Crimes Against Logic: Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders Reviews

• Read it and give it to everyone you know

  
  By ASQHAT8H9YNQ5 on 2004-10-28
  This book deserves the widest possible exposure in America, especially so close to the election, because it an excellent primer on how to guard yourself against the faulty reasoning that governs so much modern political discourse - and avoid adopting it yourself. I first heard about the book because one of its points was mentioned in an essay. The point was basically that just because someone has a motive to hold a certain position doesn't necessarily mean that the position is false. This seemed pretty obvious, but as I turned to the media I was amazed at how often politicians use this method, and how easily I had accepted their claims if they lined up with my political preferences.
  
  Any damaging report against either side, for example, would frequently be denounced as a "partisan" attack, with occasional documentation of how the person who presented the report was tied to one party or another, as if this were the issue at hand. No attempt was made to address whether the report was true or not, the assumption being that exposing a bias - a motive for the potentially false information - was conclusive evidence.
  
  Some of the things Whyte discussed in the book - for example, sample bias in statistics - are going to be familiar to many people, but just as frequently he comes up with something that all of us have probably used in an argument. For example, in the chapter "begging the question," he quotes a common pro-choice argument: "If you believe abortion is wrong, that's fine, don't abort your pregnancies. But show tolerance toward others who don't share your beliefs."
  
  He points out that this ignores that actual position of anti-abortionists, that abortion is murder, morally equivalent to killing a live human being. The argument for tolerance takes for granted that the fetus is not really a person, and that therefore it should be possible for everyone to only be concerned with their own behavior. But as Whyte points out, anyone that actually wishes to confront the issue will have to address the question of whether the fetus is a human being. So many pleas for tolerance between certain feuding religions, he points out, have the same problem, because they skirt the genuine issue that is giving rise to the outrage - that, by the tenets of some religions, only one of them can be true.
  
  I suspect Whyte's positions on religion will offend the most readers. He has no sympathy for familiar arguments about the un-knowable nature of god, or that the intricacy of life on earth necessarily implies a god (already taken apart by Hume in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion); he also presents a simple and conclusive refutation of Pascal's gambit that I've never come across before. Luckily, he does not exhibit the most annoying characteristic of many rationalists, smugness; instead, he seems to have a deep desire to get at truth, which I think we are more in need of today than any amount of vague piety.
  
  The book will only take a couple of days to read, and is very clearly written. I remember an article that dealt with similar material that I read in high school, forgotten now because it ended up as an exercise in memorizing the Latin names of various fallacies. Whyte is conscientious about calling things by their common names. Buy the book, give it to your friends, and try to get at the bottom of why you believe what you do (and whether you still should).
  
  

• An Excellent Summary Despite Its Tone

  
  By AITIU2DG1MM4A on 2005-03-31
  There is much about this book that I like very much. Mr. White's ability to see the logical flaws in an argument is impressive and there are few things that would benefit this world more than if more people had the ability to see if they were being misled by their politicians, pundits and religious leaders. A serious reader of this book would certainly gain more tools in this difficult task.
  
  On the other hand, in my opinion this book does have one weakness: its dismissive tone. There is a subtle air of superiority that Mr. White projects in his prose that I find disheartening. Though he pays lip service to the fact that it can be very difficult to spot certain logical fallacies, particularly as we are bombarded by opinions disguised as fact 24 hours a day through the media, he does not seem very sympathetic the fact that many people do try their best to work there way through the morass of opinions despite being hampered by media overkill, prominent positions demanding action, their own strongly held opinions and the lack of a prestigious education. Mr. White has much to teach but it is difficult to swallow when the student is made to feel small and foolish.
  
  I am particularly disappointed by Mr. White's dismissiveness towards religion. Though I agree completely with his assertion that religious tenets (like the existence of God, etc.) cannot be proved logically and that many religious leaders misuse logic severely, I do not agree that this is sufficient to dismiss religious experience out of hand. Granted, I am a person of religious belief, but I am also a mathematician and I would argue that there are things that are true that cannot be proved. But I'm sure Mr. White, chuckling sadly and looking down his nose at me, would disagree.
  
  Still, this does not change my opinion that this is a very powerful book that should be widely read. Much of his analysis--begging the question, coincidence, statistical analysis--I have seen expounded upon more widely in other books but Mr. White's book is concise and ranges much more widely. Anyone trying to get a handle on our world today would benefit from reading it.
  
  

• Entertaining, Enlightening, Even Handed -- Almost

  
  By A1VFKMHY42W2O3 on 2006-02-10
  Whyte has written a book that, but for one serious flaw, would deserve six stars. He explores the world of informal logic and deconstructs the defective arguments of partisans on all sides of every issue. He gives entertaining names to standard logical missteps and sophistries, and strikes a much-needed blow for clarity of thought.
  
  He has a blind spot, however. On the issue of religion, he slips from syllogism to enthymeme, from analysis to rhetoric. And his arguments commit many of the very logical missteps and sophistries he decries in other parts of the book.
  
  For example: A standard sophistry is the straw man maneuver. Either 1. seize upon some minor slip in your opponent's case, refute it, and thereby pretend to have refuted your opponent's entire case; or 2. Misinterpret an aspect of your opponent's case, refute the misinterpretation, and thereby pretend to have refuted your opponent's entire case. As a trial lawyer of 30 years experience, I've seen this move employed countless times. Whyte employs it against Christianity in the following fashion. The doctrine of the Trinity is a much-debated concept which is variously interpreted by different denominations of Christians. Some Christian denominations reject it entirely. Whyte takes the most logically indefensible interpretation of the Trinity, ascribes it to all Christians, constructs a logical refutation of that interpretation, and thereby claims to have discredited all Christianity.
  
