Press provided an advanced electronic copy in exchange for an honest review. Review cross-posted at my website: PrimmLife

Review

G

TL;DR

Think Once more by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues effectively for improving recognition, evaluation, and consideration of political arguments. This timely, nonpartisan book of instructions teaches logical argument structure in a relatable, understandable method and is badly needed for tense political discussions. Recommended.

Disclosure

Oxford University Printing provided an advanced electronic re-create in exchange for an honest review. Review cross-posted at my website: PrimmLife

Review

Modern American society is one big contest for people'due south attention. From phones to television to social media, our attention span decreased to cipher. At the aforementioned time, the then-called culture wars deepened the dissever in our ii political party system. While political division exists all through US history, it is much more extreme than simply twenty years ago. The rise of hostile political media contributes in part; fake news and foreign nations meddling in our elections plays a role; just in my opinion the main corrupter falls on political sound bites. Politicians, public relations consultants, and media personalities love distilling circuitous, societal issues down into small, unproblematic phrases and slogans. Often, these slogans sound like propaganda instead of a nuanced, reasoned argument, and these sound bites allow people to feel well-read and in-touch on with current politics when they are not. In Think Over again, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong teaches united states of america how to evaluate arguments based on principles of logic. Why Think Again? By using contemporary examples, Professor Sinnott-Armstrong lays out a procedure to improve political debating.

Think Again's primary goal is to increase political debate for the entire political spectrum; it is a nonpartisan arroyo to span the divide. Professor Sinnott-Armstrong succeeds past returning to basic principles. If this book had a slogan, it'd be "First, seek to sympathise, then, to be understood." In Sinnott-Armstrong's opinion, being charitable in arguing is the path back to civil political soapbox. To achieve this, we must ask questions of our political opponents. Even labeling the person equally an opponent goes confronting the spirit of this book.

I found this text refreshing. In a political climate where invective, derision, and outright lies are continuing operating procedure, this nuanced, balanced volume feels mature and necessary. Professor Sinnott-Armstrong shows that political debate improves without proper name calling, without contempt. Because he uses contemporary examples, he gives us a step-past-footstep method for how to and how not to argue. I loved this volume.

But Why Think Again

For the commencement roughly 3rd of the volume, Professor Sinnott-Armstrong lays out an argument for why we should debate. This section is the almost important one in the book and separates it from other logic texts. It surveys the current country of political debate, and it provides a await at the pitfalls in which we currently engage. In this section, I saw a number of my own faults, and that led me to evaluate my own carry. For me, that lone made the volume a success. This department sets the book autonomously from another book on introductory logic. People should read this volume before debating on Facebook or Twitter. It, without doubt, tin improve our ability to fence, but information technology also requires report, work, and maintenance. This book requires a reread to learn all the methods. I struggled recognizing suppressed arguments; so, that presents an opportunity for personal improvement.

Writing

This book has a dry, academic tone but as well a compassionate voice. It reminds me of all the all-time professors from my college days because Sinnott-Armstrong cares nearly the material and carrying the information. Though it read slowly, the footstep picks upwardly speed almost the end. Through the utilize of contemporary examples, the reader can follow along to Walter'south method.

Decision

For a volume that aims to teach, the key question of whatever review is: Does information technology work? Did it achieve its goal? The respond, resoundingly, is yes. Remember Again works well as an educational activity in logic, and it works well as a call to civility in political soapbox. With a piffling work, this book can amend political literacy; it teaches united states of america how to call back critically. For anyone interested in politics, Recollect Again is a must accept tool for the debating toolbox.

...more

A book describing how to reason / argue.

A few sections of this book were interesting, but overall it read like an academic work and there was likewise much padding.

Mar 29, 2020 Duy Dang rated it it was ok

Summary:
This book comprises of 3 parts: part I - Why to argue, part 2 - How to argue, and part Three - How to not debate. This book helps to split between argument and discussion and provide plenty of techniques to support or abnegate an argument.

Worth reading?
The author explains again and again some simple ideas, and this bored me. The fact that this book comes from the author's experience of teaching MOOC form on Coursera. I experience that this book is a drove of lecture notes. I did find som

Summary:
This book comprises of 3 parts: role I - Why to fence, part Ii - How to argue, and office Three - How to not argue. This book helps to carve up betwixt statement and discussion and provide enough of techniques to support or refute an statement.

