Logical Reasoning

Reviewed by Matt Carlson, Assistant Professor, Wabash College on 8/6/19

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This book takes a "kitchen sink" approach to the material that might be taught in a standard critical thinking course. There is far more material here than could be taught in one semester. The good news, though, is that the chapters are, for the most part, independent of one another, so the book could be used in a relatively modular way.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

Generally good, but I found the use of 'logic' and its cognates to be a little confusing at times. If anything, this book is really about applied epistemology more than logic. That by itself isn't a criticism; it should just be called what it is. But this does introduce some problems in the sections more specifically about logic. The definition of deductive validity and implication, for example, are given in terms of certainty. The author warns against interpreting 'certainty' psychologically, but gives no clue as how to how it might be meant in a logical sense. It follows from this definition that it is possible to have P,Q such that Q "follows from P with certainty" but Q is not certain. I know what is meant by this because I already have background in logic, but I think students will be confused.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

A bit of a mixed bag here. I really liked the added section on "Fake News and Misinformation". I haven't seen that in a critical thinking book before, and I thought it was a valuable addition that was clearly informed by current research. I would have appreciated more guidance as to how to judge whether a source is reliable. Of course this is a hard problem (see Goldman's classic "Experts" paper), but the book just gave us a short list of reliable sources. Surely critical thinkers will ask: "But why are *those* sources reliable?"

Clarity rating: 3

The book is generally readable. But it introduces many, many distinctions and new pieces of terminology. Almost all of them are briefly explained when they are introduced, but the sheer number of terms and distinctions is difficult to keep track of. I found this to be a problem in the exercises in particular. Many of the exercises require students to employ the fine distinctions given in the text, but they haven't really been given much guidance (typically, just one example per term is given) as to how to apply those distinctions. As these are a little idiosyncratic in places, I admit that I sometimes had a hard time discerning what the intended "right answer" was supposed to be.

Consistency rating: 4

The book is generally consistent, or at least as consistent as it can be given the "kitchen-sink" approach to content that it employs.

Modularity rating: 5

See above remarks. One virtue of this text is its modularity.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Generally good, though I found it a little strange that topics in logic (e.g. deductive validity) were briefly introduced early on, and then discussed in much more detail only in later chapters.

Interface rating: 5

Generally good.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Generally good.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I appreciated the wide variety of examples given.

Comments

As I said above, I think 'logical' in the title, "Logical Reasoning" is a misnomer. This is, for the most part, a book in applied epistemology and philosophy of science. And I think it generally does well in those areas. If one wants a book in logic, there are better open access choices; specifically works in the Open Logic Project, which I cannot recommend highly enough.

On an unrelated note, I found the sections on inductive reasoning somewhat confusing. I'm not sure how helpful it is to discuss inductive/statistical reasoning without requiring the student to do any mathematics. I suppose it is helpful for the student to be aware of pitfalls in statistical reasoning---and the book is helpful here---but students reading this book would have a hard time applying what that they learned about e.g. statistical significance to new cases, I think.