  In another place, he attacks Pascal's Wager. (Pascal's Wager runs like this. I'll bet you there is a Christian God and you bet me there is no god. If I'm right, I live and you die. If you're right, we both die. You're betting on a sure loser whereas I at least have a chance of winning). His first line of attack is to criticize Pascal's motive for making such a wager. God couldn't be very proud of someone who became a Christian for such selfish reasons. This is an attack that he justly condemns in another part of his book. That a person has a bad motive for maintaining a proposition does not necessarily make the proposition false. His second attack points out that by Pascal's reasoning, Islam and Judaism are also superior bets to atheism. Once again, the fact that Islam and Judaism are also superior bets to atheism doesn't change the fact that Christianity is a better bet than atheism. I'm not saying that Pascal's Wager can't be refuted. I'm saying that Whyte has used the very flawed reasoning he elsewhere condemns in attempting to refute it.
  
  Finally, he addresses the Problem of Evil, and in a few sentences he dismissively proves that there is no god because an all powerful, all good god would not allow evil to exist. He makes this argument almost immediately after a section wherein he criticizes broad general statements using "hooray" and "boo" words. His examples of "hooray" and "boo" words are "justice" and "injustice," synonyms of "good" and "evil". He has just disproved the existence of any god by making a broad general statement using "hooray" and "boo" words. Suffice it to say that St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, grappled with the same problem applying greater depth of analysis than Whyte and came up with a different result. Once again, I'm not saying that the Problem of Evil doesn't present a huge conundrum for believers--it does. I'm saying that Whyte isn't using good logic by blowing it off in a couple of sentences.
  
  Many religious leaders have said many dumb things. Whyte could have found (and in some places did find) some genuinely dumb things espoused in the name of religion and criticized them logically. In those places where he did, I have not taken him to task.
  
  It is disappointing that Whyte can have been so logical everywhere else and so illogical when he writes on religion. Why did he find it necessary to mar his otherwise excellent book by engaging in such logically flawed attacks on such highly debatable religious topics as the Trinity, Pascal's Wager, and the Problem of Evil? Philosophers and theologians have debated these three issues for decades with many good arguments being made on all sides of the issues.
  
  A FOOTNOTE: After writing this review, I went looking for other books by Whyte. Despite his flawed critique of religion, I enjoyed and learned much from his book and wanted to read more of his writings. I found another book, "Bad Thoughts," and read the reviews. In addition to learning that "Bad Thoughts" is "Crimes Against Logic" under a different title, I also came to realize that Whyte didn't confine his fuzzy thinking to religious topics. One of the reviews astutely pointed out several other examples of logical missteps on Whyte's part. Once they were pointed out, they were obvious. I forgive Whyte, however. As St. Paul said, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Whyte has still written an excellent book. Just be very careful in analyzing his arguments. He sometimes strays from sober analysis into logically flawed polemical rhetoric.
  
  

• EXTENDER OF LONG TRADITION OF LOGIC FLAW DENOUNCERS

  
  By A34U6WKGEO82P2 on 2006-09-09
  Jamie Whyte follows in a long tradition of writers that focus on flaws of logic that most people seem to fall into. His predecessors include Richard Dawkins (of a more scientific tone) and Gary Becker (of a more economics tone). Dr Whyte, by training a philosopher, focuses on pure reason and the ways people violate it.
  
  The book is divided into major types of logical flaws to which the author gives specific names, such as Morality Fever, Right to Your Own Opinion, Mexploitation and Prejudice in a Fancy Dress. Examples include using words with bad conotations to contaminate an argument, staking moral high ground and drawing ridiculous parallels to make an argument and cultural relativism about things that are either true or not; these are some of the strategies employed to support arguments oftentimes devoid of logic.
  
  The tone of the author is sometimes sarcartic and arrogant, which may put off a few readers at time, but overall it is well written and clear, a good entertaining read. It does leave one with the lingering "Aha" memory whenever one meets the fallacies presented here. Unfortunately, they are much more common than logic would expect.
  
  

• Good, but uneven

  
  By A13EBMWSGYPC0P on 2005-04-17
  Whyte brilliantly exposes the Motive Fallacy in Chapter 2, then occasionally slips into using it throughout the rest of the book, He doesn't descend to using it to refute arguments, but does use it to undermine credibility, e.g. "It gives them a thrilling fit of the cosmic heebie-jeebies."
  
  Others did not detect smugness. I did, but am not bothered by it. It comes with the territory when writing about unclear thinking. As he invites the reader to share in it if one can but follow along, I doubt many people will be put off by it. He chooses some surprising examples to illustrate his points; some groups will be pleased at encountering a rare acknowledgement of their reasonableness.
  
  There is a second weakness. Some questions are decided according to different standards of proof, as in the varieties of legal evidence: "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs. "clear and convincing" vs. "preponderance of the evidence." Whyte notes this accurately in some places, but neglects it in others, requiring proof where reasonableness might be enough.
  
  Still, it's good. Amusing, instructive, and clear.
  
  
• A Crime Against Logic
  By AILMZANHAP0SY on 2005-09-13
  Sadly, Mr. Whyte fails to address in his own writing the sort of failures in reasoning which in other people's opinions he claims to have been the motive for writing this book in the first place. In the preface, Mr. Whyte laments "Errors in reasoning. Fallacies. Muddled thinking." (page ix). His book "aims to help fill the gap left by the education system" and "covers those errors in reasoning commonly encountered." Mr. Whyte illustrates his book with what "passes for" "reasoned debate" among those whom he apparently finds less fortunate than himself.(page xi). One example is sufficient to demonstrate Mr. Whyte's personal "Muddled thinking" (page ix) and raise doubts about what Mr. Whyte's qualifications to pass judgment on what should pass for reasoned debate.
  
  Mr. Whyte, in a chapter dedicated to Prejudice as a logical fallacy, offers a critique of Pascal's Wager.(pages 37-39). Mr. Whyte's critique turns on two points. The first is that Pascal's wager is insufficient to prove the existence of any god. This point implies that without such proof the question of whether to believe in any religion based on any god is moot.
  
  The second point that Mr. Whyte makes is that Pascal's Wager "does not work on its own terms." (page 38). Mr. Whyte uses an argument from absurdity to prove his point. Even if we grant Pascal's conclusion that while a Christain has at least a chance of going to heaven if God exists, the athiest can only go to hell if he is wrong and receives no heavenly benefit if he is right, Pascal's argument applies equally well to any religion that proposes an alternative of heaven and hell. Since there is no reason to exclude any religion that can fit the category, any religion, "real" or imagined, must be included in the count of possible religions. Thus, as Pascal's Wager becomes a choice between atheism and some one of an infinite number of religions lacking any rational means of being distinguished one from the other, the person accepting the wager gains only an infintesimal chance of benefit.
  
  So far as the argument goes so far, I am willing to grant it. Unfortunately, at the very point where Mr. Whyte in good conscience must state the result of his argument, he misstates his conclusion. Mr. Whyte states "And, an infintesimal chance is no chance at all." In fact, "no chance at all" clearly means a chance equal to zero, zero chance. An "infintesimal chance" might be very, very small, but that chance remains greater than zero.
  
  Sound reasoning and good faith require Mr. Whyte to admit that his argument from absurdity failed. Instead of granting the obvious conclusion that Pascal had survived the test and proven some tiny probability that the Christain might be vindicated in his belief, Mr. Whyte redefines "infintesimal" as "zero" and moves on to other topics. (page 39).
  
  This is, in my opinion, a stunning failure of logic in any person, but is blatent intellectual dishonesty in person who has nominated himself to write " the logical equivalent of a troubleshooting guide... aimed at everday users and consumers of reasoning." (page ix).
  
  The reader of this criticism of Mr. Whytes book might want to know that I am an ordained Southern Baptist Minister and believe myself to be a Christain. Additionally, I am called to the ministry of Christain Apologetics. Thus, I might be susceptible to the intellectual prejudice that Mr. Whyte's chapter was intended to expose.
  
  
• Faith in Logic
  By A3S6QCYJM0YYE on 2004-11-05
  As a senior citizen I found it refreshing to see there are still some younger people out there who believe that there is such a thing as truth, and that logic is the true path to finding it.

  Jamie Whyte has written this very entertaining book in his crusade to unmask the humbug often presented by politicians, journalists, priests and his parents in their versions of the truth. He does this by effectively exposing the logical flaws in what people believe to be rational thinking.

  In his chapter "Prejudice in Fancy Dress" he uses the example of how priests deal with the doctrine of the unity of the holy trinity. How can three things equal one? The answer is explained as being a mystery. This of course is simply a ploy to abolish the problem without addressing it, and effectively avoids facing the absurdity of the statement. He acknowledges that some people are greatly impressed by mystery. It "gives them a thrilling fit of the cosmic heebie-jeebies".

  In another section, he illustrates how verbosity can shroud the banality of ideas, and claims that playing with words is much easier than tackling reality. He makes this statement without any apparent sense of irony, in that he is using his words to attack a reality that, as he grows older, he will have to acknowledge does not exist - that the human animal is a logical creature.

  He observes that authority figures or celebrities are often treated as experts in fields in which they know nothing about, and that victims of crime are often given more weight by politicians in assessing changes to criminal law, than those who have given a lifetime of study to the subject.

  In his discussion of the misuse of statistics, his example of the promiscuity of British women when on holiday in Spain is a very amusing example of sampling selection bias.

  To enjoy this book, it does help to ignore the reality of human nature and assume that people really should behave logically. I believed this myself once upon a time, but eventually lost the faith. Even if you don't believe humans should be logical, this book is a lot of fun.

  Regretfully, Jamie Whyte is on a Don Quixote quest. Human behavior is governed by emotions and self interest, not logic. Even Star Trek's Mr. Spock acknowledges that humans are illogical. Unfortunately in the end, faith in logic is really just another form of religion, but it is a better occupation of the mind than counting the angels on the head of a pin.
  
  

• Preachy, angry, contradictory, disappointing
  By AJVAZUDEUBHG3 on 2005-08-05
  Since Jamie Whyte does not acknowledge the validity of "opinion," I suppose he doesn't recognize book reviews. But, with apologies to him, I'll launch into this anyway. I preface this by proposing that contraditions should not be found in a book on logic. Whyte, on one page, says that, in his "literal sense, nothing is a matter of opinion." Then, on the very next page, citing his mother's contention that Brussels sprouts are "good" and his assertion that they are not (seemingly a difference of opinion, no?), he asserts "rather, we should conclude only that I don't like them and she does and that is all there is to it."
  Sounds like something is a matter of opinion after all, doesn't it? He dismisses completely the notions of the unknown or the unknowable. That, coupled with his constantly carpingly aetheistic tone, suggests he may suffer from a bit of a narcissistic "God complex." His cynicism tends to grow weary after a few chapters. He belittles the concept of "mystery" when it comes to theology, but he invokes it elsewhere by saying "some mystery, however, is universal," adding, as an example, "what happened in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, if indeed the universe started with a bang, is a mystery to everyone." (Ironically, the Big Bang was a theory first proposed in 1927 by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest!)
  While Whyte is certainly glib and has a good command of the language, I think he needs to do some reading himslef before he next pens a book. Maybe he should reread Aristotle. And, I recommend he pick up a copy of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. It will hone his sense of objectivity, Aristotilian logic/argument and, perhaps, calm his incessant slamming of theology. He narrowly acknowledges nothing he cannot see or comprehend. A treatise on logic should be objective and informed.
  