Worth reading?
The author explains again and over again some simple ideas, and this bored me. The fact that this book comes from the writer's experience of didactics MOOC form on Coursera. I experience that this book is a drove of lecture notes. I did find some interesting ideas and applicable technique, just I don't have enough patience to finish the volume.

Nội dung tóm tắt:
Sách gồm 3 phần: phần 1 - Tại sao cần lập luận, phần 2 - Lập luận như thế nào, phần 3 - Làm thế nào để phản bác lập luận. Sách phân biệt giữa lập luận với việc tranh cãi và đưa ra nhiều kỹ thuật để ủng hộ hoặc phản bác một lập luận.

Có đáng đọc không:
Có một số nội dung tương đối dễ hiểu nhưng tác giả vẫn giải thích đi giải thích lại làm cho người đọc bị chán. Cuốn sách ra đời từ trải nghiệm của tác giả khi giảng dạy một khóa học về lập luận trên Coursera. Có lẽ vì thếnên cuốn sách giống như một tập hợp các bài giảng. Tôi tìm thấy một số kiến thức thú vị từ cuốn sách, nhưng cũng không đủ kiên nhẫn để đọc hết.

...more than

Aug 05, 2019 Niels rated it it was ok

What I idea information technology would be: an engaging book about how to spot belligerent fallacies, not fall in them myself, and in full general become a better participant in debates.

What it really was: a rather dry practice in explaining the nuts of reasoning (premises, propositions, decision, evaluation, validity, soundness, completion, fallacies - that kind of stuff).

It would be unfair to ascribe my depression score to this discrepancy between expectations and reality, but it was nevertheless quite a tedious rea

What I thought it would be: an engaging book about how to spot argumentative fallacies, not autumn in them myself, and in full general become a better participant in debates.

What it actually was: a rather dry out practise in explaining the basics of reasoning (premises, propositions, conclusion, evaluation, validity, soundness, completion, fallacies - that kind of stuff).

It would exist unfair to ascribe my depression score to this discrepancy between expectations and reality, simply it was withal quite a deadening read, which did piddling to spark my interest into farther engaging with the topic of argumentation.

...more than

This is a very informative and necessary volume. We'd be so much better off if people just knew how to argue with each other and did it with the right mental attitude, that is, moved by a constructive desire for understanding and collaboration, instead of, as we encounter and so often nowadays (just open up your facebook), by competition and egoism. In this way this book is both educative and inspiring, and motivates yous to further, more than advance readings into the topic. This is a very informative and necessary volume. We'd be so much better off if people just knew how to argue with each other and did information technology with the right attitude, that is, moved past a constructive desire for understanding and collaboration, instead of, as we see and then oftentimes present (just open your facebook), by contest and egoism. In this way this volume is both educative and inspiring, and motivates you to further, more than advance readings into the topic. ...more

October 24, 2020 Dan Graser rated it really liked it

In works like this yous run the chance of rating them at the extremes of either far too harshly for not beingness of greater depth or as superficially bully but practically and academically defective. Every bit such I will attempt to review this book for what information technology is, and that is an introduction to reasoning and arguing in more purposeful ways and in more philosophically audio style. In this mission, it serves as an effective précis and will provide context and names for various forms of argument and disputation th In works like this yous run the risk of rating them at the extremes of either far too harshly for not beingness of greater depth or every bit superficially great but practically and academically lacking. Every bit such I volition try to review this book for what it is, and that is an introduction to reasoning and arguing in more than purposeful ways and in more philosophically sound fashion. In this mission, it serves as an effective précis and volition provide context and names for various forms of argument and disputation that y'all probable have establish both compelling and spurious. Sinnott-Armstrong divides the piece of work into three sections: Why to Argue, How to Argue, How Not to Argue. He provides cases from recent history to illustrate where arguments that sounded convincing at the fourth dimension were self-evidently weak and reliant on well-known fallacies that we, the public, have go numb to due to overuse. His section on how to refute an argument is the one section that fifty-fifty in a short introductory piece of work such every bit this, I wish were much longer as it is the most important topic presented and a greater amount of time was spent on argument construction proportionately. As a supplement to the last department of this piece of work, I would also recommend you pick up a re-create of Michael Withey's, "Mastering Logical Fallacies." However, this volume itself is a fine introduction to the topic and would exercise guild a great service if information technology became widely read as perhaps then nosotros could all concord that we demand to concur those in power to a much higher standard and more objectively evaluate their arguments...hey, a guy can dream... ...more

