Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I bought these books to coach a debate team as a parent. Imagine my surprise to find that a book on logical fallacies commits numerous examples itself, and displays clear anti-religious and political bias. As a positive, I do think the descriptions and definitions of the logical fallacies were fairly accurate and presented well enough for smart children to grasp. So I will say that. It is in the examples where the bias and breakdown of logic occurs. A few examples: In the very first section on Arguments from Consequences, the author refers to Dostoevsky's assertion, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted." First, the author presents this as a quote, which it is not. It is a paraphrase of two different sentences within a dialogue that cannot be construed to be a complete, self-contained logical argument. Second, the statement quoted in the book is actually perfectly valid and useful as a rigid logical concept when debating any atheist who claims that morality is objective. Without the context of the argument, the author misleads the reader into thinking that that statement is always fallacious. That's simply wrong. There are numerous, more basic and completely self-contained examples of an Argument from Consequence fallacy the author could have used. On the opposite, illustrated page, we find another example of an Argument from Consequences. The argument, "Well, if I get rid of our cows, then we will have to walk everywhere, and that would be terrible for morale. Therefore cow emissions are not killing the planet." What is this nonsense? First, this is not an example of any argument I've ever heard anyone give, and it unnecessarily drags in a political topic and bias where none is necessary. The very next page covers the Straw Man argument, which the author might have studied a bit more before coming up with this ridiculous example. Has the author ever even ridden a cow? It’s not that easy. The very next page continues the religion/science theme with the Straw Man argument, which centers on evolution. The presentation here I have no complaints about. The argument presented is a straw man, but is another example of the bias that exists within the book, where numerous other neutral examples could be used. The following page is odd, covering the Appeal to Irrelevant Authority fallacy. Any appeal to authority is fallacious, but it appears the author takes a minority view here that if many scientists say something, it must be true. We can’t all understand General Relativity or quantum mechanics, but we believe in these principles generally because they work, not because of who came up with them. Not so long ago on a cosmic scale, many scientists believed the Earth was the center of the universe. The next page again exhibits the author’s anti-religious bias while covering the Equivocation Fallacy. The example provided is, “How can you be against faith when you take leaps of faith all the time: making investments, trusting friends, and even getting engaged?” Wow. I’ve never heard of a more ignorant concept of faith, or a more convoluted example of the Equivocation Fallacy. How about the classic kids’ example, which is self-contained and clear: “Eating spinach is better than eating nothing. Nothing is better than eating a pizza. Therefore, eating spinach is better than eating a pizza.” That’s a great, self-contained example of equivocation that doesn’t depend on cherry-picking numerous available definitions of “faith”. This is just more anti-religious bias creeping into the examples in an infantile manner. The illustrated example on the opposite page is actually great. The author does decently well, if not presenting cloudy, unclear examples of fallacies through page 28, where he manages to provide some balance by pointing out the Genetic Fallacy, “As men and women living in the twenty-first century, we cannot continue to hold these Bronze Age beliefs.” Well done, although in fairness, it would likewise be nice if the author steered clear of religious and political topics. And that takes me halfway through the book. In summary, had the author lost the anti-religious and political bias presented in the book, and provided more clear-cut, self-contained examples of fallacies, I think this book would be a great teaching aid. As it stands, I cannot recommend the book, will not pass them out to the students, and will be forced to return the lot that I bought.