  
• Illogical Critique of Illogic!
  By A1MMCL4P1XVJCO on 2007-09-02
  Hopefully this snake will eat its own tail. As a math and science educator, I often need to teach my students about various aspects of logic. After my first formal logic class I took three more related classes in the philosophy departments at my various universities--and ultimately concluded that mathematicians handled logic far more elegantly--thereby avoiding the pit of "what makes a brick a brick?" crap!
  
  Whyte displays intellectual arrogance veiled in a cloak of open inquiry to attempt an existential disproof of God by way of Pascal's wager--give me a break. The only method of disproof is exhasutive elimination--good luck!
  
  Consider the following thought experiment. Given 1) a computer program whose purpose was to disprove the existence of its programmer, 2) that this is a perfectly logical program (with every data record in existence at its dispoal). Then the program could conclude that there is only annecdotal evidence for the programmer. Only a programmer that existed as a stand-alone digital construct could be measured and analyzed by every possible test which the program could devise. The best result such a program could deliver is that there is no quantitative reason to accept or deny the existence of Programmer. HOWEVER, I need only permit the program to make the very mildest of assumptions to confound the whole thing! If the program assumed that it could not exist without being created it becomes a creationist or intelligent design program. On the other hand, if it merely assumes the postulate that there is no higher reality or greater intelligence than itself, then the concept of a programmer becomes absurd. Note that neither case in any way changes the fact of the programmers existence.
  
  The ONLY logical and scientific statement about the origin of our universe and ourselves is that "WE DON'T KNOW." I'm sorry to paraphrase Carl Sagan as he committed the latter fallacy and was in the latter (an absurd God) case.
  
  In our lives, we may believe one thing or another; most of us modify what we believe at least occassionally. However, our beliefs are only the transient paint coating the grand architecture that is human knowledge!
  
  Whyte, and so many of his ilk, have set before themselves an impossible task. On the one hand, we mustn't call them fools for their ambition. On the other hand, as honorable and intellectually impartial thinkers we cannot tolerate fallacies--especially in the guise of a mimic species threatening to push an endangered species into extinction.
  
  Avoid this elegant yet deceptive philosophy. Learn logic with a variety of great resources such as Tarski's book (search for other books under "logic" and "critical thinking"). Schaum's outlines, LSAT prep books, boolean logic texts, digital circuit logic, and many great volumes and texts on the subject are worth the time of anyone who is intellectually determined to grasp this subject. The cover of Whyte's book hearkens back to Peter Sellers' movie "Being There" (1979). Sadly the book is as devoid of the thing it claims to demand as was the mind of Chance, the simple groundskeeper whose plain words so naturally lent themselves to profound interpretations in that movie.
  
  
• I actually enjoyed this book.
  By AB66TMJ78XLNB on 2005-10-14
  I'm not sure why I picked this book up, because I really did expect to be disappointed by it. I am altogether too conversant with informal logic, actually know the names (in Latin) of the more common fallacies, and in general was not looking forward to Crimes Against Logic. Perhaps I believed it would let me down. In fact, I loved the book. I laughed. I sympathized with the author. I had a great time. Whyte's work is not only logically sound; it's also entertaining and relatable. The logic itself is by no means groundbreaking (quite the reverse, in fact), however Whyte manages to single out brilliant examples of how even the most basic logical thinking is constantly trampled, mixed-up, and abused by intellectual fads. In addition, I greatly appreciated Whyte's aditude towards wrongheadedness. Far from tiptoeing around popular opinion and sentiment, Whyte seems to take the view that being wrong is, well, wrong, and that defending a falsehood with faulty logic is both wrong and extremely annoying. I couldn't agree more, and would fully recommend reading this book if you are one of the statistical minority of people known as rational thinkers.
  
  
• Damn Funny Stuff
  By A2D18WYVTF638Z on 2005-02-07
  For once, the product description is on the mark: this brief book really is a "fast-paced and ruthlessly funny romp" through the boundless wasteland of shoddy thinking. I laughed aloud about a dozen times while reading it. Whyte draws his comical examples of confused reasoning from his own eccentric family, from political speeches and parliamentary debates, from advertisements and newspaper editorials, and from conversations with investment bankers. He's a born raconteur and a natural writer, for sure, but he isn't just trying to entertain you. His pungently witty anecdotes contain deftly delivered and fairly sophisticated philosophical points. Whyte's a clever tutor and his lessons are likely to stick in your memory.
  
  
• The Value of Critical Thinking
  By A255E1L105V4MU on 2005-11-19
  This little tome exposes the habits of lazy thinking that have become ubiquitous. Everything from the common confusion between correlation and causation, to the faulty logic of Argument by Popularity (50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong). Politicians and priests take the biggest lumps, but even everyday prejudices (like only buying tickets for the really big Lotto) also come in for punishment.
  
  It's a startling dope-slap of a book, concise and unbelaboured, exhibiting clarity and alacrity with no small measure of good humour and self-effacing wit. The amateur logician will find much to gird himself in the battle against the decline of mathematical literacy and common sense in our oh-so-modern yet oh-so-superstitious world.
  
  
• Funny and informative
  By AK0T0UF2W08KQ on 2005-08-10
  This is a very entertaining little book about bad reasoning. I laughed out loud on several occasions and have found myself reading sections to friends who I knew would enjoy them (or wouldn't, in some cases!).
  