Someone at my one-time work gave this to me, not in a pointed style (I recall there were a bunch of remaindered copies), but I was interested in the take a current philosopher and ethics professor would have on the state of debate at the moment and any potential solutions. The book talks a skillful game at the beginning, talking nearly polarised politics, and how aspects of social media has debased debate. Just when it comes to solutions its rather frustrating, particularly every bit in that location is picayune engagement with Someone at my sometime work gave this to me, not in a pointed way (I recall there were a bunch of remaindered copies), but I was interested in the have a current philosopher and ethics professor would have on the state of contend at the moment and any potential solutions. The book talks a expert game at the beginning, talking about polarised politics, and how aspects of social media has debased contend. Simply when it comes to solutions its rather frustrating, especially as in that location is piffling engagement with the platforms on which debate has been debased. Arguments on twitter and facebook are not like arguments face up to confront, in how you can organise and obfuscate your premises and ignore and appoint on points at will (and not least ad hominem insults that might otherwise get you lot punched on the nose).

And then when we get tot he solution role of the volume it basically turns into a week i logic form - one what is a well formed formula, or arguments which can exist logically defined. I did all this in my caste course, and most people won't accept, but having a degree in Maths & Philosophy has not especially given me an advantage on Twitter. Pointing out logical fallacies rarely wins the statement after all. So overall disappointing, and I don't recollect that it is even that accessible to the layman.

...more than

Lots of highly detailed and os-dry autopsy of clauses, generalisations and assumptions in statements that no reasonable developed would take literally, to explain why you shouldn't take those points literally.
I was quite entertained by this volume at offset, but my interest dwindled more than with every chapter.

Volume explores broad world of arguments: types, fallacies, employ, etc. Moreover author scrutinizes arguments by analysing some texts.

Piece of cake to read, quite catchy, but maybe a petty besides political.

An interesting read , especially in this mean solar day and age, virtually how you lot should look at the things people say (mainly political).

Nov 15, 2018 SB rated it really liked it

A proficient book on the fine art of fence; Sinnott-Armstrong deconstructs arguments used during the Brexit campaign, the 2022 American election and opinions to do with immigration. He deconstructs arguments to see whether they are valid and teaches the reader how to meliorate construct arguments and debate correctly for their indicate. He posits that we are now in a heated political climate in which the left is unwilling to listen to the correct and vice versa; people accept become more polarised and reluctant to d A practiced volume on the fine art of argue; Sinnott-Armstrong deconstructs arguments used during the Brexit campaign, the 2022 American election and opinions to do with clearing. He deconstructs arguments to encounter whether they are valid and teaches the reader how to better construct arguments and fence correctly for their betoken. He posits that we are now in a heated political climate in which the left is unwilling to listen to the right and vice versa; people have get more polarised and reluctant to debate with the other side. Indeed, left-wingers and correct-wingers of each nation take become more radicalised and more likely to dismiss their opponents as, stupid/greedy/crazy (insert other offensive adjective hither). He likewise notes that near people take friends and family unit of the aforementioned political persuasions and that it is dangerous for republic if nosotros practise non engage with other points of view, every bit diversity of opinion is a wonderful thing and can instigate informed change. Oft, each side wants to shut downwardly opponents without listening to them, as evidenced in British and American politics, but we need to debate and argue with the other side, rather than ignoring and insulting them.

The writer also breaks down the dichotomy betwixt reasons vs emotions, i.east. that yous can only make a determination or have an opinion that is rooted in logic or emotion; this is non always correct, as frequently reason tin can precede emotions, e.g. when you become happy considering y'all've made the right determination (made logically). Likewise, the correct mode to bring someone most to your POV is not to explain why they're wrong, but to inquire questions, as "questions are more powerful than assertions". He states that it is amend to enquire a how the opposition's proposal works, rather than why they hold their behavior. Causing the other side to break downward the "how" reasons for their argument may make them see that they exercise non really know their position well enough and may push button them to come round to a different POV (or at the very least make them weaker in their own POV).

