No - they just know more. This is not unique to one philosopher. As suggested by the title, the covered topics are addressed from an almost entirely logical standpoint; While I think there are certainly selected issues Whyte tackles that perhaps are deserving of additional consideration from another perspective, I think he is very fair with most of his arguments. The author presents some quality arguments for the most part but tends to get bogged down by his own reasoning that would soon lose anyone of interest. Two samples of mixed iron and carbon may have exactly the same overall composition, but if one has just been poured while the other has been case-hardened and then hammered and folded, then the latter may make a much more effective blade.
Rather than accepting the premise, Jill needs to address it by first showing that property rights are not absolute. Many of these fall into categories of logical fallacy, such as the Authority Fallacy or False Equivalency or the Motive Fallacy among many others. Its time we learned how to see through the rhetoric, faulty reasoning, and misinformation that were subjected to from morning to night by talk-radio hosts, op-ed columnists, advertisers, self-help gurus, business thinkers, and, of course, politicians. Perhaps it comes of knowing more of rhetoric, and perhaps it comes of years of arguing on the internet, but my experience is that logical argument doesn't have much power to sway people, so violations of I read this a good few years ago, and have recently re-read it prior to adding it to a clean-out pile as my library is beginning to approach critical mass. It is a thought-provoking book that is bound to keep you entertained for a few hours. La que nos ayuda a cuestionar, aceptar, defender.
But by failing to make the distinctions, I think that Jamie Whyte lessens the power of his argument. An award winning philosopher, Jamie Whyte is a past lecturer of philosophy at Cambridge university, whose book - Crimes Against Logic attempts to fill the gap left by the education system. There were one or two amusing moments when the author actually committed a fallacy he'd just argued against, and there were a few places where he allowed his political preferences to color his arguments, but for the most part, it is a badly needed corrective to some of the most egregious mistakes being made in modern discourse. It is unique in that it uses logic to expose fallacious arguments commonly found in news programs, political debates etc, which any logician would just ignore. One of my favorite quotes -- not in this book -- but totally appropriate given the subject matter of Prof.
I'm all for arguing logically and speaking clearly, but Whyte made it seem like the only path to truth is by burning every bridge in sight and spending your life pouring over newspaper stories for statistical errors. When a Christian says that homosexuality should be illegal because it is condemned in the Bible, that is an implied generalization because the Bible condemns many things, including the use of cotton-polyester blends. Although many of the examples that Whyte uses can be offensive if you do not agree with his ow I was assigned to read a few chapters in this book for my Critical Thinking class. However, that is not to be confused with the epistemic right to an opinion. But it's the phrase that I kept remembering as I finished this book. But I'd very much encourage using the critical reading that the book advocates on the book itself. It was awhile ago, so unfortunately I can't recall quite why I wasn't blown away - but I think that might have been part of it.
Many of these fall into categories of logical fallacy, such as the Authority Fallacy or False Equivalency or the Motive Fallacy among many others. After Whyte has finished off one of the most ingrained and cliché beliefs most of us hold, he goes on to gnaw away at many other fallacies we all commit on a much too regular basis. You can find some of his essays archived at the Cobden Centre. That being said, I'm a lover of logic and not everyone is. But since the book is so short, you won't have to spend much time in the author's presence, and it's a worthwhile read nonetheless. It is a thought-provoking book that is bound to keep you entertained for a few hours. There are even people who see the incomprehensibility of an argument as a good thing - chiefly religions New Age and old and postmodernists.
General Disclaimer Our site does not contain any electronic versions of books. Third-party sites are multimedia services that allow you to read and download e-books. While I'm a nerd-fan of logic in general, I found his glib tone off-putting. At times we can be blinded by the expert opinions Crimes against logic was on a recommended reading list for my philosophy class few years back when I studied Arts. His sarcasm might offend some people especially when it comes to some of his religious examples. Once you read this book you will be able to pick up more and more unlogical statements that are far too prevelant.
He reminds me of a group of armchair philosophers I knew who tried to use logic to convince me and everyone they encountered that there is no God. Whilst I believe that Christians and other Religious people are bound to say some ridiculous things at times as all humans do , It is possible that not everything has a logical explanation. He often constructs straw men or belabors a deconstruction of the weakest argument ever put forth by a particular position. Yes, your argument is logical. Biases and potential biases of sources must be included in any real-world analysis, whether this is doctors publishing articles that were actually ghostwritten by drug companies or claims on Fox News that Obama was born in Kenya.
And I say this as an agnostic who is generally not a fan of organized religions. Religious people will probably find Whyte's logic offensive. I won't say it's easy because you have to pay attention and can't just skim through it. Because there, I believe that we would be better served by prizing logic well above rhetoric. I read this a good few years ago, and have recently re-read it prior to adding it to a clean-out pile as my library is beginning to approach critical mass. The resultant inconsistency is that some are acceptable after all. This is not to say that everyone and everything is out to pull the wool over your eyes, but there are areas where language is deliberately couched.