  I was already familiar with some of the fallacies, but a few were new to me, such as the fallacies of equivocation and begging the question.
  
  Once explained, most of the fallacies Whyte highlights are easily understood. Which only makes it more incredible that they are so common, as shown by the incredibly wide range of examples Whyte draws on. I now find myself playing "spot the fallacy" when reading the paper or watching the news. It's fun for a while, until you start to get angry.
  
  Whyte is pretty harsh on religion and some readers won't like it. But let's be honest, there is a lot of bad reasoning about religion. It would be ridiculous for a book on common fallacies to avoid the topic.
  
  Apart from his apparent atheism, Whyte's substantive views are difficult to discern. He usually does a good job of sticking to the logic of arguments rather than the truth of their conclusions. And his occasionally angry tone, which some reviewers don't like, is usually appropriate and often very funny. I can highly recommend this book.
  
  
  
• Useful and entertaining
  By A120X4VUY1OTU5 on 2005-05-24
  This is a great little book. We already know we are being fed shoddy arguments, of course, but it can be hard to put your finger on exactly what's wrong with them. Not after reading this clear and often very funny book. Whyte exposes, names (not in Latin) and skewers the most common "crimes against logic". Once you have read the book, you will see them everywhere, even in your own babbling.
  
  I particularly enjoyed the chapters on language, "Empty Words" and "Equivocation", which explain how slippery language is used as a substitute for proper reasoning. The section on consultant-speak is hilarious.
  
  This book won't solve all your problems - a fact which seems to bother some other Amazon reviewers. But it isn't supposed to. It only tells you how to spot common errors in reasoning. And it fulfills that mission brilliantly.
  
  
• excellent and revealing read!
  By A3KM71CRGFHJ8F on 2005-06-08
  Although I don't exclude the unseen per se, I'd say I'm a rather rational-thinking person. So the title of this book lured me into buying it. Of course I succumbed and did exactly that. Luckily, it didn't disappoint me.
  
  The author sees it as his mission to expose the multitude of logical fallacies we're confronted with, and even committing ourselves, on a daily basis. He's convinced that in the daily battle for our hearts and minds, the truth is very often the first casualty. Killed by, among others, statistics, weasel words and prejudices. Therefore he uses his ultra-rationalism to systematically analyze typical statements, slogans or beliefs and then, after having proven they've been built on sand, or even outright lies, invalidates them.
  
  And the range of subjects he's confronting is vast: politicians, talk-radio hosts, op-ed columnists, advertisers, self-help gurus, business thinkers, priests, etc. He's not primarily judging the moral value of their opinions, he's just dissecting them to see if they hold up at all or if they're just hot air.
  
  The book is fast-paced, very funny and extremely enlightening . Though at times the author might seem slightly arrogant and a bit too over-confident, especially when reasoning about God's existence (something which in itself can't be proven or disproven). But usually he is right on!
  
  
• The Cover Shot (and the Work) Without a Face
  By A1G5M4C5XPUX8H on 2005-05-23
  This book reeled me in at the Prologue. Whyte begins his book with an hillarious admission: "I write letters to the editor," and I must make my own, in addition to writing my own missives to various editorial boards (hence my hook, line and sinker skewering by Whyte), and despite the ridicule of my wife, I read the prologues, introductions, and prefaces in every book (though I recently regretted that commitment when mired in the THREE prefatory chapters of "Three Nights in August").
  
  Whyte's admission is the introduction to a humorous and enjoyably readable prologue that - unfortunately - is the highlight of the book.
  
  The premise is a good one, and the topic is a worthy one, but the style is needlessly argumentative and the chapter organization could benefit from some more explanation before being thrust into the complex single-sided assumption-loaded arguments that each consists of.
  
  The book's main problem is that it assumes logic sufficient for governance in all life. Certainly this is not the case, we all must behave illogically, and often we do so correctly. For example, the strict logical reaction to being told that a loved one is terminally ill and their comfort until death can be assured only with very expensive treatment is to refuse such treatment and conserve resources that would be squandered without logic. No one would agree that such a course of action is correct.
  
  Further, Whyte's arguments progress by virtue of his assumed line of illogical responses to the chapter topics. The assumptions he makes and faux illogical arguments he creates to juxtapose with his logical conclusions are often too basic and absent a realism associated with the motives responsible for the thinking that he indicts in practice.
  
  Overall, the book is a tagline. Whyte struggled mightily to avoid writing an argumentative anecdotal rant, instead he just winds up with an argumentative rant - and leaves the reader longing for some anecdotes to ground the theory of the work.
  
  JAW
  
  
• I'm biased...
  By A3HYW9I5KNF7OV on 2005-10-09
  Why am I biased? Well, I graduated in Education 30 years ago with a Philosophy and Euro Lang major [I've gone on to Jurisprudence, Electronic Engineering and Science studies as well, just for 'balance'...] This book hasn't changed my life at all, but it DOES give me hope for the future.
  
  About 35 years ago, as a new undergraduate who'd wasted a good part of his youth reading philosophy books, I formulated a particular thesis about people's RIGHTS to their opinions...and had a lot of unsatisfying discussions with people I loved and whose support I wanted and needed. It wasn't much fun feeling, even "knowing" I was *correct* and yet alienating those people who were closest to me.
  
  I was overjoyed to read Chapter 1 of Whyte's book, which stated my thesis so much better than a glib 20-year-old could have done, all those years ago. Try to remember, too, that many of my closest friends were influenced by 'New Age' and 'Hippie' thinking, back then...[Some of them still are...they don't recognize any of the well-established laws and limitations of nature to this day...just for example, in several cases "LSD logic", magazine horoscopes, certain dubious 'eastern-style' religions or even belief in visiting extra-terrestrial aliens are major features of their lives...]
  
