Yup, a whole decade of the Dewey Decimal System is dedicated to the study of logic. You know, as in:
This book is in the 160s.
Books in the 160s are about logic.
Therefore, this book must be about logic.
I took Logic in college to avoid-- I mean fulfill-- my math requirement, so I kind of feel like I've been here, done this, and don't need to do it again. I still remember some of the fallacies-- that counterintuitive list of arguments that don't really prove anything. For example, it turns out that when you say, "Consider the source," you may be committing the ad hominem fallacy, because even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But, to be a good sport, I did choose a library book from the 160s... well, okay, the only book in the 160s, in my little neighborhood library: The Power of Logical Thinking by Marilyn vos Savant. She provides a summary of some of its contents here, so I won't do the same.
Instead, I will now explain why I didn't finish the book. First of all, anything written by vos Savant is only about 50% about what it's about; the other 50% is about how readers disagreed with what was said, and how vos Savant turned out to be right anyway. Boring! Second, by the time I had worked through her version of the famous Monty Hall problem, the section on which is reproduced here pretty much exactly as it appeared in the book, pages of quarrelsome letters and all, I felt like I might as well be working (I tutor, ironically enough, math, including basic probability). Third, can we talk about the casual sexism in a number of the printed letters, and vos Savant's equally casual acceptance of same? "Female logic" "Oh hush"? This kind of exchange just started to creep me out. Although that might be an ad hominem attack...
No comments:
Post a Comment