Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

But I just don't... I believe that an argument must rest solely on its merits. This is a simple but powerful belief because it allows one to see through the bandwagon, ad hominem, genetic, and other fallacies which stray from the merits of the argument. In this book, the fallacy explanation I disliked the most was the 'appeal to irrelevant authority' fallacy, in which the author says: 'One may reasonably appeal to pertinent authority'. The author implies that an argument must rest solely on its merits (except for when his special group of experts makes the argument). He even slips the word 'irrelevant' into the name of the fallacy to protect his group. Unfortunately he appears to make a 'special pleading' fallacy. In the words of the great Carl Sagan: 'Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.' There are many examples of authorities having been in consensus, but later proven wrong. The author should read a history of Psychiatry treatments if he wants examples. Ironically, I probably agree with the author on Global Warming. However, the argument that 'man-made global warming is true because most scientists think so' is fallacious due to argument from authority. One would do better to cite the temperature data as measured by satellites, and show historical correlation to climate models. Or cite Venus, which is further from the sun than Mercury, but much hotter due to its atmospheric composition. Critical thinking is notoriously difficult to learn, so the examples in a primer should be crystal clear. The author chooses muddled examples from politics and religion, which distract from seeing the fallacy. It's difficult in many cases to see how the illustration illustrates the fallacy. The author makes a fine definition of an ad hominem attack as 'one that attacks a person rather than the argument he or she is making.' But the illustration is of a walrus on a laptop with the caption: 'Your ad hominem attacks are evidence that your arguments are baseless, wrote user226. Rodney began typing his reply: you appear to be too stupid to understand the difference between an insult and an ad hominem attack.' THE ILLUSTRATION DOESN'T CLEARLY ILLUSTRATE THE FALLACY. In the final fallacy presented: 'Composition and Division,' the illustration has no caption and its again difficult for me to connect the illustration to the fallacy. I feel terrible about myself for giving this negative review to someone who admirably attempts to teach the difficult subject of critical thinking, but I also wish I could get my money back for this book.