{"product_id":"being-logical-isbn-9780812971156","title":"Being Logical","description":"\u003cb\u003eAn essential tool for our post-truth world: a witty primer on logic—and the dangers of illogical thinking—by a renowned Notre Dame professor\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Logic is synonymous with reason, judgment, sense, wisdom, and sanity. Being\u003ci\u003e \u003c\/i\u003elogical is the ability to create concise and reasoned arguments—arguments that build from given premises, using evidence, to a genuine conclusion. But mastering logical thinking also requires studying and understanding illogical thinking, both to sharpen one’s own skills and to protect against incoherent, or deliberately misleading, reasoning.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Elegant, pithy, and precise, \u003ci\u003eBeing Logical\u003c\/i\u003e breaks logic down to its essentials through clear analysis, accessible examples, and focused insights. D. Q. McInerney covers the sources of illogical thinking, from naïve optimism to narrow-mindedness, before dissecting the various tactics—red herrings, diversions, and simplistic reasoning—the illogical use in place of effective reasoning.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e An indispensable guide to using logic to advantage in everyday life, this is a concise, crisply readable book. Written explicitly for the layperson, McInerny’s \u003ci\u003eBeing Logical\u003c\/i\u003e promises to take its place beside Strunk and White’s \u003ci\u003eThe Elements of Style\u003c\/i\u003e as a classic of lucid, invaluable advice.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003ePraise for \u003ci\u003eBeing Logical\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e “Highly readable . . . D. Q. McInerny offers an introduction to symbolic logic in plain English, so you can finally be clear on what is deductive reasoning and what is inductive. And you’ll see how deductive arguments are constructed.”\u003cb\u003e—\u003ci\u003eDetroit Free Press\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e “McInerny’s explanatory outline of sound thinking will be eminently beneficial to expository writers, debaters, and public speakers.”\u003cb\u003e—\u003ci\u003eBooklist\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e “Given the shortage of logical thinking,\u003cbr\u003e And the fact that mankind is adrift, if not sinking,\u003cbr\u003e It is vital that all of us learn to think straight.\u003cbr\u003e And this small book by D.Q. McInerny is great.\u003cbr\u003e It follows therefore since we so badly need it,\u003cbr\u003e Everybody should not only but it, but read it.”\u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e—Charles Osgood\u003c\/b\u003e“Highly readable . . . D. Q. McInerny offers an introduction to symbolic logic in plain English, so you can finally be clear on what is deductive reasoning and what is inductive. And you’ll see how deductive arguments are constructed.”\u003cb\u003e—\u003ci\u003eDetroit Free Press\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e  \u003cbr\u003e “McInerny’s explanatory outline of sound thinking will be eminently beneficial to expository writers, debaters, and public speakers.”\u003cb\u003e—\u003ci\u003eBooklist\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003e \u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e “Given the shortage of logical thinking,\u003cbr\u003e And the fact that mankind is adrift, if not sinking,\u003cbr\u003e It is vital that all of us learn to think straight.\u003cbr\u003e And this small book by D.Q. McInerny is great.\u003cbr\u003e It follows therefore since we so badly need it,\u003cbr\u003e Everybody should not only but it, but read it.”\u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003e—Charles Osgood\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cb\u003eD. Q. McInerny\u003c\/b\u003e has taught logic to college students for decades at Notre Dame, the University of Kentucky, and Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Lincoln, Nebraska. A scholar of Thomas Merton and the recipient of two PhDs, Professor McInerny lives in Lincoln, Nebraska.part one\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003ePreparing the Mind for Logic\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eBeing logical presupposes our having a sensitivity to language and a  knack for its effective use, for logic and language are inseparable. It  also presupposes our having a healthy respect for the firm factualness  of the world in which we live, for logic is about reality. Finally,  being logical presupposes a lively awareness of how the facts that are  our ideas relate to the facts that are the objects in the world, for  logic is about truth. In this first part of the book I will discuss  those attitudes, points of view, and practical procedures whose  adoption prepares the mind for a successful engagement with logic.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e1. Be Attentive\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eMany mistakes in reasoning are explained by the fact that we are not  paying sufficient attention to the situation in which we find  ourselves. This is especially true in familiar situations. That very  familiarity causes us to make careless judgments about facts right  before our eyes. We misread a situation because we are skimming it,  when what we should be doing is perusing it. Often, we assume that a  familiar situation will be but a repeat performance of a similar  situation we’ve experienced before. But, in the strictest sense, there  are no repeat performances. Every situation is unique, and we must be  alert to its uniqueness.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe phrase “to pay attention” is telling. It reminds us that attention  costs something. Attention demands an active, energetic response to  every situation, to the persons, places, and things that make up the  situation. It is impossible to be truly attentive and passive at the  same time. Don’t just look, see. Don’t just hear, listen. Train  yourself to focus on details. The little things are not to be ignored,  for it is just the little things that lead us to the big things.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e2. Get the Facts Straight\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eA fact is something made or done. It has clear objective status. It is  something we respond to as having an independent status all its own. It  is naggingly persistent, demands recognition, and can be nasty if  ignored.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThere are two basic types of objective facts, things and events. A  “thing” is an actually existing entity, animal, vegetable, or mineral.  The White House is an example of the first type of fact, and the  assassination of Abraham Lincoln of the second. The first type is more  basic than the second because events are made up of things or of the  actions of things. A state dinner is to be held at the White House.  