What do you think?
Rate this book
丨噩噩 賮丕爻丿丞 鬲噩毓賱賳丕 賳亘丿賵 兀睾亘賷丕亍
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賷爻 賲賯氐賵丿丕 亘賴 丕賱廿爻鬲乇禺丕亍 賵丕賱丕爻鬲賲鬲丕毓貙 亘賱 丕賱丕爻鬲賮夭丕夭 賵丕賱鬲丨丿賷 賵丕賱丕爻鬲毓丿丕丿 賱賲乇丕噩毓丞賲丕 鬲爻賲毓賴 賵鬲賯乇亍賴. 賷賲爻賰 噩賵賱賷丕賳 亘丕噩賷賳賷 亘鬲賱丕亘賷亘 賲丕卅丞 丨噩丞 賮丕爻丿丞 賷爻鬲禺丿賲賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 毓賱賷賳丕 賮賷 賰賱 丕賱賲噩丕賱丕鬲貙 賵賳氐丿賯賴丕 賮賷 兀丨賷丕賳 賰孬賷乇丞貙 賱賰賳 亘丕噩賷賳賷 賷賯乇毓 噩乇爻 丕賱廿賳匕丕乇 賱賱廿賳亘丕賴 賱賴丕 賵乇賮囟賴丕 賵鬲賲賷賷夭 睾孬賴丕 丨鬲賶 賱丕 賳亘丿賵 兀睾亘賷丕亍 毓賳丿賲丕 賳氐丿賯賴丕 賵賳鬲毓丕賲賱 賲毓賴丕 賰丨賯丕卅賯. 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丿毓賵 丕賱賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 孬賲 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 貙 賵賱丕 賷丿毓 丕賱賯丕乇賶亍 賷賴賳兀 亘丕賱廿爻鬲賰丕賳丞 丕賱賷 丕賱丨噩噩 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賯丿賲 賱賴 賷賵賲賷丕 賮賷 賰賱 丕賱賲噩丕賱丕鬲
333 pages, Paperback
First published November 8, 2007
124 people are currently reading
1457 people want to read
About the author
Julian Baggini
63听books574听followersJulian Baggini is a British philosopher and the author of several books about philosophy written for a general audience. He is the author of The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and 99 other thought experiments (2005) and is co-founder and editor of The Philosophers' Magazine. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 1996 from University College London for a thesis on the philosophy of personal identity. In addition to his popular philosophy books, Baggini contributes to The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, and the BBC. He has been a regular guest on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
October 24, 2016
鈥�(噩賵賱賷丕賳 亘丕噩賷賳賷) 賮賷賱爻賵賮賹 丕賳噩賱賷夭賷貙 賵賷亘丿賵 賰丕鬲亘賸丕 亘丕乇毓賸丕貙 賷賳賯賱 丕賱賮賰乇 廿賱賶 丕賱賳丕爻 亘亘爻胤賴 鈥徺堌娯迟娯辟�. 賵賯丿 亘丿兀鬲 丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 賰鬲亘賺 兀禺乇賶 賱賴 賲卮鬲丕賯賸丕 賱賲鬲丕亘毓丞 丕賱乇丨賱丞 賲毓賴. 鈥�
賷胤乇丨 (亘丕噩賷賳賷) 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 賴匕丕 賲丕卅丞賸 賲賳 兀賯賵丕賱 丕賱賲卮丕賴賷乇 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷賷賳 賲馗賴乇賸丕 賮卮賱賴丕 賰丨噩噩賺貙 鈥徺堌囏з佖囏� 丕賱賮賰乇賷 賰丌乇丕亍 賵兀賮賰丕乇. 毓丕乇囟賸丕 賱賱賲亘丿兀 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱賲鬲毓丿賾丿丞. 賵賷賵賯毓 鈥徺囏柏� 丕賱兀爻賱賵亘 丕賱賯丕乇賷亍 亘丨賷乇丞 鈥撠Ｙ堎戀� 丕賱兀賲乇- 亘丨孬賸丕 毓賳 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賵爻胤 賰賲賾 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞. 賱賰賳賾 賯乇丕亍丞 鈥徹з嗁娯� 賱亘囟毓 兀爻胤乇 賰賮賷賱丞賹 亘賰卮賮 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷賵丿毓賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 孬賳丕賷丕 兀賲孬賱鬲賴 丕賱鬲賷 賷兀禺匕賴丕 賲賳 鈥徹з勝堌з傌� 丕賱賲毓丕卮 賱夭賲丕賳賳丕.鈥�
