The Duck That Won the Lottery: 100 New Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher

About: Baggini describes and provides examples of 100 logical fallacies such as "quantity doesn't equal quality", "forced choice" and "begging the question." Pros: Thought provoking. Made me think of how many of these fallacies I use. It's cool learning about fallacies I used to think were good arguments. 100 2-4 page chapters leads to quick reading. Sources cited. Cons: 100 fallacies can seem overwhelming, I almost felt that there's no such thing as a valid argument. Hard to keep them all straight. Grade: B

I like Julian Baggini's writing style. If you're unfamiliar with his works, he's possibly Britain's best-loved contemporary philosopher, and his work encompasses a wide range of interests and styles. He was awarded a PhD from University College London for his thesis on the philosophy of personal identity in 1996, then went on to found 'The Philosophers' Magazine' with Jeremy Stangroom, supporting himself with a portfolio of jobs that included teaching and, increasingly, journalism and writing. His writing bore fruit in 2002, when five books he wrote, co-wrote or co-edited were published. In his newest offering The Duck That Won the Lottery, he presents us with a series of brief, thought-provoking and usually entertaining philosophical ideas to ponder. This is said to be the companion piece to his 2006 offering The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, an excellent book that I reviewed earlier. This one is a sequel that continues his exploration of philosophical problems through interesting sketches and thought experiments. His focus this time is on the 'bad arguments' that people use all the time, in the media, on the 'Net, in politics, and in everyday life. There are a hundred of them, and each entry takes an example of questionable logic as its origin, from which the author examines the argument, then invites the reader to do the same with other examples, and he manages to do it with his characteristic precision and sense of humor. The title alludes to 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' misleading notion that if you touched a lucky paper duck in a Chinese restaurant, then won the lottery, it was therefore the duck made you win. The 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' term is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", and is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." And this analogy reminds this reader of a particular and familiar quotation: "Even the skeptical mind must be prepared to accept the unacceptable when there is no alternative. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands." ~ Douglas Adams, in 'Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency' But isn't also possible to suppose that the duck was just a decoy? Read this book, explore the examples, and become skilled at spotting 'un-flagrant contradictions', 'gambler's fallacies' and 'false dichotomies'. You'll be able to recognize media people (and spin doctors) carrying out the 'fallacy of the complex question' and 'implicit redefinitions of words.' You'll catch your associates 'loading the dice', and add 'slippery slopes', 'straw men' and 'post hoc fallacies' to your rhetorical arsenal. Baggini's chapters may be familiar ground to some of his regular readers, especially in the UK. Many of them are based on ideas that the author wrote on the 'Butterflies and Wheels' Website,