Product Description

This brilliant book, now in its third edition, gives you the confidence to tell a good argument from a bad one. For everyone who wants to refine their powers of argument, Thinking from A to Z is an indispensable reference tool.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #11710 in Books
• Published on: 2007-07-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 176 pages

From the Back Cover

What is ‘humpty-dumptying’?

Do ‘arguments from analogy’ ever stand up?

How do I know when someone is using ‘weasel words’?

What’s the difference between a ‘red herring’ and a ‘straw man’?

This superb book, now in its third edition, will help anyone who wants to argue well and think critically. Using witty and topical examples, this fully-updated new edition includes many new entries and updates the whole text. New entries include:

• Principle of Charity
• Lawyer’s Answer
• Least Worst Option
• Poisoning the Well
• Sentimentality
• Sunk Cost Fallacy
• Weasel Words
• ‘You would say that wouldn’t you’

Thinking from A to Z may not help you win every argument, but it will definitely give you the power to tell a good one from a bad one.

Nigel Warburton is Senior Lecturer at The Open University and a bestselling author. His other books include The Basics of Essay Writing, Philosophy: The Basics, Fourth Edition, Philosophy: The Classics, Third Edition, Philosophy: The Essential Study Guide, The Art Question and Freedom, all published by Routledge.

www.virtualphilosopher.org

PHILOSOPHY/STUDY SKILLS

About the Author

Nigel Warburton is Senior Lecturer at The Open University and a bestselling author. His other books include Philosophy: The Basics, fourth edition, Philosophy: The Classics, third edition, Philosophy: The Essential Study Guide, The Art Question and Freedom, all published by Routledge.

Customer Reviews

Good Reference
If you're looking for something in the same style as Warburton's Philosophy: The Basics (which is highly recommended) you may be a bit disappointed in this book. The style is very much more like a dictionary of thinking. Each entry describes a kind of argument or thought pattern and is cross referenced to others. This makes it a bit difficult to read in a lineary fashion but does aid in it's use as a reference tool. 5 stars for content, 3 stars for format.

Useful Glossary of Philosophical Terminology
Being able to spot poor reasoning and diversionary tactics such as fallacies, gobbledegook, jargon, pseudo-profundity and smokescreens will put more clout behind your arguments and sharpen your thinking. As an introduction to critical thinking, this delightfully concise little book provides some of the basic tools for clear thinking on any issue. The techniques and topics discussed are transferable and can be applied to any area in which clear thought is required: they have direct applications in most academic disciplines and in any facet of life in which people present reasons and evidence in support of conclusions.

Now in its second edition, this book is a set text for the Open University A211 Philosophy and the Human Situation course. It will give you the power to tell a good from a bad argument. Using witty and topical examples, author Nigel Warburton will enable you to distinguish with confidence between a red herring and a straw man. This new edition updates the whole text and includes many new entries, all listed in alphabetical order. However, the next edition should include the following suggested entries: * ergo et sum * I think, therefore I am * Rene Descartes * logic * Betrand Russell * Lateral thinking * Six Thinking Hats * tautology

A 'Dictionary of Debating Terms.' Nothing More
This book may bill itself as an "Introduction to Critical Thinking." But if that is the case, then by applying this book's own definition of 'Reductio ad Absurdum,' an ordinary dictionary must also be an "Introduction to Writing Novels."

I must admit of course that the ONLY reason why I purchased this book was that it's a required text in my upcoming degree. And when I'm arguing philosophical points in my essays, it will be vital for me to understand and to use the appropriate terminology. But having been 'thinking critically' since I was 17-years-old, forming what I believe are valid and well-reasoned conclusions in a variety of fields, I can say for certain that this book is simply a reference text, nothing more.

By definition, having listed all of the various types of argument, explained them in reference to one another and given several useful examples, ANY book that claims to be an "Introduction to Critical Thinking" must then pose philosophical questions for the reader to consider. Something along the lines of:

"Boxing is a Dangerous Sport Which Should be Banned. Discuss."

The author would then list all of the arguments in favour and opposed to this statement, requiring the reader to try and spot the flawed, biased and emotive arguments, weigh the valid arguments against one another and come to a logical conclusion.

After that, the author would spend the next few pages dissecting all of the arguments with the reader, checking to see if they did indeed define them correctly and give them appropriate weight. So in this sense, by listing all of the definitions in alphabetical order, Mr Warburton even fails to group the arguments by their similarities or to create a loose 'Hierarchy of Validity,' with sophistry, rhetoric, circular reasoning and emotive language at the very bottom of the pile. Because even though there is no such thing as a 'Perfect' argument in any situation, it is always vital for any student to be able to 'weigh' the relative validity of any opposing statements.

However, even accepting that this is only a mislabelled 'Dictionary of Debating Terms,' like any other dictionary, this book also gets on my nerves by defining 'Absurd,' 'Hypocrisy' and many other common words.

In conclusion then, unless like me you will be required to use terms like 'Non Sequitor' on a regular basis, you almost certainly will never need to buy or to even read this book. Because wishful thinking and bias aside, just like you don't need to be an architect to spot a gaping whole in the ceiling, you don't need to understand the proper terminology to realise that an argument is flawed.