  The people to whom I referred mostly belong to the generation of "baby boomers" that are now retiring from the work-force in droves and becoming the supposedly older, wiser folks, the parents and grand-parents of the present youth of the planet, but must include, as well, the generation or two before that. I'm now a grand-dad of four, myself...we're talking about at least five human generations here, more than a century of human existence, people!
  
  Whyte's work is not a text-book on Logic. It's just a short, but well over-due book about fallacies that can help people to start thinking correctly once again [if they've just forgotten how] or to begin to analyze the rubbish, the 'infotainment' and the commercial and political hype that we all face every day.
  
  PS: One could do worse than reading Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World--Science as a Candle in the Dark". I believe his 'Baloney-detector' covers virtually the same ground as Whyte's book, but in shorter fashion, with concomitant extra benefits.
  
  
• Very opinionated
  By A1MW8ACQ9F1N7W on 2006-03-20
  This book starts off with some witty and truthful guidelines for making logical statements and arguments. Then it focuses on why religion, God, and Christianity are illogical. The first half was great; the second half had little to say about logic in general, other than God is a joke.
  
  
• Lucid and Funny
  By A601VGBEH6EV8 on 2005-01-22
  This is a perfect book for getting people interested in logic. It is short, lucid, and quite witty, full of quirky but relevant examples from everyday life. Many of the fallacies Whyte describes will be familiar to students of logic, but several of them are quite original and spot-on. I definitely learned a few things from Whyte's little book and had an enjoyable time doing it.
  
  
• Wish I'd written it
  By A1JS302JFHH9DJ on 2006-01-10
  Crimes Against Logic follows in the tradition of Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots, & Leaves: it is another British book that is short, humorous, strongly written, and emphasizes being correct over being trendy or popular. But while Truss wrote in favor of being a stickler for punctuation so as to be better understood, Jamie Whyte writes in support of being a stickler for logic so as to better understand. In a dozen brief chapters, he discusses different errors in thinking that he thinks are the most common in modern discourse -- errors like the ad hominem fallacy (though he does not use its technical name), shifting definitions of terms in the middle of an argument, and various misuses of statistics. In doing so, and in the examples he uses, Whyte manages to get across a complete manifesto in favor of logic as the best tool for discovering the truth, and in favor of using the truth (rather than emotions, faith, or wishful thinking) as a basis for deciding what to believe and what to do.
  
  Whyte's arguments are simple, his writing is emphatic, and, in many cases, his examples are original, so I will find it useful the next time I need ammunition to make one of the points he deals with. And I enjoyed Whyte's humorous style. However, like me when I get into the mood Whyte clearly was in when he wrote this book, Crimes Against Logic sometimes comes across as arrogant and condescending. This has its amusement value for people like me who already buy what Whyte has to say, but probably hurts his educational mission.
  
  Whyte may be a bit smug, but he's got a lot to be smug about. Crimes Against Logic is the best rationalist book I have read yet -- the sort of book that makes me daydream about buying copies for friends and enemies alike, sending copies to libraries, even running for school board to make it required reading. The people who don't know what Whyte is teaching in Crimes Against Logic desperately need to know, and the people who already try to practice what Whyte preaches will enjoy this witty refresher course.
  
  
• Sophomoric
  By A239H40N4FKLLZ on 2006-11-10
  I am only about halfway through the book but doubt I will go further.
  
  He says that the motive behind a statement is irrelevant to the truth of the statement. The problem with his statement is that he assumes that truth is well defined.
  
  In his discussion of The Unity of the Trinity he fails to define what he means by God. A person can be a pianist, a card sharp and an electrician, three independent aspects of the person. I don't see why Mr. Whyte assumes that being a father, a son and a Holy Ghost is illogical, particularly as he hasn't defined anything. Also, if one considers the integers modulo 2, 3 does equal 1.
  
  A problem with a lot of the first half of the book is the lack of definitions.
  
  His put down of the Declaration of Independence is sophomoric. He seems to miss the whole point of language. Jefferson wasn't trying to define equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he was presenting an idea. I think that the Declaration is more like poetry, not a treatise on logic or the human condition.
  
  It is a major flaw of the book that it doesn't take into account the purpose of language which is to communicate ideas. But language communicates ideas imperfectly and Mr. Whyte kvetching doesn't really help the situation.
  I recall a "Riplely's Believe it or Not" where it said the Lincoln was wrong when he said that "few will remember" the Gettysburg Address. I can see Mr. Whyte making the same comment which a sophomoric comment.
  
  He speaks against cultual relativism by saying that in 900 A.D. everybody thought that the sun revolved around the earth so a cultural relativist would say that was truth but everybody knows that, in truth, the earth revolves around the sun.
  
  Well, this is a little deeper than that. I was sitting in a train in Grand Central and we seemed to be slowly pulling out of the station; or was the train next to us slowly pulling into the station. What is revolving around what depends on where you put the coordinate system. The earth revolves around the sun because some clever person decided to put the origin of the coordinate system at the center of the sun.
  
  If I put the coordinate system on my train, the country side is moving by my stationary train. If I put the coordinate system at the train station, my train is moving by the stationary train station.
  
  There are a few interesting ideas but I don't feel it worth my time to ferret them out.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• A Must Read For Anyone Interested In Truth
  By AM9DLC798BNUU on 2005-08-22
  Sadly, good reasoning skills are normally not taught in school and are never really developed by most people. Countless examples of faulty reasoning, as described in this book, are commonly used by people. And that faulty reasoning doesn't just affect personal opinion, but it often directs public policy, affects serious medical care decisions, and can even lead to wars. Everyone interested in truth vs. dogma/ideology and willing to reconsider their own opinions/beliefs would benefit from this book. If our politicians, media pundits, and religious leaders understood the principles in this book, and were truly interested in truth vs. ideology, the world would be a better place.
  
