Reddit reviews Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach
We found 8 Reddit comments about Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
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.
It is actually defined by most books on informal logic as an exception to the ad hominim. It is not fallacious if related to the issue at hand. Wiki's source is: http://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logic-Pragmatic-Douglas-Walton/dp/0521713803, I have no idea where my book (by a different author) is at the moment, so you'll have to settle for this. Sorry.
As for the wolf, true, but it is not illogical to doubt a source that has lied to you innumerable times, in fact it would be quite illogical to expect a different outcome.
I think that equating anecdote and fallacy can be, in and of itself, fallacious. The only time that an anecdote is fallacious is when it is intended to prematurely end a dialogue.
(Citation: http://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logic-Pragmatic-Douglas-Walton/dp/0521713803/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292342937&sr=8-1)
Buy this book and [this book]9http://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logic-Pragmatic-Douglas-Walton/dp/0521713803/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343375779&sr=1-2&keywords=informal+logic) and this book and this book.
I know that's a lot to read but you asked a question that has a really big answer to it. If you attempt to rush through a subject like "how to argue well" you'll just end up not achieving what you wanted to be able to do in the first place. I would start with Philosophy made simple first. It has summaries of major philosophical ideas and at the end introduces logic. Taht's where you'll get your feet with modus tolens, modus ponens, affirming the consequent, necessity, sufficiency and all that jazz. Good luck!
>
> Well, what don't I understand then?
That not everyone who votes right wing is racist, the majority do it because of an issue the left is ignoring that is personally effecting them.
>It is, though.
Questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., can most certainly be legitimate and relevant to the issue. For example, if the problem in a debate is that a person isn't intelligent and/or educated enough to have it, then that stupidity of that person is the underlying problem resulting in disagreement. Or when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
Here, this might help: https://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logic-Pragmatic-Douglas-Walton/dp/0521713803
No it's not... that's not even an argument for stupidity being an argument. The argument isn't why you disagree it's about the subject matter which you seem hell bent on ignoring.
>I never said that. I never even used the term racist to describe them. You brought up the term racist. I'm discussing your words for the sake of argument, apparently you really are trying to lead a phantom debate.
I never said you said that, but if you don't believe it why didn't you say you don't think they're racist instead of just saying you didn't say they are racist? I think I hit the nail right on the head though maybe I jumped the gun and should of goaded you into saying it.
>Heh. Yeah...
And the number of times I have heard a right winger invalidly be called racist is done by maybe less than 2% of left wingers. What now?
I suggest that you never have debates in real life and rarely watch videos that include sound and merely read most subject matter pertaining to this.
>No. I'm not ignoring any issues and I'm also call people who support racially discriminatory policies racists.
So then what do you think about the job market situation? What is the left doing to the fix it (hint: nothing)? Also what racially discriminatory policies are you referring to?
>That doesn't make sense. I am always taking my own advice.
So are you going to change your views because I called you racist a bunch of times then?
>The difference being that you calling me racist isn't an argument.
Oh so it's only an argument when you do it... just like it's only okay to punch someone in the face when antifa does it.
>Neither am I racist nor have you successfully contradicted any point I made. You have just pointlessly repeated the statement "you're racist". What do you believe that accomplishes other than you demonstrating that you completely fail to understand the arguments I made or why people are criticizing the right wing (including descriptions such as "racist").
I think it demonstrates that calling people racist doesn't prove anything about them or change their opinion and just annoys people. BTW you're a racist. Racist.
>Have you taken my advice, yet? Feel free to actually start discussing the arguments I made. So far all you did was blindly dismiss criticism against your arguments and the right wing, then invalidly claim that left wingers don't talk about the issues (they are the only side that actually engages in reasonable debate), then led a phantom discussion about right wingers being called racists (never stopping for a second to even explain why that's relevant to the conversation or consider that the description might be valid 99% of the time) then attack me personally a few times. Where are your arguments?
Is this projection? You're the one without arguments. Oh you're just stupid, that's a valid argument right?
>I don't think you do
Well, what don't I understand then?
>and you're stupid isn't an argument.
It is, though.
Questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., can most certainly be legitimate and relevant to the issue. For example, if the problem in a debate is that a person isn't intelligent and/or educated enough to have it, then that stupidity of that person is the underlying problem resulting in disagreement. Or when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
Here, this might help: https://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logic-Pragmatic-Douglas-Walton/dp/0521713803
>They aren't all racist
I never said that. I never even used the term racist to describe them. You brought up the term racist. I'm discussing your words for the sake of argument, apparently you really are trying to lead a phantom debate.
>probably not even 2% of them are actually racist
Heh. Yeah...
And the number of times I have heard a right winger invalidly be called racist is done by maybe less than 2% of left wingers. What now?
>you are ignoring the issues and just calling them racist.
No. I'm not ignoring any issues and I'm also call people who support racially discriminatory policies racists.
>You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist, You're racist.
Going to take you're own advice?
That doesn't make sense. I am always taking my own advice.
The difference being that you calling me racist isn't an argument. Neither am I racist nor have you successfully contradicted any point I made. You have just pointlessly repeated the statement "you're racist". What do you believe that accomplishes other than you demonstrating that you completely fail to understand the arguments I made or why people are criticizing the right wing (including descriptions such as "racist").
Have you taken my advice, yet? Feel free to actually start discussing the arguments I made. So far all you did was blindly dismiss criticism against your arguments and the right wing, then invalidly claim that left wingers don't talk about the issues (they are the only side that actually engages in reasonable debate), then led a phantom discussion about right wingers being called racists (never stopping for a second to even explain why that's relevant to the conversation or consider that the description might be valid 99% of the time) then attack me personally a few times. Where are your arguments?
"The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."
From Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach - Cambridge University Press. p. 170
Your sputtering of hyperbole isn't an argument; at best it's you not even realizing you're setting up a straw man fallacy.
You haven't presented anything new or correct, just your feelings, which I don't care if you change or not. But we can still have some fun with this:
"the first quote is literally her saying that we shouldn't villify an entire religion because of the actions of a few bad people..."
Kinda like referring to all Trump supports as nazis, white supremacists, racists, etc.
It's even worse when you read the entire tweet because Omar completely misses the meaning. She took it as a Jewish person in support of her position while it was the complete opposite. The buildup was to show how offensive her comment was, even to someone is Jewish and supports her opinion on Palestine.
Let's look at your attempts at insulting me rather than addressing the content: "how disingenuous you fucks are", "actually stupid", "conservative bozos", "you can't actually acknowledge context", "You must be really upset".
Can't attack the content so you might as well attack the person. Before you make another comment, I'd suggest you start here:
https://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logic-Pragmatic-Douglas-Walton/dp/0521713803/