Reddit reviews A Rulebook for Arguments (Hackett Student Handbooks)
We found 23 Reddit comments about A Rulebook for Arguments (Hackett Student Handbooks). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Great product!
The best route is to take up a course on Logic.
Study introductory predicate logic. Break statements into predicates - identify their antecedent and consequent. Identify the differences between a predicate's negation, inverse, converse, and contrapositive; more importantly, how they can be used to derive logical Truth. Familiarize yourself with Gödel's completeness theorem.
Next, learn to identify a fallacy; study up on logical fallacies.
Cognitive Biases are the next most important step. Being aware of your own cognitive biases will help you identify when your analyses are being skewed.
Study everything about everything. More information about your domain of concern will granter you further insight for analysis.
Lastly, take care of yourself. Get lots of sleep, eat healthy, and exercise; your judgement will be impaired if you don't.
Some books to help:
Edit: Added book suggestions.
I'm a PhD student in philosophy, and one of the areas I'm beginning to research is effective methods for training students to properly use evidential support in arguments (obviously this isn't my main area of research, but I have thought about it a bit).
Many universities now offer an Introduction to Critical Reasoning course. Their quality does vary depending on who teaches it (like any course), but I know the one offered at my university is fantastic. If you can't take a course, then there are plenty of books and textbooks aimed at teaching the kind of skills you are looking for. I honestly don't know which are considered the best, but these three all seem fine: 1 2 3.
I'd like to talk about some more specific things. You mentioned in another post studying predicate logic. I love symbolic logic. I wish more students took it. I will probably be teaching it for a long time. But, I think for your stated goals, studying critical reasoning will be much more efficient than studying formal logic.
Another posted suggested reading Spinoza, Kant, and Heidegger. This is terrible advice. These are three of the most difficult philosophers to read in the entire history of philosophy (Spinoza is actually quite fun to read in TPT, but nobody reads that, so I'm sure the poster was referring to The Ethics). Reading Heideger won't help your ability to use logic and reason. It just won't.
Students' biggest problem is that they often fail to understand the reading. For example, a very large chunk of students in Intro to Philosophy classes every year think that Descartes actually believed in an evil demon who was deceiving him, and was thus a skeptic. Critical reading is not an easy skill. Lots of intelligent people aren't that great at it (when an article gets posted on Reddit, look at some of the responses). The best way to improve this skill is to identify your friends who you think are especially good at critical reading, read the same thing as them, and then discuss it.
Students' second biggest problem is not understanding evidential support. For example, almost every intro to philosophy and intro to ethics course includes a day or two going over the Euthyphro. A modern slant on Socrates' main question in this dialogue goes like this: Does God command certain actions because they are morally right, or are certain actions morally right just because God commands them? The right way to respond to this argument is to draw out the implications of each position, and see whether they have any problems or not. Instead, most students will say things like "I'm a Christian so I believe in Divine Command Theory" - and then they will use the rest of the essay to misquote Bible verses at you. The best way to improve your use of evidential support is to study critical reasoning texts - they all have large sections on it - and to practice using it in discussions with people who will challenge you.
Outside of students, many experts (and dare I say) even scientists still make mistakes with reasoning. The most common mistake that I see is when people ignore or don't give proper attention to alternative interpretations of data.
For example, consider this really neat little article. The author (a researcher in cognitive science) describes some really cool experiments where people screw up even simple rule-following tasks (e.g. they recognize and correctly identify 400 as an even number immediately, but take longer to recognize 798 as an even number, and in some cases actually respond that it is odd). The author of the article then makes the claim that "The human mind is ill-suited to carry out rules." However, the data discussed doesn't support this claim - people aren't getting the even / odd tests wrong a majority of the time. The weaker (and less interesting claim) is that the human mind is not perfect at carrying out rules. Or, even better, that the human mind is mostly fine at carrying out rules, but frequently when we should use rule-based thinking, we use heuristics instead).
So yeah. My advice. Don't read Heidegger to try to improve your critical thinking abilities. Read some critical reasoning textbooks. Some of them are fantastic. Talk with your friends who you think are really good at using logic and reason. A lot. Argue with them. Using reasoning is a skill, and you have to practice it to get good at it.
The best advice though is to find a senior philosophy student or a generous professor or TA who is willing to give you direct feedback.
Replacing words counts as an argument now alibix?
You might want to buy this book mate.
FWIW, I've never heard of Moleneux in my life and I think you're probably one of the least literate people I've ever seen.