  Whyte has a dry humor that made reading this book a pure pleasure. He explains the many logic fallacies, so common in public and personal dialog, in a clear manner that quickly equips the reader with their own baloney detection capabilities.
  
  Whyte does use examples of illogic in religion several times throughout the book, but this should only offend those who treat religion as if it were somehow provable by logic vs. a faith issue.
  
  
• A valuable and readable little book.
  By A17H9DVL2GZ2VJ on 2005-12-15
  For people unfamiliar with logical fallacies "Crimes Against Logic" provides a good basic introduction. It is the kind of book that undergraduate or high school students could understand, which may encourage them to pursue more in-depth and formal texts on logic and reasoning at some point in the future. As well as examining strictly logical fallacies, i.e., fallacies in the construction of arguments, the book also examines some illogical conclusions drawn from statistics. Throughout, information is presented in the context of real-life examples - concrete examples usually make any idea more understandable.
  
  "Crimes Against Logic" is excellent, and it reminds me of another recent book, so I'll draw a quick comparison. Pedants will love "Crimes Against Logic". In the same way that many pedants have loved Lynne Truss's "Eats Shoots and Leaves: A Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation". Neither of these books makes a particularly-good instructional manual: in logic and punctuation respectively. This is not because they are in any significant sense wrong, but because these books are written in a way that invites reading for enjoyment. Yes, you "could" stick post-it notes on every page that contains useful observations or summary points, but you need not. The most important function that both these books perform is in increasing awareness that being accurate matters.
  
  There are a few places in the book, at least in the version I have read (purchased in Australia), where there are attempts to reconcile British and American examples. In places this was a little awkward. Nonetheless, an intelligent reader should have no problems in seeing that most of the examples of bad logic in action presented in the book can be universally applied.
  
  
  
• Bad Logic
  By ARB3JJU84TSHZ on 2006-12-04
  I was expecting a book about logic and argumentation, but unfortunately, I found a book filled with contempt for the reader. The author is unfailingly dismissive of the reader and of contemporary sensibilities throughout and fails to recognize his own biases in his arguments.
  
  I can not recommend this book to anyone.
  
  
• This should be required reading for everyone.
  By ATN1SSKTJD8Z8 on 2005-07-25
  Jamie Whyte is a kindred spirit for me; someone who is bothered by nothing so much as gaps in logic. He isn't bothered by peoples' arguments so much as he is by the irrational way people argue. He doesn't mind their statements, but he is driven nuts by the inconsistent thinking their statements expose. This book lays out the most common flaws of logic and gives plenty of examples so you can identify gaps in logic on your own in the future.
  
  Whyte's presentation is funny while insightful and instructive. You come away from reading this book as a more savvy consumer of the information that comes at us from all sides in modern society. Never again will you read or listen to the statements of journalists or politicians with the same eyes and ears. Instead you will be a more skeptical, insightful, and harder-to-deceive information consumer.
  
  Highly recommended for anyone who is driven nuts by illogic or for people who want to become smarter consumers of information.
  
  
• Simple logic, simple answers
  By AXK9WUGRUL86Z on 2005-11-08
  This is a simple, easily read, good guide on critical thinking.
  Yes, Mr.Whyte's conclusions may come out as glib, almost cavalier at times, but consider that this is a 157 page book. This is logic for everyday use, not the "Introduction to objectivist epistemology". Come on: Would lay people buy this book if it was titled "Introduction to rational thought and fallacies of modern discourse"? Of course not. This is logic at it's entertaining best. I recommend it for anybody who is often taken by the fake arguments of the press, body politic and other "offenssive" individuals. I had a blast with it.
  
  
• How to know if you're being snookered
  By A2B0DPQK20LYYJ on 2007-01-08
  In this book, Mr. Whyte takes apart the various types of logical fallacies that people employ in everyday life in order to prove a point or get what they want. For instance, attacking a person's motives is not an argument; the President's motivation for attacking Iraq is irrelevant- what matters is the results of the action. Good actions can be performed for bad reasons. Another example is the equivocation of words: some British lefties published a report saying that 35% of Britons lived in poverty. The run-of-the-mill lemming would say "How horrid! Let's increase welfare" while the logical thinker would ask just what they meant by "poverty". As it turned out, "poverty" included people with cars, homes, cable TV, cell phones, etc. Mr. Whyte provides several other great examples of logical tricks to look out for.
  
  Unfortunately, the author's grating atheism permeates almost every single chapter of the book. Since Mr. Whyte must certainly be consistent in his logic, I'm sure that he doesn't believe in anything else he hasn't personally observed or proven in a lab experiment, which must include things like the Polar Ice Caps, the Lakota Sioux tribe of North America, nuclear fission, the Giant Squid, the elevation of K2, etc. Oh, you say that he takes those things on faith or authority? Surely, that's not very logical, is it?
  
  
• If only everyone in the world would read this book...
  By A3LQVBVTQ7OU38 on 2007-04-09
  
  If only everyone would listen and think more clearly before making decisions based on what they hear and read! This little book should be required reading in any formal education, so that more people become aware of exactly how politicians, journalists, preachers and "other serial offenders" use bogus arguments through empty words, inconsistency, equivocation, begging the question, misusing statistics, putting a fancy dress on prejudice, etc.
  
  So many specific examples have already been given in the other reviews that I'll add my two cents in support of this work by giving you a couple of page-long quotes, one from near the beginning, one from the end. I should think these would whet anyone's appetite. Well, maybe not a person described in the first quote...
  
