Thinking from A to Z

Somewhere in this text is a very useful reference book, but it is up to the reader to find it. The book fails in its organization. This is a book about thinking, the organization of which was not well thought out. A topical organization of the material leading the reader through the relations and interconnectedness of the topics would have been so much more useful.The book covers a wide array of logical principles and argumentative fallacies but in such a way that it is not easy to access. The A to Z organization does not lend itself to easy access, subject matter reference or topical lookup and seems contrived and artificial. It is as if Warburton was determined to force the subject matter to fit into a contrived A to Z format over the objections of the subject matter. Perhaps his inspiration was Voltaire's Dictionnaire, published in 1764, with its articles and subjects arranged in alphabetical order, a practice of organization introduced and made popular during the Enlightenment. But it does not work in Warburton little book.There is no table of contents because the book itself is the table of contents. One does not know where to start if one is interested in a particular topic other than to guess under what letter of the alphabet the author decided to place the subject. The book also fails to relate the various principles to each other to achieve a coherent presentation of logic, argumentation and thinking. Warbuton even admits in the introduction that the reader will need to find their way through the innumerable cross references found under each subject heading to get a sense of the interrelation of the topics. This is exactly what Warburton should have done for the reader with a coherent and ‘logical’ organization of the material.One can certainly read this book cover to cover, but this would provide an incoherent reading experience for the reader because it does not follow that subjects arranged alphabetically proceed naturally, topically or logically in alphabetic order – this is an odd assumption for a book about thinking. I am not sure if Warburton was trying to emulate the 'Philosophical Dictionary' by Voltaire, but this material does not lend itself to a dictionary style presentation format. There is no reason to assume that logical concepts and principles of thinking should follow alphabetically, what kind of thinking is this? It is not much better than a random arrangement of the subjects.

This is a highly readable little book that clearly defines many terms and concepts of reasoning and rhetoric. With good illustrative examples.The author's definition of rhetoric itself, is closer to Plato's than Aristotle's, so is a definition that's disputable. But, overall a book well worth reading.

Nigel Warburton is a treasure, and this short book defining various types of arguments and mental models is smart and easy to page through.

This book is exactly what it say it is. A quick reference to the most important concept in basic logic/reasoning.It should not be construed as a guide for thinking, or as a textbook, but the author is very clear about it.And it does what it promises in a very efficient way, without extra "stuff" tagged to make it longer.Keep it near your reading area, so when you need to clarify certain concepts, it's there for you.

Interesting read. Approaches of thinking outside the box and for different prospectives. Not the most stimulating book out there, however not a totally dry read.

Interesting.

I was hoping to use some of these ideas for my middle school class but I don't think I will: The text is not as accessible as the cute fish on the front might lead one to believe. Still, worthwhile in a library.

A great, pocket-sized, and portable book in which briefly examines key critical thinking concepts, methods, and examinations; a MUST buy if you are into critical thinking or philosophy.

Spotting fallacies and understanding what makes a good or poor argument is vital for participating in or thinking through political, legal, philosophical and scientific debate. Anybody serious about discussing the issues of our time should keep this book handy for reference.

This is a really well written and clear. However, I bought it because its given as a set book for the Open university A211 course and its just not necessary - I have barely used it all year and you can just look up the same definitions on the internet. I suspect that the author has some connection to the course and just made it a set book because he could! (BTW If I could rate the A211 course I would give it 6 stars)

Excellent Product

received quickly and would order again

Reasoning is like driving. We all think we're above average, and woe betide anyone who suggests otherwise. We all want to be reasonable, or at least to appear reasonable (often less work and as effective as actually being reasonable). No one likes to admit their reasons are poor and their arguments more fudge than forensic. Our only hope is that, just as few of us would claim to be infallible drivers, few of us would claim to be cognitively perfect (and those that do can be discouraged from flying planes and becoming surgeons). For most of us, there's room for improvement, and Nigel Warburton is the perfect mind mechanic and this book the perfect pocket-sized manual.A glance at the first few entries - peppered with Latin phrases like "ad hoc" and "ad hominen" and odd-sounding activities like "affirming the antecedent" - might make you wonder whether this is all going to be a little too technical, pretentious even, hardly useful outside of the classroom. As for more familiar words like "argument", "assertion" and "assumption", surely we already know what they mean? (Actually, for many of them, we don't, at least not precisely.) Warburton's style is clear and straightforward, always beginning with a crisp definition and following up with a short discussion and simple examples from everyday life. In fact, there are very few arcane entries - the vast majority are ordinary phrases that crop up all over the place, often without the slightest regard to their philosophical meaning.For example, consider the common or garden "argument". Not an altercation in a pub car park but "Reasons supporting a conclusion". (Just as the word itself has two very different meanings, arguments themselves are often marred by "equivocation" - where the meaning of a word is surreptitiously switched midway through.) Terms that have their own entries elsewhere are in bold, and so from this one simple word can be assembled a more complex set of concepts, including "deduction", "induction", "validity", "sound argument", and so on. (These last two terms are fascinating, and good examples of the importance of precision: a valid argument with true premises guarantees a true conclusion. A valid argument may also contain one or more false premises, in which case the conclusion is not necessarily true, although false premises may sometimes lead to a true conclusion. Only a sound argument guarantees a true conclusion. "Validity should not be confused with truth. Validity is always a quality of the structure of arguments; statements are true or false. Arguments can never be true or false, statements never valid or invalid...")One of my favourite entries is "humptydumptying" - not an illegal pastime, but giving "private meanings to words in common use". Some people think winning an argument involves confusing their opponent into silence, and humptydumptying along with ambiguity and equivocation are very often their weapons of choice. Clarity, of course, is no guarantee that sense is being made. There may be no argument at all, just a string of assertions (unsupported statements of belief). As Warburton drily comments, "Merely asserting something, no matter how loudly, doesn't make it true."The "no hypotheticals move" is a clumsy phrase describing a very common tactic, used all the time by politicians who don't want to answer a question. If elected, will you raise the rate of VAT? We're not in government yet, so let's wait and see what the blah blah blah. Such evasiveness is given short shrift by the likes of Paxman but the more cognitively vulnerable will be lulled by its superficial plausibility.In light of the message of this marvellous little book - Be reasonable! - one surprising absence is "reason" itself. Warburton does use the word, but not as often as you might think in a book that could have been called, less catchily and more pompously, "Reasoning from A to Z". In an important sense, however, the whole book is an account of reasoning and all its ramifications, with the crucial fact always in mind that human reason is fallible. We are often motivated to connect the ideas we want to be true in any way we can. Creationists expend huge resources and energy in putting forward reasons and arguments for their beliefs (think of the millions of dollars behind the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum and Harun Yahya's "Atlas of Creation"), it's just that their reasons and arguments are not very good. And there's the rub. What is a good reason? What makes a good argument? Who says? Fortunately, logic and experience provide the basis for an objective standard of truth, and we don't have to rely on any single person. Having said that, Nigel Warburton and this book are a reliable starting point. While most of us get by on our intuitive reasoning, with little idea how bad our arguments sometimes are, he's rather more rigorous and professional. Whether you think human reason is a gift from the gods (unreasonable) or a result of a billion years of evolution (reasonable), it's still something rather special, and well worth tuning up.