You keep repeating yourself over and over, as if your conclusions are sound without any perceivable evidence (here's a hint: they're not). You're not responding to the actual content of the posts, rather continuing along with your own shitposts and direct attacks against your opponents rather than their statements. You're projecting your own insecurities on your opponent and arguing against them, rather than arguing using real logic.
It's time for you to grow the fuck up. You keep blaming millennials for your problems, but you're either a self-hating millennial or you're from an older generation but act like one, and I'm honestly not sure which is worse.
You keep telling people to try reading a book. I've got a reading suggestion for you. I hope you look into it.
A Rulebook for Arguments is a pretty awesome starting point.
Yesyes! The latest edition is here: http://www.amazon.com/Rulebook-Arguments-Anthony-Weston/dp/0872209547/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324869183&sr=1-1. Marvelous book! Im nearing the end of my philosophy b.a. but I still turn to this book when writing a paper or preparing a presentation.
This is a good, short introduction that you can read in an hour or two. It is well written and it explains the basic rules for constructing an argument or writing an essay. It also recommends several longer texts on critical thinking at the end, if you're interested in pursuing the issue further.
https://www.amazon.com/Rulebook-Arguments-Hackett-Student-Handbooks/dp/0872209547
You failed to acknowledge that you said "Bullshit" in response to my statement about what I was providing. Your insistence on referencing OP only serves to demonstrate your inability to sustain a logical argument. Might I suggest you purchase the following?
https://www.amazon.com/Rulebook-Arguments-Hackett-Student-Handbooks/dp/0872209547
Here are the links!
Hope it helps!
It sounds to me that the times in which you are unhappy with your ability to be assertive come from when you lack confidence. You say when pushed too far, you react in unbalanced ways, that you feel shitty when you have successfully presented your case, that you let others make decisions since you worry about the outcomes if you do, and that your attempts at assertiveness are often desperate. It seems to me, in these situations, you fear being wrong--you aren't confident that you are right.
Confidence during conflicts, arguments (since arguments aren't always conflicts), and decision making comes from a couple of difference places, in my opinion.
First, the ability to clearly articulate your own position. If your own position isn't clear to you, you're likely to fumble your words, miscommunicate, contradict yourself, etc. It also makes it more difficult for you to change your position if you are confronted with a good argument against it. Also, sometimes in arguments, there needs to be a give-and-take, meaning, your point may be lacking or overextending on something, and if you acknowledge that, your point can then be all the more stronger.
Second, your ability (and recognition of this ability) to competently analyze the situation and/or the counter-arguments. Now, I say this as a philosophy major, but a formal study of logic can aid enormously in this (here is a good, short book I would recommend if you were so inclined). However, I find that most people are already quite capable of this, since everyday language is composed of numerous analyses of situations and arguments. Sometimes all it takes is slowing yourself down. For example, I used to rush into conclusions and see things narrowly, which lead me to make a lot of mistakes and had an impact on my confidence. Slowing down just a little bit to contemplate other options can make a big difference. This can be practiced outside of arguments, too, which helps, since it is far less stressful that way.
Third, patience and self-control. Staying calm, striving for clear communication, being receptive to feedback, and being emotionally honest can all have a big impact on the ways your confidence is felt. A lot of people think that emotions are antithetical to reason, and for women, this is a particularly pernicious misconception. But the reality is that emotions are integral to the ways we come to understand the world around us, and being clear and honest about the way you feel with other people, and they to you, sheds a lot of clarity on a situation.
I hope some of this is helpful. You say that you are otherwise a confident person, so you know that side of yourself already. You just need to work it in to being assertive about something when you want to be. Best of luck!
I would definitely recommend practicing with real LR questions. Consider purchasing Fox’s Logical Reasoning Encyclopedia. It’s a huge collection of questions organized by type and from easiest to hardest so that you can work your way up.
That being said, if you are looking to read something that will make LR easier, consider a book like this:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0872209547/ref=pd_aw_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0K40QP66SXTM0BKQAHBS&dpPl=1&dpID=61X5ctUve8L
I literally just typed “fallacies” into amazon, but a book like this will basically cover every wrong argument you could see on the LSAT. I took a class on Critical Reasoning my freshman year and I know it gave me a head start on LR.
For reading comp, I’m a philosophy major so I have the opposite problem you do. Scientific articles throw me off a hair. If you want some interesting reads, check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online. It’s free, the language is very formal and sophisticated, and you can read about basically anything and everything you’d want. The LSAT seems to like bringing up utilitarianism relatively often, so maybe check out their page on that. Also the LSAT mentions Kant pretty frequently, so you can also check out the page on him.
Of course this isn’t necessary to get a perfect LSAT score; the test, as you know, does not presuppose any prior knowledge about these topics. However, I’m sure you have found, as I did, that it’s easier to read about things you know something about. Read some philosophy, but drill drill drill those RC passages!