  "Does your right to your opinion oblige me to let you keep it? ... On matters like whether or not a car is about to crush them, everybody is interested in believing the truth; they will take the correction of their errors as a favor. The same goes for any other topic. If someone is interested in believing the truth, then she will not take the presentation of contrary evidence and argument as some kind of injury.
  
  "It's just that, on some topics, many people are not really interested in believing the truth. They might prefer it if their opinion turns out to be true--that would be the icing on the cake--but truth is not too important. Most of my friends, though subscribing to no familiar religion, claim to believe in a 'superior intelligence' or 'something higher than us.' Yet they will also cheerfully admit the absence of even a shred of evidence. Never mind. There is no cost in error, because the claim is so vague that it has no implications for action (unlike the case of the oncoming car). They just like believing it, perhaps because it would be nice if it were true, or because it helps them get along with their religious parents, or for some other reason.
  
  "But truth is not really the point, and it is most annoying to be pressed on the matter. And to register this, to make it clear that truth is neither here nor there, they declare, 'I am entitled to my opinion.' Once you hear these words, you should realize that it is simple rudeness to persist with the matter. You may be interested in whether or not their opinion is true, but take the hint, they aren't."
  
  The second quote:
  
  "...It becomes clear that many are more interested in displaying their concern and sincerity than in arguing cogently. Indeed, they seem to believe that genuine concern licenses irrationality. 'You can't argue with his sincerity' is the reaction they seek. And in seeking this, they resemble many of their listeners.
  
  "The idea that you can't argue with the morally sincere, that caring licenses irrationality, is as pernicious as it is popular. It displays a lack of moral seriousness. If the matter at hand is something you genuinely care about, then you should seek more than ever to believe the truth about it. And rationality is merely that way of thinking that gives your beliefs the greatest chance of being true. To dispense with it on the ground that you care is preposterous. As the moral temperature rises, so should our devotion to the truth and hence to proper reasoning. ...
  
  "People will hold an opinion because they want to keep the company of others who share the opinion, or because they think it is the respectable opinion, or because they have publicly expressed the opinion in the past and would be embarrassed by a 'U-turn,' or because the world would suit them better if the opinion were true, or....
  
  "Perhaps it is better to get on with your family and friends, to avoid embarrassment, or to comfort yourself with fantasies than to believe the truth. But those who approach matters in this way should give up any pretensions to intellectual seriousness. They are not genuinely interested in reality.
  
  "Nor are they genuinely concerned about the welfare of others. For we all live in reality, even if we might wish it otherwise. To know what is in the best interests of those you care about, you need to understand the world in which they live. If heaven does not really exist, for example, then those deprivations the religious recommend as the path to it are not really in their children's best interests. If they are seriously concerned about their children, they should be serious about the existence of heaven. And if this is true for religion, it is even more obviously true for physics, biology, economics, psychology, medicine, and everything else on which people have opinions.
  
  "Separating intellectual from moral seriousness is harder than those who are intellectually frivolous may care to admit."
  
  
• Intelligent and funny; some objection
  By A2EO1PRI3J9Z4K on 2006-03-16
  Just like biology, history, or math, I think logic should be manditory learning for anyone who wishes to have a high school certificate. Jamie Whyte writes a `to the point' book about the logical fallacies we encounter in our everyday life
  
  Pros: as I mentioned before, short and to the point, covers a great deal of logical fallacies, and is very witty, (made me laugh a number of times).
  
  Cons: choice of logical fallacies to cover seemed unusual. For instance I can't believe anyone who writes about the logical fallacies of political discourse doesn't even approach ad homonym attacks, false dichotomizations, or `poisoning the well' fallacies. Those are more persuasive and rampant than anything Whyte discusses.
  In addition, as previously mentioned in other reviews, Whyte does seem a little arrogant in his approach, which may turn off some readers.
  
  
• You Idiot
  By A2DBOFL3ZPZM24 on 2006-05-20
  The title says it all. This book is almost guaranteed to make you feel like an idiot.
  
  As you read on, Mr. Whyte will do his best to expose the fallacies of logics of politicians and other offenders. He will take you through things on how some research can severely be proven wrong. For instance:
  
  Mr. Whyte posts that a report stated an outrageous number of British girls die from being anorexic each year. The logic flaw is that the posted rate is higher than the rate of natural dying. Also that only 13 girls on average die.
  
  
  It's almost amazing what gets past us in our lives. Nothing is safe from topic and everything is questioned. It goes down to the bone detail on how such reasoning is wrong.
  
  The sections of the book are basically separated into different "fallacies" (Fallacy in singular terms) and then takes real-life examples to prove what is stated or argued and how it is wrong. This is the book's strongest point and everything is well thought out and clear. As long as you can keep your eyes open without dosing, you should understand fine.
  
  
  There are a few problems though. For one thing, this book's language is in highly educated terminology (No jargon except for the section on jargon), so consider your reading level and understanding before you pick up this book.
  
  
  
  Probably the biggest and most blunt problem with the book is that it has a belittling tone. You almost feel as if Mr. Whyte is wagging his finger at your face while he questions your religion. Hey, we are trying our best to be correct Jamie!
  
  It tends to get a bit annoying at some points and sometimes worth the eye roll, but take it in small increments and you won't risk putting the book down altogether out of frustration.
  
  
  Although is it speaks in an un-casual way and has a belittling tone, it is extremely insightful as to how some rarely noticed flaws can debunk an argument altogether. If Mr. Whyte became a politician, I am pretty darn sure he would offer the strongest argument of all.
  
  Kept your temper cool and enjoy the book.
  
  I recommend it.
  
  

• Freakonomics [Revised and Expanded]: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
• The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
• Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking
• On Bullshit
• The Wisdom of Crowds