Such an event could not take place were it not for the existence, first  and foremost, of the fact that is the White House, and countless other  facts as well. In order to establish the factualness of an event, any  number of concrete things need to be appealed to.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eTo determine the reality of a fact that is a thing, all you need do is  pay it a visit. If it actually exists it must be somewhere, and,  assuming its place to be accessible to you,\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eyou can verify its factualness by direct observation. Take the case of  the White House. To ascertain its being a fact, rather than purely  imaginary, you can travel to Washington, D.C., and there see the White  House with your own eyes. That is the most direct and reliable way to  establish its factualness. But you could also rely on indirect  evidence: For example, by taking the word of a trustworthy eyewitness  that the White House is indeed in Washington, D.C. Or you could decide  that photographic evidence is sufficient to establish factualness.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eBut what about an event like Lincoln’s assassination? We say that is a  fact. What is the justification for that claim? It is an event that is  over and done with, and there are no living witnesses to the event whom  we might consult. Obviously, we did not ourselves witness the event, so  direct evidence is out of the question. In this case our approach will  be to acquaint ourselves with a variety of things that serve as  indirect evidence of the event. For example, we would consult official  documents (police reports, the death certificate, etc.), newspaper  accounts, photographs, memoirs, diaries, and items in the Congressional  Record, all of which are facts in their own right and whose only  reasonable explanation is the factualness of Lincoln’s assassination.  On the basis of the factualness of these things, we establish the  factualness of the event. And we thus establish a historical fact.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFacts can also be thought of as objective or subjective. Both things  and events are objective facts. They exist in the public domain and are  in principle accessible to all. A subjective fact is one that is  limited to the subject experiencing it. A headache would be an example  of a subjective fact. If I am the one experiencing the headache, then I  have direct evidence of its factualness. But if it is you experiencing  the headache, I can establish its factualness only indirectly. I must  take your word that you have a headache. Establishing the reality of  subjective facts depends entirely on the trustworthiness of those who  claim to be experiencing them.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eTo sum up how we get the facts straight: If a given fact is an actually  existing thing to which we have access, then the surest way to  establish its factualness is to put ourselves in its presence. We then  have direct evidence of it. If we cannot establish factualness by  direct evidence, we must rigorously test the authenticity and  reliability of whatever indirect evidence we rely upon so that, on the  basis of that evidence, we can confidently establish the factualness of  the thing.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThere are only a very limited number of significant public events which  we can experience directly. This means that, in almost every case, we  must rely on indirect evidence. In establishing the factualness of  events by indirect evidence, we must exercise the same kind of care we  do in establishing the factualness of “things” by indirect evidence. It  all comes down to the authenticity and reliability of our sources.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eA subjective fact, to the subject experiencing it, is self-evident  under normal circumstance. However, through such mechanisms as  self-delusion or rationalization, a person could fail to get straight a  fact even about himself.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eBecause the establishment of the factualness of a subjective fact  pertaining to another person depends entirely on the trustworthiness of  that person, you must first, insofar as it is possible, establish the  trustworthiness of the person in question.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e3. Ideas and the Objects of Ideas\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eEvery idea in the mind is ultimately traceable to a thing, or things,  actually existing in a world that is independent of and apart from the  mind. An idea is the subjective evocation of an objective fact. Clear  ideas, then, are ideas that faithfully reflect the objective order from  which they derive. Unclear ideas, conversely, are those that give us a  distorted representation of the objective world.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThough the control we have over our ideas is not absolute, it is real.  This means that we are not helpless in the face of unclear ideas. To  ensure that our ideas are clear, we must vigilantly attend to the  relationship between any given idea and its object. If it is a strained  relationship, if the connection between the idea and its object is  tenuous, then we are dealing with an unclear idea.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIt is wrong to suppose that because we know things in the world only  through our ideas, it is only our ideas which we really know. Our ideas  are the means, not the ends, of our knowledge. They link us to the  world. If they are clear ideas, the links are strong. The most  efficient way to clarify our ideas is to look through them to the  objects they represent.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e4. Be Mindful of the Origins of Ideas\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWe all tend to favor our own ideas, which is natural enough. They are,  after all, in a sense our very own babies, the conceptions of our  minds. But conception is possible in the thinking subject only because  of the subject’s encounter with the world. Our ideas owe their  existence, ultimately, to things outside and independent of the mind,  to which they refer: objective facts.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eOur ideas are clear, and our understanding of them is clear, only to  the extent that we keep constant tabs on the things to which they  refer. The focus must always be on the originating sources of our ideas  in the objective world. We do not really understand our own ideas if we  suppose them to be self-generating, that is, not owing their existence  to extramental realities.