Other interesting bits:
-Reddit'due south Alter My View forums
-"Sceptics are non satisfied past any argument unless it rules out every opposite possibility and convinces everyone."
-When inductive generalisations are made, it'due south important to ask whether the bounds are true (obvs), the sample size and whether the sample size might be biased (through the framing of the question for example or whether they were called from a specific areas which brings out certain biases).

...more

Nov 15, 2019 Jodi Geever rated it actually liked it

I read this equally an evaluation of resources for my Philosophy Cafe program at the library. All in all, I plant the writing and the content to be accessible to the average person, and I idea the examples were timely and the politics in the background is what is needed for people right at present. (The author shows how to structure an statement, how to win an argument and the structure of your opponents arguments as segments of the book.) Worth the fourth dimension if you desire to find, make, or empathise the struct I read this equally an evaluation of resources for my Philosophy Cafe programme at the library. All in all, I institute the writing and the content to be attainable to the boilerplate person, and I idea the examples were timely and the politics in the background is what is needed for people right now. (The writer shows how to structure an argument, how to win an argument and the structure of your opponents arguments as segments of the book.) Worth the time if you want to observe, make, or understand the construction of arguments or their place in philosophy. ...more

January 27, 2021 Mila Mi rated it really liked it

What I liked: the political inclination of the author is not visible throughout the volume. Information technology's nice to not be biased towards left or correct since we are usually surrounded past like-minded people. It would be an important volume for whoever is very fanatic nearly one party or credo. Not exactly what I expected equally information technology was more than of an outgoing version of the philosophy classes we had in college rather than a practical "guide" but it's still a good reminder of all the fallacies we should b What I liked: the political inclination of the author is non visible throughout the book. It'due south overnice to not be biased towards left or correct since nosotros are usually surrounded by like-minded people. It would be an important book for whoever is very fanatic about one political political party or ideology. Not exactly what I expected as it was more of an approachable version of the philosophy classes we had in higher rather than a applied "guide" simply it's all the same a good reminder of all the fallacies we should be spotting in the speeches. ...more

April 19, 2020 Vesperia rated it did non similar it

Possibly the worst book I have ever read. I forced myself to finish it hoping it would have something to teach me just it was a complete waste of time. It's a poorly written, uninformative borefest.

The author spends l% of the book complaining about how politicians don't know how to argue. He uses political examples throughout the book and he is very obviously left-leaning so he does a poor job of "seeing a situation from all perspectives", his own biases are showing.

Possibly the worst book I have e'er read. I forced myself to end it hoping it would have something to teach me but it was a consummate waste of fourth dimension. It'due south a poorly written, uninformative borefest.

The author spends 50% of the volume complaining well-nigh how politicians don't know how to argue. He uses political examples throughout the volume and he is very obviously left-leaning then he does a poor job of "seeing a situation from all perspectives", his own biases are showing.

...more

Stop of Week 41: Book 41 Completed: Think Again – Walter Sinnott-Armstrong #myread4change #read2lead #read4life #books

Word Argument has very negative connotation to it. Like it quoted past many famous authors.

I take come up to the determination that in that location is merely one way under high heaven to become the best of an
Argument, and that is to avert information technology. - Dale Carnegie

Arguments are to be avoided, they are always vulgar and often convincing. – Oscar Wilde

Author of Think again differs and claims that "although we c

Cease of Week 41: Book 41 Completed: Think Once more – Walter Sinnott-Armstrong #myread4change #read2lead #read4life #books

Word Argument has very negative connotation to it. Like information technology quoted by many famous authors.

I have come to the conclusion that in that location is simply one fashion under high heaven to get the best of an
Statement, and that is to avoid it. - Dale Carnegie

Arguments are to be avoided, they are always vulgar and often disarming. – Oscar Wilde

Author of Recollect again differs and claims that "although we cannot always reason with everyone, that limitation does not show that arguments and reasoning are non useful"

Think once again teaches how to gain win-win outcome, learn, teach and adjust without losing our cool, sanity and end up hating others or being hated.

What we tin gain from Argument –

•Learning – when nosotros are open up to reason with someone contrary view we can learn new perspective and and then it's up to us change our position.

•Respect – When we are open up and ask for reason, we evidence respect to other person and their view and others will exist more considerate to mind to our reason.

•Humility – Apart from showing and gaining respect, we larn humility if we are open to reason and ask appropriate questions. Writer suggest to ask 'HOW' rather than 'WHY'.

