Critical Thinking Skills For Dummies

In addition to this copy I purchased for a friend, I used my original copy as a companion to the textbook in a philosophy class. In my opinion, it is NOT for dummies. I expected a simplified, large-print-with-bullet-points, text. Maybe there is a version like that; this one is not. I didn't like the compact size because it was hard to keep open when highlighting or adding notes. However, if you don't plan to use it like that, the size shouldn't be an issue. Just know that I'm not at all knocking the book; for many people, size doesn't matter. The material is excellent and absolutely easier to comprehend than a textbook, but I recommend having some prior knowledge of the subject. Thumbs up!

Learning and memorizing facts is not thinking. We have to teach this generation HOW to think not WHAT to think. Today people bow down to whatever some guy with a PHD tells them, but he clearly talks about how even scientists sometimes could be wrong, highly recommended!

The book covers the standard material on logical fallacies, as well as a number of other subjects. I found it a little wordy, but that is just my preference. However, in general, I think he does a nice job of critical thinking. However, I think the book contains a little non critical thinking itself. Here are two examples. 1. In Chapter 17, in Proving that In Practice God Doesn't exist, he states the argument "If an all-powerful, all-knowing God exists who wants the world to be the best possible place full of happy people and good things,...God wouldn't allow at least some of the nasty things that evidently go on all the time." He claims there is no flaw in this. There are multiple come-backs. One is that people cannot be happy unless they have the will to freely choose, and this makes it possible for them to choose badly, resulting in nasty things. So God must allow these things to happen as a logical consequence of what being happy entails. Another is that we do not know that God has not allowed some of the nasty things to happen that could have happened. 2. I could not find the quote, but I recall that he states that at one time in England they hanged someone for being a homosexual. In fact it was for engaging in homosexual behavior, which is not necessarily the same thing. He sneaks in the idea that you ARE a homosexual if you engage in homosexual behavior.

Take time to read the description and reviews. The book is as described and arrived when expected. The book was packaged with care and arrived in great condition!

Understanding your own thought processes and patterns (i.e., stereotypes) provides a means toward understanding how other people think (and act). Even normal and healthy people don't always operate in a rational manner; stereotypes are the shortcuts we use to quickly (and with reduced effort) size up a situation or new information to compartmentalize sensory inputs to allow action or reaction. It takes mental energy to analyze, reason and make informed and logical conclusions. The energy deficit is contrary to survival instincts and patterns.

not the full 8 x 10 size book more like 6 x 7 ish just in case you're expecting a full size book this is one of the smaller versions, the exact same book as the full size only smaller. would be great for carry on for the airplane or bus or train.

One concern that I would like to address is that the the author of this book inserts his opinion throughout the textbook, and this is especially the case about the issue of climate change. In particular, the author expresses concern about he believes is skepticism associated with scientific authority. His argument against believing climate scientists, for example, is actually a straw man where he asserts that journalists (specifically the BBC) who cover a story about global warming are appealing to authority. The authors further asserts that we should be skeptical about global warming only because anyone who believes it assumes that it is case only because it is based on the fallacy of appealing to authority. The author implies that to be a critical thinker, we ought to be skeptical about the causes of global warming. However, the precise reason this is a straw man is because it fails to consider the fact that many believe in global warming because they have actually examined the scientific journals or other empirical discussions about the topic. He also mocking asserts "the climate changes all the time." dismissing this issue. Cohen frames the issues of global warming as if people only listen to scientific experts about the concern. Cohen cites an example of a BBC report to demonstrate how the discussion about climate change is based on appealing to authority. He notes that he tried to find the sources, but they would not tell me as an argument to dismiss their reasoning. However, Cohen never makes a distinction when discussing the "appeal to authority fallacy" between legitimate authorities and illegitimate authorities. For instance, if you are doing to a doctor, would you rather take medical advice from someone who is untrained and lacking the relevant authority? Rhetorical question aside, I agree with Cohen that we ought to still be skeptical regardless of the authority; but when discussing a topic about climate change, trusting the judgment of a scientist about their field is necessary since they are collecting the data. Thus, Cohen's discussion should have been focused on asking what the scientists think about the data, not the BBC. Scientific research is a collective enterprise of an enormous amount of people working together. Cohen claims that "consensus is obtained at the expense of genuine debate. Critical thinkers don't do that kind of stuff."(Cohen, p.53) However, Cohen fails to bring up any of the studies involved in climate modeling, nor does he actually debate any of the climate scientists involved here, but instead discusses the BBC's climate report. I agree with Cohen's conclusion that consensus isn't scientific, but neither is a one-sided discussion about climate change. To be charitable to the author, it is not clear if he is explicitly thinks that climate change is not happening, but instead concluding that we ought to remain skeptical about the authors that inform us about climate change. However, this is a moot point and of course we should be skeptical. When Cohen emphasis in his book that to be an expert on critical thinking, one must reject scientific authority on climate change; the book detracts from it's central thesis on a book about critical thinking and becomes a book that attempts to lead the readers astray and mislead it's readers. After all, the book is to teach critical thinking skills, not teach the reader what to think about a particular issue.

Great book for gag gift

Book uses scenarios that make subjective, biased assumptions so I don't see how that's going to help anyone learn to develop any critical thinking.

Great product, exactly as described, packed well shipped lightening fast and arrived safely; Thank you!!!

A wonderful gift for so many QANON and conspiracy followers. An understanding of what critical thinking actually entails and how it can be utilised would benefit so many in this day and age. Thanks for the work.

Really amazing book and and tells why the people think in the same direction. How would you be able to think differently.

Un libro con ideas interesantes y momentos que realmente invitan a la reflexión, especialmente en lo relativo al desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. Sin embargo, la lectura se hace excesivamente larga y, en muchos momentos, demasiado reiterativa. Da la sensación de que el mismo mensaje podría haberse transmitido de forma mucho más clara y efectiva con menos páginas y una estructura más depurada. Tanto el esquema general del libro como la manera en que se desarrollan algunos capítulos terminan resultando algo confusos. Aun así, contiene reflexiones valiosas y planteamientos estimulantes, aunque el formato y la ejecución no terminan de estar a la altura del potencial del contenido