Critique of “Being Logical”

Being Logical A Guide to respectable Thinking by D. Q. McInerny is an introduction to the information and art of reliance and brio system of logic all toldy. The 129-page guide was published in 2005 by Random House consider Paperbacks and whoremaster be purchased for around ten dollars. The author D. Q. McInerny is currently a professor at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Lincoln, Nebraska and has written a variety of pieces on religious philosophy to include Philosophical Psychology, and an member on the use of contraception. In the words of McInerny, Logic is the very anchorman of unbowed education (McInerny, 2005, p. x). Yet in the Preface, he goes on to range To my mind, logic is the missing piece of the Ameri lav educational system, the subject that in sours all opposite subject from English to history to science and math (McInerny, 2005, p. ix). In his book McInerny attempts to guide his commentators through the process of seeing the cosmosness and evaluating their dower in an objective and critical manner. Ultimately he aims to instill an inner need for righteousness pass watered through logic that his readers will utilize in cursory life.Being logical consists of five incisions, the first common chord serve as a foundation for logical thought. They consist of Preparing the Mind for Logic, The Basic Principles of logic and Argument the Language of Logic. The last dickens sections, The Sources of Illogical Thinking and The booster cable Forms of Illogical Thinking put the foundations of logic into action by pointing emerge errors that hotshot may feign while attempting depart logic. The last two sections, peculiar(prenominal)ally section five synthesizes the material previously cove loss in the book by defining the ship canal in which reason step forward disregard go awry.McInerny wrote of 28 principal forms of illogical thinking. The eleven well-nigh famous forms of illogical thinking trick be grouped by their ra dical causes a basic misinterpretation of voice communication and arrival at a conclusion through illogical processes, a lack of critical thinking or aid to the matter at hand, and finally, purposefully misdirect and artful principleation. Undistributed middle, begging the question and inability to dis eject does non prove all occur when wizard misinterprets the dustup of an personal credit line or comes to a conclusion through an illogical process.According to McInerny Undistributed middle occurs when one wrong attributes traits to the conclusion based on a term or disputation in the premise that is not universal or always true. For utilization, more elite marathon runners are Kenyan. Aallyah is Kenyan in that respectfore she is an elite marathoner. standardised to undistributed middle, begging the question is when a statement seams like an account that proves the conclusion when in truth the assertion is simply stated twice in different words. There is not actua lly any supporting evidence to prove the assertion.For example, because Jimmy goes to the gym on a invariable basis, Jimmy has good physical fitness. Another form of illogical thinking is the assertion that the inability to disprove something in effect proves it. For example, just because one flush toiletnot disprove the existence of a higher power or God, does not prove that God exists. It is a matter that has not been proven or disproven therefore it is simply a matter of faith or opinion not at all based in logical fact. Abusing tradition, parliamentary illusion and abuses of fullise all stem from lack of critical thinking, attention to the matter at hand or weak-minded group think.Sometimes tradition is weded simply because it is the way things have always been regardless of its logical merit or usefulness. Conversely, a sound tradition is often abandoned simply for the rice beer of innovation. Both of these failures in logic are forms of using and abusing tradition. The quality of a tradition should be judged on its merit and effectiveness not simply its longevity. The Democratic Fallacy occurs when a conclusion or opinion is held as true simply because the majority believes it. For example, society used to believe that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, which is evidently a trumped-up(prenominal) assertion.The use of an in effect(p) opinion can be very brawny in an lean as long as the expert backs up his or her opinion with fact and concrete rational. If one asserts that a specific conclusion is true simply based on the fact that an expert tell aparts so, they are not in essence proving their assertion at all because they arent do an argument, they are simply making a statement. If a lawyer in a murder trial placed an expert whiteness on the stand, and simply asked them in your expert opinion, did the defendant pull the offence they would be abusing expertise and not actually presenting any argument at all.If the la wyer asked the expert to explain the evidence and why it leads to the conclusion, therefore he or she would be presenting a good argument. In section five McInerny points out that it is essential to be aware of purposefully misleading and manipulative argumentation when attempting to logically analyze a situation. Ad hominem, red herring, straw man, false dilemma and simple reasoning are all ways in which one can manipulate an audition incorrectly. Ad hominem and red herring are both forms of false reasoning in which one plays on the emotions of the audience to manipulate them.The ad hominem fallacy is when one responds to the individual making an argument, using information irrelevant to the argument to gain turned on(p) control over the audience and sway them against the opponent. If one is discussing a topic with someone they dislike and rather than analyzing the others argument, they simply attack the other personally, the attacking individual is guilty of the Ad Hominem Fal