•Abstraction – Arguments can also undermine polarization. If people are more than apprehensive and modest, they are less likely to adopt extreme positions.

•Compromise – As both parties have opponents reason for their position and what they value most, it will exist much easier to draw center path.

Points to be considered for healthy statement-

•Don't simply declare what you believe. Give reason.
•Ask questions or reason for others position.
•Listen attentively with open up listen.
•Be critical of your own reasoning. Don't think that you have all the answers. Be humble.

One must avoid below points for healthy argument-

•Don't let others merely announce their positions. Inquire questions most their reasons.
•Don't interrupt. Mind carefully to their reason. (This is the most hard for most people)
•Don't attack opponents likewise soon. Interpret their reason charitably.
•Don't insult or abuse opponents.

Information technology is in one case read for gaining good cognition when to debate, how to argue and how non to fence.

...more

This book was non what I expected

The more than I read, the more I find that the author is not defective in knowledge or feel on the subject, but that maybe it would be more than productive to read a structured logic book as such. At the end of the book I do non rescue much more than a very long and convoluted collection of examples of types of syllogisms and fallacies.
And as a result of this reading, I am even more pessimistic about reasoning as a tool for understanding, because it seems much closer

This book was not what I expected

The more I read, the more I find that the author is not defective in knowledge or feel on the subject, but that perhaps it would be more productive to read a structured logic book equally such. At the terminate of the book I do not rescue much more than a very long and convoluted collection of examples of types of syllogisms and fallacies.
And every bit a result of this reading, I am even more than pessimistic about reasoning as a tool for understanding, because it seems much closer to utopia than reality.

Unhappy examples (to my liking) in many cases. The depth varies throughout the volume and makes each private analysis seem right, but it does not concord up as a whole. Information technology is obvious that the wood and the tree are not dislocated when viewed at the correct altitude, just it is likewise obvious that there is no "correct" altitude in common for all cases. That in that location will ever be a point where it is non clear what the object of assay is if the depth of the analysis is varied. You cannot see an elephant coming when you are concentrating on post-obit the ants.
Even worse. There is non even a consensus virtually the "logic" of an statement. He says "The absurd is sometimes in the centre of the beholder."

I think I can summarize the book in a quote from the aforementioned book: "Arguments will never satisfy anyone whose standards are too high, such equally those who seek certainty; just they tin still exist very useful for people with reasonable goals, like justifying their conclusion to reasonable moderates with open minds. "
My determination is that I didn't accept read this volume if I had known that I am only going to understand those who I already understand.

For me, a BIG waste of fourth dimension.

...more

November 16, 2020 Rosa Ventura rated information technology actually liked it

This book is most argumentation and reasoning. It briefly and adequately outlines the rules of proper logical reasoning as well equally the social contexts under which we reason. The principle decision is that reasoning in general is a good thing that people should engage in and endeavour to improve information technology in themselves as it tin lead to ameliorate decisions, improving your ideas and that of others. This conclusion being contrary to many peoples conventionalities of the degraded value of skilful reasoning and argumentation. This book is about argumentation and reasoning. Information technology briefly and adequately outlines the rules of proper logical reasoning as well as the social contexts under which we reason. The principle conclusion is that reasoning in general is a good matter that people should engage in and endeavour to improve information technology in themselves every bit it tin lead to better decisions, improving your ideas and that of others. This decision being contrary to many peoples belief of the degraded value of skilful reasoning and argumentation. He discusses how people should come up to arguments with the right heed set. I that begins with civility that accepts that the other person has reasons themselves and that you need to be open up to their points of view and evaluate them as objectively and without bias to the greatest extent possible.
He as well discuses the current country of polarization in the world where no one seems to really care about getting at the truth but rather only care virtually maintaining a mindset, a belief etc, regardless of whatever alien or counterfactual information. He states that we accept forgotten how to fence and therefore forgotten most the underlying values that support good argumentation. Values such as
modesty (or not claiming to possess the whole truth),
graciousness (including conceding opponents' good points),
patience (in waiting for audiences to think through our points), and
forgiveness (when an opponent refuses to concede our own good points).

I recall this function of the book is the well-nigh of import every bit it examines why we should argue and what value tin can come up of it . it is a difficult but rewarding attempt that can lead usa to a better and more open/simply guild. I thoroughly recommend this book.

