I want to buy book that covers all the logical fallacies in detail in hardcover preferably, does anyone have a book like this?
no sorry
>>23322597>Logical fallacy is when something I dont likeYou have to understand logic first. Fallacies are just inconsistencies. Its like saying list every wrong answer to a math question.You dont even understand the nature of an inconsistency or logic itself, or nature.
>>23322597On Sophistical Refutations by AristotleStraight and Crooked Thinking
>>23322608Strunk & White is bullshit. Paradise Lost violates every rule in that book
>>23322597When I was a kid, I thought Lex Luthor was a black dude. It surprised to find me that he wasn't supposed to be African American.
There was a time when OP would be a troll and he would have masterfully gotten a large number of anons to spend hours arguing about a tiny little semantic detail and when it was over they would have congratulated OP. I miss old/lit/.>but it is a troll!Even worse, just come off like a moron either way.
>>23322597I own it too, but on kindle
>>23322597There is no such thing as logical fallacies so there can't be such a bookMost "logical fallacies" are a way to evade a perfectly consistent argument You can take a piece of hardbound paper and write "I don't like X proposition, give me more of what I consider to be evidence" And you'd have all "fallacies" in one
>>23322597Knowledge, Reality, and Value - Mike HuemerAn outstanding introduction to philosophical thinking that outlines statistical fallacies and how some informal fallacies are acceptable inductive inferences (e.g., for most of our beliefs, appealing to popularity is an acceptable inductive shortcut).
>>23322597How many of the logical fallacies are actually just methods of rhetoric?
why buy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies
