Hacker News Reader

Comment by bananamerica | Hacker News Reader

I find it more productive to study logic instead. I have a hard time seeing the difference between logic and critical thinking. If you think I'm wrong, just take a look at a bunch of kinds of logic[1] and tell me if critical thinking is not subsumed into at least one of them.

I put my money on inductive logic[2].

For beginners, I recommend the wonderful Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments[3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_logic

[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/

[3] https://bookofbadarguments.com/

View on HN

'Logic' as a topic generally centers around processes of formal reasoning whereas critical thinking usually also discusses human cognitive biases which is not something usually covered in discussions of formal reasoning. This is important because nobody engages is formal logic all (or even most) of the time. That would be very inefficient and probably impossible. Developing the habit (which is what discussions of critical thinking often center around) of thinking critically, rather than simply understanding the process of formal reasoning is essential.

This probably depends on what people are looking for. I agree with you that developing the habit of thinking critically is important (this is ostensibly the goal a liberal arts education and was once highly valued). However, I think many on seeing the title "Books on Critical Thinking" will expect resources for learning about and improving formal reasoning. For this, there's no substitute for the study of mathematical logic and math more generally.

> there's no substitute for the study of mathematical logic and math more generally

I disagree with that account. I realize I'm on hacker news, but I must say that philosophical logic is extremely valuable in itself, and can be successfully studied without any concern for mathematics.

I actually know a bunch of brilliant mathematicians, and their reasoning skills on informal reasoning are totally average.

I think part of that is covered in Rhetoric. A good book for Rhetoric, is "Modern Rhetoric" by Robert Penn Warren and Cleanth Brookes.

Absolutely. The study of rhetoric greatly enhances our ability to identify and evaluate persuasive language. In order words, it gives us a more accurate bullshit sensor.

When I say people should study logic, I don't mean necessarily its formal presentation. If you're not a mathematician, a philosopher or a computer scientist, informal logic is more than enough (and a bit of rhetoric certainly won't hurt). Besides, you can understand a lot even if you skip the formal bits, and there are good non-formal texts on many logic topics. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1] is definitely more approachable than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[2] in that regard.

I'd also like to point out that the book[3] I recommended for beginners in the comment above is entirely informal.

[1] https://www.iep.utm.edu/

[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/

[3] https://bookofbadarguments.com/

"When I say people should study logic, I don't mean necessarily its formal presentation."

If that's the case, you probably shouldn't have linked to that Wikipedia article because it's mostly about formal logic systems. Regardless, I'd usually classify studying informal fallacies more under critical thinking than logic strictly speaking. There's an entirely different set of formal logical fallacies that apply to formal logic.

I did link to a book on informal fallacies. And I do not agree with your classification. It's narrow and doesn't reflect the history of the field. Logic is a tool for mathematicians, philosophers, and computer scientists. Like any versatile tool, it can be adapted for different — but related — tasks.

On the topic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/

I agree with your call to study logic. There is something systematically empirical about logic & epistemological philosophy[1]. Over the years,I have read a bunch of critical thinking books and have found myself wanting something at a lower level of abstraction. A recommendation based on recent reading would be "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"[2]

[1]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enquiry_Concerning_Human_Un...

Did you find Hume's writing approachable? I'm skeptic by nature and always wanted to read him, but nowadays I tend to read articles instead of diving into 18th-century books...

Although I had similar apprehensions before I started reading Hume, I have found his writing approachable. For "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding", I found this edition with explanations of certain words/phrases by Jonathan Bennett very useful: https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/hume1748.pdf

Thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com