...more than

October nineteen, 2018 Nick M rated it it was ok

i tried to read a book on "the simpsons and philosophy" and it reminded me just how deeply academia tin gag on balls sometimes. this is mainly due to the fact that thinking is never interesting or edifying when information technology drives in a direct line, at best making rigid lane merges. after reading such TOPIC Example LINKS i never idea i'd kill to see fifty-fifty a hook turn or a parallel park. the thing is that the last vestige of childhood - which most people lose but *esp* (thousand)acadamia nuts - is the ability i tried to read a book on "the simpsons and philosophy" and it reminded me just how deeply academia tin gag on assurance sometimes. this is mainly due to the fact that thinking is never interesting or edifying when it drives in a direct line, at best making rigid lane merges. later reading such TOPIC Case LINKS i never thought i'd kill to run across even a hook turn or a parallel park. the thing is that the terminal vestige of childhood - which well-nigh people lose merely *esp* (one thousand)acadamia nuts - is the ability to digress wildly at will. after all, equally bill burr observed, nigh stories told by children unreel like the plot of lurid fiction. this volume fares marginally amend merely its structure is kind of all out of whack. the first one-half is a plea for mutual decency that states the obvious about our divided ad hominem times to the degree that my retinas burned out, only considering the words are so non-partisan and sane in an age where SOC-MED has created rabid tribalism on all sides, i'll exist damned if the basic facts of rhetorical life aren't in some sense schweppervescent. the second half does the cumbersome academic thing of listing things then examples ad nauseum, but it does information technology in a really threaded and analogical manner so that information technology is difficult to parse exactly what is meant. this volume does have the feel of a circular online course kind of jackhammered into a book-shaped hole. just it could be worse. ...more

The title - the words "How to" in particular - is misleading. Instead, information technology should say Argumentation and Fallacies - an Essay. A volume like this has to be either insightful, offer you a fresh perspective for very old and well-known issues, or useful, offering practical solutions for very well known problems. It is neither. Instead, the author goes extensively about *what* arguments are, and *what* types are there, pointing out the obvious. So it goes on to very well-known fallacies and *what* The title - the words "How to" in particular - is misleading. Instead, it should say Argumentation and Fallacies - an Essay. A book like this has to be either insightful, offering yous a fresh perspective for very erstwhile and well-known bug, or useful, offer practical solutions for very well known problems. It is neither. Instead, the author goes extensively virtually *what* arguments are, and *what* types are there, pointing out the obvious. Then it goes on to very well-known fallacies and *what* those fallacies are - ok, not all will know them all, but what good is to know them, describe them, requite examples of what they are, if at that place'due south no hint whatsoever every bit to how to accost them. Just on the last 20-pages the *how* comes up when you lot are totally bored with the whole thing already. The author didn't demand to get the way of the cocky-help-type of book, total of lists for all-as well-easy solutions for circuitous issues to make this book insightful and useful read. It had only to step down from the lecturer's mindset and reply the question "so what". ...more

Jan nineteen, 2019 Patrick rated it liked information technology

I've read a lot of books on this topic. It'south hard for me to go up to four stars on this, just because the volume covers ground that is really well-trodden. At times, I constitute it a bit ho-hum and predictable. However, there are moments when the personality of the author actually shines through. He seems like a wonderful professor, and a sincere practitioner of his arts and crafts. His description of fallacies is wonderful, in item his emphasis on the principle of charity. He does a great job explaining I've read a lot of books on this topic. Information technology's hard for me to become upwards to four stars on this, simply considering the book covers ground that is really well-trodden. At times, I establish it a chip boring and predictable. However, there are moments when the personality of the writer really shines through. He seems like a wonderful professor, and a sincere practitioner of his arts and crafts. His description of fallacies is wonderful, in particular his accent on the principle of charity. He does a great job explaining how to restate and sympathise arguments, and is sincere in describing why we demand to do information technology. Several times the volume takes deep dives into real-life arguments. I wish this book existed when I taught philosophy. ...more

I recall that this is a really prissy introduction to disquisitional thinking and argumentation. Merely, for that reason, it wasn't really that useful to me (having tutored critical thinking classes for five years or and so). Yet, it does that chore well.

