Bad Thoughts: A guide to
clear thinking
Jamie Whyte
Corvo Books Ltd, London,
2003, ISBN 0-9543255-3-2
This is a concise
fun book on the subject of rhetoric at a student friendly price of £8.99. The non-threatening cover, depicting a
roughly sketched brain with background graffiti, masks what is really a very
serious book on a serious subject. The
book is written in a style which introduces the reader into the art and science
of argumentation in a relaxed and painless way.
The importance of
clear thinking and well reasoned arguments cannot be underestimated in our
society today. In particular, for
scientists, being able to express oneself clearly to different groups is an
essential skill in order to be able to recognize bad arguments both in oneself
and in others.
Apart from a lack of
an index – a regrettable omission – there are occasional lapses where the
author falls into the very traps he is warning us against. He inveighs against the UK government’s
“reckless education policies” (p14), and further attacks the Prime Minister’s
position on fox –hunting (p88) and Iraq (p90).
These are clearly matters the author feels strongly about, but no
reasons are given for these statements.
If we take the “Authority Fallacy” (p13) as something to be wary of:
i.e. when people who are not expert in a particular field state their opinions
as facts, then the author is certainly guilty of this – perhaps “Author
Fallacy” is a better term. Another
lapse is the use of the term “widely accepted” (p121); such authoritative terms
are pinpointed as specious (p16). On
the other hand in any debate, diversity of viewpoint is an asset. One does not want to be led to the
conclusion that no opinions are useful – if arguments from authority are never
allowed, then what is left, no matter how well reasoned, might be rather arid.
The chapter on
prejudicial arguments handles a rather subtle topic in an engaging way. One lapse here though is an equivocation on
the word “exceptional” in an example quoted by the author (p36). Apart from its common meaning of “extremely
special”, in accountancy and finance, with respect to company accounts, it has
a very specific technical meaning, which just refers to certain types of loss,
that satisfy a well-defined set of rules.
The author’s criticism of the use of the term “exceptional loss” by a
Company confused the two meanings. The
loss may well have been exceptional (extremely special) but it certainly was
exceptional (as defined by accountancy rules).
The critique on
homeopathy (p92) is spoilt by a miscalculation. In a footnote, the author explains that in a 20X dilution, you
would need tons of medicine to get even one molecule of active ingredient. This would be true in a 30X dilution, but in
a 20X dilution you would in fact get hundreds of molecules in a single pill.
On the scientific
front the discussion on the speed of light is a bit wayward. The author maintains that: “Light travels
either faster, slower or at the same speed as sound” (p31). One has to be careful when talking about the
speed of light to ensure that you are talking about the speed of light in
vacuo. Light travelling through a
medium- glass or water for instance - can travel much slower than the speed of
light in vacuo. In particular,
light can sometimes travel slower than the local speed of sound. In these cases, scientists observe Cerenkov
radiation – a kind of shock phenomenon a bit like the sonic boom of an aircraft
travelling faster than sound.
Apart from a lack of
index, which I think is quite a serious shortcoming, the lapses described are
quite minor and should not detract from the book. All students, particularly science students, should have a course
on writing skills, and this book would provide an excellent text on
argumentation skills.
Nigel Sanitt