lacy. The opinion of the audience can be changed solely on their emotional response to the individual making the argument not on the logic of their position.The red herring fallacy is much like the ad hominem fallacy in that they both sport the audiences attention from the actual issue being argued. In this fallacy, one interjects inflammatory information aimed at distracting and swaying a specific audience base solely on their emotions. This ploy is seen constantly in debates for political office. The paradox between public approval of the death penalty and admonition of abortion is one that is seen frequently in political debate. In this example the opinion of specific majorities seem to be swayed more by emotional and religious appeals than consistent logic. bingle may play to the emotional image of an sincere baby being murdered, saying that humans cannot play God per say and that it isnt our right to choose. While in the latter instance they can play on the image of an evil murderous criminal needing to be punished for his or her actions, and completely disregard the original assertion that it is not right for humans to play God. Straw man, false dilemma and simple reasoning are all ways in which one can manipulate their audience not by emotional appeals but by somehow falsifying a specific aspect of the situation being analyzed.Straw Man Fallacy is when one purposefully misinterprets anothers argument in order to weaken it. If one receivedized that they were wrong, yet simulated to misinterpret the other persons argument to evade admitting that their argument is inferior they would be committing the Straw Man Fallacy. A false dilemma occurs when one analyzes a question or situation on the false pretext that there are only two options when, in fact, there are umpteen possibilities. A historic example of a false dilemma can be seen in the political and social drama surrounding the coupled States decision to invade Iraq in 2003.According to a pew R esearch nerve centre poll in 2003 over 71 percent of Americans were proponents of Operation Iraki Freedom (Keeter, 2007). This sentiment was furthered by emotional patriotism brought on by September 11th, which led to the attitude of you are either for us or against us. Although legion(predicate) Americans viewed the situation as a dilemma, there were many other options at the governments disposal that could have utilized other forms of national power and influence. Simplistic reasoning is the act of simplifying a complex situation or reality so much that its true meaning is altered and the truth is lost.Parents often use simple reasoning when answering their boorrens complex questions about life. Often when a squirt asks where they came from, a parent will respond with a myriad of simplistic stories. These responses are completely untrue but the parent wants to protect the infant from the truth that they feel is inappropriate and may also think the child wont understand the complexities of procreation. Simplistic reasoning in this instance my be justified, however when it is used to manipulate or shelter adult audiences it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.In section five, McInerny succeeds at highlighting the many ways in which attempted logic can fail. He defines each form of illogical thinking with brevity and in terms any reader can understand. Awareness of these possible mistakes will assuredly help readers follow more logical thought processes and avoid illogical thinking. The first three chapters of the book however, are not as helpful or pertinent. McInerny starts out by explaining the close relationship between language and logic, stating that they are in fact inseparable (McInerny, 2005, p. 3).Conscious thought is indeed dictated by language. One can have feelings and emotions without language but when one realizes an actual cognitive thought, they think it in words. McInerny states that the concrete expression of logical reasoning i s the argument (McInerny, 2005, p. 47). Thus he spends a great deal of time particularisation and defining the basic structure and function of the English language and the language of an argument. He caveats these first three sections by saying that readers might be put off by what they perceive to be an emphasis upon the obvious.I do, in fact, place a good deal of stress on the obvious in this book, and that is quite deliberate. In logic, as in life, it is the obvious that most often bears emphasizing, because it so easily escapes our notice (McInerny, 2005, p. x). Although language and our use of it holds a symbiotic relationship with logic, McInerny spends 88 uninspired pages defining and over complicating aspects of language that are, as he says, obvious. Instead of putting his readers to sleep by dissecting and defining the rudimentary construct of the English language, he could have emphasized the grandeur of paying attention to obvious details.Using interesting historical e xamples of either sound logic or attempted logic gone awry would make a much more memorable impact. Instead, readers feel as though they are wading through the sludge of an SAT or stand for preparatory guide. Ultimately, McInerny succeeds in writing a basic guide to the science of logic however Being Logical A Guide to slap-up Thinking does not inspire readers to internalize a desire for truth gained through the art of logical thinking.The book is a dry and simplistic analysis of logic that lacks any inspiring or memorable real world examples that a reader could call upon while logically navigating their everyday life. References Keeter, S. (2007). Trends in Public Opinion About the War in Iraq, 2003-2007. Retrieved October 3, 2011 from Pew Research Center Publications http//pewresearch. org/pubs/431/trends-in-public-opinion-about-the-war-in-iraq-2003-2007. MCInerny, D. Q. (2005). Being Logical A Guide to goodish Thinking. New York Random House Trade Paperbacks.