Still, I disagree with WSA that the left and the correct are just equally bad as i another, and that the current global political situation tin really be blamed on extremists on both sides. At some level this might be true, but at that place are massive differences that go

I think that this is a actually nice introduction to critical thinking and argumentation. But, for that reason, information technology wasn't really that useful to me (having tutored critical thinking classes for 5 years or and then). Still, it does that task well.

However, I disagree with WSA that the left and the right are simply equally bad every bit 1 another, and that the current global political situation can really exist blamed on extremists on both sides. At some level this might exist truthful, but in that location are massive differences that go entirely unmentioned. So I was very much not on lath with the first half of the book which seemed to exist pushing a sort of moderate centrism.

...more

Oct 10, 2020 Ramesh Naidu rated information technology it was amazing

A very interesting framework of inductive vs deductive reasoning including a categorical analysis of how we take in information via inductive ways namely
1) Statistical generalization which means from the specific to the full general
2) statistical application which means extrapolating 3) inference to the best awarding like Occam's razor
4) argument from analogy
5 )causal reasoning
6 ) probability

Besides lists the various reasoning fallacies . Delightful read

Finished at terminal. Well what I mean when I say I finished it is that I couldn't face up reading another page. I fabricated it to page 200 but that'due south as much equally I could accept.
It'southward not that it'southward a bad book, really no information technology is a bad volume. Its very didactic and as such very off putting and a grind to read. There were some interesting points in the book but they were all to few and exceptional. Finished at last. Well what I hateful when I say I finished it is that I couldn't face reading another page. I made it to page 200 but that'south as much every bit I could take.
Information technology's non that it's a bad book, really no it is a bad book. Its very didactic and as such very off putting and a grind to read. At that place were some interesting points in the book merely they were all to few and exceptional. ...more than

Dec 28, 2018 Mike rated information technology liked it

Ploughed through most 180 pages of this, and so merely couldn't exist bothered to finish it. Turned back to Alan Jacobs' book, How to Call up, which I'd read before, and which was just every bit readable and valuable the second time effectually. Okay, it doesn't requite you all the debating tactics that Sinnott-Armstrong goes for, merely it's more useful in the long run. Ploughed through about 180 pages of this, and then just couldn't exist bothered to finish it. Turned back to Alan Jacobs' volume, How to Think, which I'd read before, and which was just every bit readable and valuable the second time around. Okay, it doesn't give you all the debating tactics that Sinnott-Armstrong goes for, but it's more useful in the long run. ...more

November 15, 2018 Bailorg rated it it was ok

There are some useful points on the logic of argumentation and how to approach opposing viewpoints, merely if you don't accept the idea that the moderate eye is the way forward for political thinking, then almost half this volume is almost infuriatingly unreadable.

A very technical introduction to what an statement is and how does an argument become an argument. I liked that he bankrupt downwards an statement and guided the reader through identifying traits of an argument and how to counter argue also.

Jul xv, 2019 Erin rated it really liked it

Very much enjoyed reading this very shallow dip into this philosopher's work. Definitely appreciated the reminder that good arguing forwards our minds whereas debasement does not. And that in this moment, the latter is too common. Perhaps it ever was. Very much enjoyed reading this very shallow dip into this philosopher's work. Definitely appreciated the reminder that good arguing forwards our minds whereas debasement does not. And that in this moment, the latter is too common. Perhaps it always was. ...more

Related Manufactures

Bound is finally springing! And just in time, frankly. The past winter was a rough one. For book people, there'south no ameliorate way to...

"The all-time way to reduce opponents' overconfidence and brand them open to your position might seem to be an overwhelming argument that shows them why they are wrong and why y'all are correct. Sometimes that works, but just rarely. What usually works ameliorate is to ask questions—in item, to enquire opponents for reasons. Questions are ofttimes more powerful than assertions." — iii likes

"Anatol Rapoport, a mathematical psychologist who was famous for his insights into social interactions: You lot should endeavour to re-express your target's position and then conspicuously, vividly, and fairly that your target says, 'Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way.' Y'all should listing whatsoever points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of widespread understanding). You should mention anything that you have learned from your target. But then are yous permitted to say and then much as a give-and-take of rebuttal or criticism.i How many times take you lot heard or participated in a conversation that obeys these rules? Such guidelines accept gone out of fashion recently, if they were ever followed." — ane likes

More quotes…

Welcome dorsum. Just a moment while we sign y'all in to your Goodreads account.

morrislounctirough.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36794080-think-again

Share this post