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

• 

  Albany Reader said,

  This book is a mess. In describing the logical fallacies of brief quotes, Baggini frequently perpetuates some of the same fallacies he has criticized elsewhere in the book. In fact, perhaps the most valuable aspect of this book is in analyzing why many of Baggini’s arguments and examples are fallacious by referencing fallacies he has described in other chapters of his book. To be charitable, perhaps the key flaw is the structure Baggini has chosen to follow for his book. He prefaces each chapter with a brief quote from some current event or news story. He follows this with a brief (2 to 3 page) discussion of how this quote is an illustration of a particular type of fallacious reasoning. Then he includes a paragraph posing questions for us to consider that often involve the specific fallacy he has just discussed. Finally, he lists (without discussion) four other chapters of the book that may involve related fallacies. The problem is that, in this world of spin doctors, politicians, vested interests, false authorities, and lazy, ill-informed journalism, it is probably impossible to briefly discuss hugely complicated issues without resorting to some of the same fallacious reasoning that these entities employ. For example, in discussing problems with “arguments from authority” (chapter 31) he uses a somewhat esoteric theological question (whether the existence of evil in the world can be used as a supportive argument for atheism) as his primary illustration. He then uses the arguably more immediately relevant issue of “Global warming” as the question for our further consideration of the issue. He asks us to consider how the average non-scientist, lacking the time and expertise to deeply study it, can make sense of the issue, “when there is such a conflict between the mass of expert opinion.” This is a classic example of “begging the question,” as it forces an upfront acceptance of the premise that there is substantial conflicting opinion among “experts” on this issue. However, if you refer to the referenced chapter on “false authorities” to help you make sense of this problem, you will find that this chapter uses a celebrity, clearly non-expert “authority” in its discussion. As a follow-up, you are invited to consider how few true experts are presented in media discussions of an issue. But you will look in vain for a chapter that will help you identify “pseudo authorities.” The book is replete with such problems. Don’t waste your money. If you want some exercise in detecting fallacious reasoning and spin, borrow the book from the library and have some fun detecting all the sins of logic and rhetoric that Baggini commits in purporting to clarify for you how to detect such sins. Rating: 1 / 5

• 

  A. Omur said,

  The author describes 100 (bad) arguments people use to prove their points. While it is interesting to read some of them, it felt like the interesting discussions were forced to be short due to the structure of the book, 2-3 pages per topic (bad argument). And some of the topics are not even worth to be included but to reach to 100 is not easy, I guess. Overall, I found it to be an okay book.. Rating: 3 / 5

• 

  Charlie said,

  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 Rating: 4 / 5

• 

  Oliver said,

  Julian Baggiani is a well-known British philosopher. But he is not the kind of philosopher who sits in an ivory tower and writes incomprehensible treatises that only another philosopher could love. Quite to the contrary, he seems to specialize in writing in plain English, and commenting on matters of general interest. He often comments on current events for The Guardian and the BBC, among others.

  Baggini’s last book, The Pig Who Wants To Be Eaten, presented 100 logical and moral puzzles. For example, a doctor is not allowed to end a patient life, yet if the janitor accidentally pulls the plug, the doctor is not required to put that plug back in. What is the difference?

  In this book, Baggiani presents 100 examples of common ways in which people argue badly. For example, the first chapter is called I Just Don’t Believe It, and discusses the argument from incredulity. For example, some people argue that, “Because I cannot imagine how we evolved from monkeys, it cannot possibly have happened.” Baggini points out the fallacy of that sort of argument. That fact that you cannot imagine something is does not mean it is not true. Each chapter is very short, just a few pages. Baggini focuses on the form of the arguments, not the merits. In my example, he does not concern himself with whether evolution is true, but rather the kind of argument under discussion makes sense.

  In writing this, I feel I have made the book sound more difficult than it is. Fortunately, Baggini is a far better writer than I, and he has a talent for making what might otherwise be difficult concepts easier to understand.

  Moreover, the format of the book makes it easy and enjoyable to read. You can read one chapter, then put the book down for a week without losing anything. You could just leave the book in the bathroom, in place of the old magazines, and read it over a period of weeks, but I liked it too much to let it sit around that long.

  Try this book. I think you’ll like it. Rating: 5 / 5

• 

  John Williamson said,

  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, and still appear in their Dispatches section in his columns entitled “Bad Moves”, where the author wrote columns on bad argumentative moves, noting that it was “an essential resource for detecting woolly arguments in all their guises.”

  If you find books like this stimulating, then you might also wish to look into some of his other works:

  * What’s It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life
  
  * The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten
  
  * Welcome to Everytown: A Journey into the English Mind
  
  * Making Sense: Philosophy behind the Headlines

  Skepticism abounds here in ‘The Duck That Won the Lottery’, and affable criticism is dished out, mainly to journalists and others in the media, along with bloggers and ‘Net mavens. Dr. Baggini offers us the chance to come across the trick of the spin doctors under controlled conditions, so that we might better recognize them in their natural environments, including in the politicians’ speeches that abound today.

  It’s a worthwhile read, and remember, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s possible that it could be a decoy… or it just might be a duck. Rating: 5 / 5

Add A Comment