Mastering Logical Fallacies Read ↠ 102


Read & download Mastering Logical Fallacies

Mastering Logical Fallacies Read ↠ 102 ↠ ❮Ebook❯ ➨ Mastering Logical Fallacies ➩ Author Michael Withey – Johns-cycling-diary.co.uk LIMITED TIME PROMOTIONAL PRICE Your argument is valid and you know it; yet once again you find yourself leaving a debate feeling defeated and embarrassed The matter is only madLIMITED TIME PROMOTIONAL PRICE Your argument is valid and you know it yet once again you find yourself leaving a debate feeling defeated and embarrassed The matter is only made worse when you realize that your defeat came at the hands of someone’s abuse of logic and that with the right skills you could have won the argument The ability to recognize logical fallacies when they occur is an essen. The book goes over a wide range of logical fallacies or fallacies if not logical are often found in people’s arguments These fallacies are both formal or informal All them can be counteracted in some mannerI would not call this a definitive guide It does cover a good range of fallacies but whether or not it covers them all I do not know And the practical aspects on how to deal with these fallacies when you come across them is too brief to be definitive as well Somewhere he claims that this is the only book you will need To that I say “hardly” I would be comfortable with it being called a short guideIf you looking for a brief guide to fallacies that show up in arguments or debates this is a pretty good one If you are looking for something definitive you will need to look elsewhere

Mastering Logical FallaciesLIMITED TIME PROMOTIONAL PRICE Your argument is valid and you know it yet once again you find yourself leaving a debate feeling defeated and embarrassed The matter is only made worse when you realize that your defeat came at the hands of someone’s abuse of logic and that with the right skills you could have won the argument The ability to recognize logical fallacies when they occur is an essen. The book goes over a wide range of logical fallacies or fallacies if not logical are often found in people’s arguments These fallacies are both formal or informal All them can be counteracted in some mannerI would not call this a definitive guide It does cover a good range of fallacies but whether or not it covers them all I do not know And the practical aspects on how to deal with these fallacies when you come across them is too brief to be definitive as well Somewhere he claims that this is the only book you will need To that I say “hardly” I would be comfortable with it being called a short guideIf you looking for a brief guide to fallacies that show up in arguments or debates this is a pretty good one If you are looking for something definitive you will need to look elsewhere

Characters á PDF, DOC, TXT, eBook or Kindle ePUB free ´ Michael Withey

Mastering Logical Fallacies È Are ready to gain the upper hand over their opponents this master class teaches the necessary skills to identify your opponents’ misuse of logic and construct effective arguments that win With the empowering strategies offered in Mastering Logical Fallacies you’ll be able to reveal the slight of hand flaws in your challengers’ rhetoric and seize control of the argument with bulletproof log. Interesting and easy read but not a lot of really useful information Characters á PDF, DOC, TXT, eBook or Kindle ePUB free ´ Michael Withey

Michael Withey ´ 2 Review

Michael Withey ´ 2 Review Tial life skill Mastering Logical Fallacies is the clearest boldest and most systematic guide to dominating the rules and tactics of successful arguments This book offers methodical breakdowns of Mastering Logical Kindle the logical fallacies behind exceedingly common yet detrimental argumentative mistakes and explores them through real life examples of logic gone wrong Designed for those who. I'm baffled that this kind of book is still being published these days It's not so much of a guide to mastering fallacies as an encyclopedia style list A comprehensive list can be found over at Wikipedia where the fallacies are presented in a less dull format with examples and related fallaciesI also have a problem with the comeback sections where the implied scenario is a good faith debate where the participants will accept a well reasoned argument There are potential issues with nearly every comeback in this book For example the Anonymous Authority entry says thatThere's no problem with appealing to authority when that alleged authority is in fact an expert on the topic in uestion So if I say Black holes emit radiation I can justify this by appealing to the authority of Stephen HawkingThis is a weird example to use because I doubt scientists would speak in such certain terms including Stephen Hawking In the case of Hawking radiation although there's a theoretical mechanism for it there's only very weak experimental evidence for it It's far from well established that black holes emit radiationThis is not unusual; science is full of uncertain things with varying degrees of uncertainty But the notion of an authority doesn't allow for that This illustrates a general problem I have with focusing on fallacies as something to look for in a debate because it removes the context of what's being talked about it's not a very convincing way of striking down an argument It's often used to compensate for lack of knowledge in the topic or lack of ability to formulate a proper retortAnother example Appeal to the Moon is the argument that if we've done some difficult task then surely we can do another also difficult task We've been to the moon so why can't we cure cancer The comeback goesFirst point out that your opponent's argument is simply invalid the fact that one difficult thing has been achieved doesn't mean that a different difficult thing may also be achieved After all the difficulties associated with the latter feat remain unaffected by the achievement of the first feat You should then point out just how great these difficulties are; perhaps putting a man on the moon is in fact relatively simple compared to curing cancerThe first point is this paragraph is simply pointing out that this fallacy is a fallacy; I'm not sure this is very effective in a debate The second point is just begging for an exploration of how hard a mission to the moon is and what the specific difficulties with cancer research are You can't claim in good faith that one is easier than the other without getting into specificsThis fallacy also illustrates another problem I have with classifying fallacies most of them essentially amount to B does not follow from A also known as non seuitur Often the non seuitur fallacy is explained with such blatant examples that I can only imagine the person making the fallacious claim as acting in bad faith But in practice non seuitur is nuanced sometimes your opponent isn't able to formulate their reasoning clearly and sometimes you just fail to be convinced The solution to that is to debate the points until they're refined enough that it's either clear that B follows from A or that it does notThis might not be your goal if you just want to win the debate But if your goal is winning then I don't see why you should be pointing to fallacies at all It's useful to know about them but in terms of how you can use them to your benefit Appealing to emotion can be uite effective for exampleIf your goal is to learn then do not invoke fallacies in a debate And do not read this book