As for getting a 170, I can’t say. My diagnostic was 155, and I got a 164 in February. My last two PTs were over 170, but obviously the only one that counts is the official.
You’ve got this!!!
Weston's A Rulebook for Arguments is clear and concise.
Heinrichs' Thank You for Arguing is more informal with lots of pop culture references.
Sagan's Demon Haunted World is a paean to science & critical thinking and Whyte's Crimes Against Logic is good as well
I found a couple books for you :) This one and thiiis one!!!
All whales are iguanas.
No iguanas live under the sea.
Therefore, no whales live under the sea.
Hey! You said nothing about soundness :) I hope this works
> Like I said before, it was a smartass response that you're reading too far into.
Like I said before, it was a very basic inference. You're looking way too much into what I was saying.
> Saying "a mix of both idiots and intellegent people who are idiotic" rather than "idiots" doesn't have the same ring to it.
You're reading your own use of the word into his statement. Maybe that is what he meant, but that's not what the logic of his statement said, which is why I was asking him about it.
Here are a couple texts that I think you would benefit from.
The first one is really solid, but it's expensive. The second one isn't as robust, but it gets the job done, and it's significantly cheaper.
> i'm out.
Cheers :)
lol you cant formulate a logical reply so you go on the offensive with belittling remarks. That's Intellectually-dishonest debate tactic 101 which clearly subverts your effort when its recognized and lets the opposing conversationalist know you can't back up your side and that they won the argument. May I recommended some light reading on the art of debating, I think you will find it immensely helpful if you plan on continuing to post here.
https://www.amazon.com/Rulebook-Arguments-Hackett-Student-Handbooks/dp/0872209547
You need to work on your debate/argument basics. Fallacies everywhere!
I recommend this book or this.
>Linking to relevant books is much more helpful than willful ignorance.
So if I link to a bunch of books peripherally related to a topic at hand, and you refuse to read them, does that make you willfully ignorant?
>You asked the question, and if you are actually interested in hearing thoughtful responses to it, you might want to consider picking up a book about it.
His books do not begin to answer the question of the OP.
>If you've been on reddit for any amount of time you surely know that it's a terrible forum for meaningful debate.
Then, by your own admission, you are here for meaningless debate.
>The issues you raised cannot be settled by a few short comments.
I disagree.
Read the following books about debate before you respond. Otherwise, I will have to assume you are willfully ignorant.
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Debating-Leverett-Samuel-Lyon/dp/B003VQRXDC/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376830361&sr=1-2&keywords=debate
http://www.amazon.com/Competitive-Debate-Ph-D-Richard-Edwards/dp/1592576931/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376830385&sr=1-3&keywords=debate
http://www.amazon.com/Rulebook-Arguments-Anthony-Weston/dp/0872209547/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376830385&sr=1-4&keywords=debate
This is what you are looking for. It's short, cheap, clear, and handy.
Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for Arguments
I usually keep everything "in-house" in my courses, but some professors that I respect use this book in their classes: A Rulebook for Arguments.
However, this is for argumentation. I'm not sure if Anthony Weston has written any books about reading philosophy.
People on reddit seriously need to read this short book Rulebook for Arguments
It takes like a few hours to read and would inform soo many people on how to make an argument and identify bad ones.
>There are two main problems with this point, the first is simply that saying "well what about this particular example?" doesn't affect the reality of the other, majority examples.
A counterexample is a case that does not fit the general conclusion. Providing a counterexample is a valid way to refute a person's argument. (p. 16-17 in "A Rulebook for Arguments").
>The second point is rather more semantic, in that many wouldn't describe zen buddhism as a religion at all. Since there is no real doctrine to follow etc.
Certainly if you define religion as doctrine then Zen is not a religion. But religion is not defined by having doctrine. A religion: (1) defines the human condition, (2) defines the Ultimate/Reality/Truth; (3) says there is a way to bridge the gap between the two; and (4) provides teachings and practices to bridge the gap.
>and especially not that similar to any religion as we know it, and as affects us on a daily basis.
Regardless of your familiarity with it, it's a religion, and if it doesn't fit your general statements about religion, you should limit those statements to religions that fit, e.g. theistic religions or faith-based religions.
Can I recommend this program. It's pretty great.
http://www.harryhiker.com/lc/
And this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Rulebook-Arguments-Hackett-Student-Handbooks/dp/0872209547/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&dpID=51zkr-cqNHL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR104%2C160_&refRID=0F6NT3RSWM0V9P6YXHSZ