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe more we focus on our ideas in a way that systematically ignores  their objective origins, the more unreliable those ideas become. The  healthy bonds that bind together the subjective and objective orders  are put under great strain, and if we push the process too far, the  bonds may break. Then we have effectively divorced ourselves from the  objective world. Instead of seeing the world as it is, we see a  projected world, one that is not presented to our minds but which is  the product of our minds.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhen we speak of “establishing a fact,” we do not refer to establishing  the existence of an idea in the mind. The idea in the mind, as we have  seen, is a subjective fact, but the kind of fact we are concerned with  establishing is an objective fact. To do so, we must look beyond our  ideas to their sources in the objective world. I establish a fact if I  successfully ascertain that there is, for a particular idea I have in  mind, a corresponding reality external to my mind. For instance, I have  a particular idea in my mind, which I label “cat.” Corresponding to  that idea are actually existing things in the extramental world called  “cats.” But I could have another idea in my mind, which I label  “centaur” but for which no corresponding fact can be found in the  extramental world. For all that, the idea of “centaur” is a subjective  fact, since it really exists as an idea in my mind.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e5. Match Ideas to Facts\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThere are three basic components to human knowledge: first, an  objective fact (e.g., a cat); second, the idea of a cat; third, the  word we apply to the idea, allowing us to communicate it to others  (e.g., in English, “cat”). It all starts with the cat. If there were no  real cats, there would be no idea about them, and there would be no  word for the idea. I have been stressing the general point that ideas  (subjective realities) are clear or sound to the extent that they  reflect objective realities. And we have said that all ideas have their  ultimate source in the objective world. Now we must look more closely  at how ideas relate to the objective world, for the relation is not  always simple. Next, we must address the question: How are bad ideas  possible?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eSometimes there is a direct correlation between an idea and an  objective fact. Example: the idea of cat. We will call this a “simple”  idea. Corresponding to my idea of cat is a single, particular sort of  entity in the extramental world—that furry, purring creature which in  English we name a cat. In dealing with simple ideas it is relatively  easy to test their reliability, because we need only refer to one  thing. My idea of cat is clear and sound if it refers to an actual cat.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWe will call “complex” ideas those for which there is no simple  one-to-one correspondence between idea and thing. Here the  correspondence is one to many. There is more than a single originating  source for this kind of idea in the objective world. Let’s take the  idea of democracy. Is it a clear or a sound one? It is, at least  potentially. It is a clear or sound idea to the extent that we are able  to relate it to the objective world. But there are many things in the  objective world that go together to compose the rich meaning of the  idea of democracy: persons, events, constitutions, legislative acts,  past institutions, present institutions. If my idea of democracy is  going to be communicable to others, it must refer to what is common to  me and to others, those many things in the objective world that are its  originating source. To prevent my idea from being a product of pure  subjectivism, in which case it could not be communicated to others, I  must continuously touch base with those many facts in the objective  world from which the idea was born.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eHow are we to explain bad (that is, unclear or unsound) ideas? An idea  is unclear or unsound to the degree that it is distanced from and  unmindful of its originating source in the objective world. No idea,  even the most bizarre, can completely sever its ties with the objective  world, but ideas can become so remote from that world that their  relation to it is difficult, if not impossible, to see. Bad ideas can  be informative, not about the objective world—for they have ceased  faithfully to reflect that world—but about the subjective state of the  persons who nourish those ideas. Bad ideas do not just happen. We are  responsible for them. They result from carelessness on our part, when  we cease to pay sufficient attention to the relational quality of  ideas, or, worse, are a product of the willful rejection of objective  facts.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e6. Match Words to Ideas\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAs we have seen, first comes the thing, then the idea, then the word.  If our ideas are sound to the extent that they faithfully represent the  thing, they will be clearly communicable only if we clothe them in  words that accurately signify them. Ideas as such are not communicable  from one mind to another. They have to be carefully fitted to words, so  that the words might communicate them faithfully. Putting the right  word to an idea is not an automatic process, and sometimes it can be  quite challenging. We have all had the experience of knowing what we  want to say but not being able to come up with the words for it.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eHow do we ensure that our words are adequate to the ideas they seek to  convey? The process is essentially the same as the one we follow when  confirming the clarity and soundness of our ideas: We must go back to  the sources of the ideas. Often we cannot come up with the right word  for an idea because we don’t have a firm grasp on the idea itself.  Usually, when we clarify the idea by checking it against its source in  the objective world, the right word will come to us.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eSometimes there is a perfect match between word and idea, which would  mean a perfect match between word and thing, for if the idea is clear  it faithfully represents the thing, and if the word accurately  expresses the idea, it would at the same time faithfully identify the  thing. This commonly happens with simple ideas. If I say, “The monument  is granite,” and the monument to which I refer is in fact granite, then  in “granite” I have the perfect match for the idea and the thing it  represents.[quote] --Charles Osgood","brand":"Random House Trade Paperbacks","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":46301115842789,"sku":"NP9780812971156","price":17.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":false}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/1842\/7735\/files\/9780812971156.jpg?v=1767722398","url":"https:\/\/k12savings.com\/products\/being-logical-isbn-9780812971156","provider":"K12savings","version":"1.0","type":"link"}