賷爻鬲丨賯賾 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賲鬲兀賳賷丞貙 賵丕賱鬲賱匕賾匕 亘噩賲丕賱 丕賱鬲賮賰賾乇 丕賱氐丕賮賷 廿匕 賷賳賯賷 丕賱兀賯賵丕賱 賲賳 丕賱卮賵丕卅亘 鈥徺堎冐� 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇. 睾賷乇 兀賳賾 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 賯丿 兀賮爻丿鬲賴 賵兀賮爻丿鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賯丕乇賷亍 賲鬲毓鬲賴. 賱賯丿 鈥徹池官娯� 賲賳匕 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱賶 丕賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賶 賳爻禺鬲賴 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞貙 賮賱賲賾丕 毓噩夭鬲 毓丿鬲購 鈥徺呚池迟勝呝嬝� 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲. 鈥�
賱賯丿 賯丕賲 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 亘鬲睾賷賷乇 毓賳賵丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱鬲賵囟賷丨 賮丨賵丕賴 賲賳 (丕賱亘胤丞 丕賱鬲賷 乇亘丨鬲 丕賱賷丕賳氐賷亘) 廿賱賶 鈥忊€�(丨噩噩 賮丕爻丿丞)! 賵 賱賰賳賾賴 賮卮賱 賮賷 賳賯賱 乇賵丨 賲賵丕囟賷毓 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賲丕丿鬲賴 賮賷 丕賱丿丕禺賱! 賮兀賳賴賰 賯丕乇卅賴 賮賷 鈥徹з勜ㄘ� 毓賳 丕賱賲毓丕賳賷 丕賱鬲賷 兀乇丕丿賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘. (賰賳鬲 兀丨丕賵賱 乇丿賾 亘毓囟 丕賱噩賲賱 廿賱賶 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 丕賱賲丨鬲賲賱丞貙 鈥徹池官娰嬝� 賱賮賴賲 賮賰乇丞 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲賳 賵乇丕亍 丨噩丕亘 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞!). 鈥�
賰賲丕 毓賲賱 睾賷丕亘 (毓賱丕賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲乇賯賷賲) 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱噩賲賱貙 賵丕賱禺賱胤 賮賷 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴丕 廿賱賶 賲夭賷丿賺 賲賳 鈥徹促堎娰� 丕賱賳氐 亘鬲乇噩賲鬲賴貙 賵鬲毓爻賷乇 丕賱賮賴賲 亘丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱賲賲賷夭丞 賮賷 毓乇囟 兀賮賰丕乇賴. 鈥�
禺賱丕氐丞 丕賱賯賵賱貨 賴匕丕 賰鬲丕亘賹 賯賷賾賲 噩賲賷賱 賵賲賴賲賾貙 鬲乇噩賲鬲賴 賲乇賴賯丞 爻賷卅丞貙 賱賰賳賾賴丕 賱丕 鬲賯賮 毓丕卅賯賸丕 兀賲丕賲 鈥徹з勜ж池佖ж� 賲賳賴. 賵兀賲賾丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賱賷 賲毓賴 廿賳 卮丕亍 丕賱賱賴 噩賵賱丕鬲 賯丕丿賲丞 賲丕 乇夭賯賳賷 丕賱賱賴 廿賱賶 賰鬲亘賴 爻亘賷賱賸丕.鈥�
賷胤乇丨 (亘丕噩賷賳賷) 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 賴匕丕 賲丕卅丞賸 賲賳 兀賯賵丕賱 丕賱賲卮丕賴賷乇 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷賷賳 賲馗賴乇賸丕 賮卮賱賴丕 賰丨噩噩賺貙 鈥徺堌囏з佖囏� 丕賱賮賰乇賷 賰丌乇丕亍 賵兀賮賰丕乇. 毓丕乇囟賸丕 賱賱賲亘丿兀 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱賲鬲毓丿賾丿丞. 賵賷賵賯毓 鈥徺囏柏� 丕賱兀爻賱賵亘 丕賱賯丕乇賷亍 亘丨賷乇丞 鈥撠Ｙ堎戀� 丕賱兀賲乇- 亘丨孬賸丕 毓賳 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賵爻胤 賰賲賾 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞. 賱賰賳賾 賯乇丕亍丞 鈥徹з嗁娯� 賱亘囟毓 兀爻胤乇 賰賮賷賱丞賹 亘賰卮賮 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷賵丿毓賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 孬賳丕賷丕 兀賲孬賱鬲賴 丕賱鬲賷 賷兀禺匕賴丕 賲賳 鈥徹з勝堌з傌� 丕賱賲毓丕卮 賱夭賲丕賳賳丕.鈥�
賷爻鬲丨賯賾 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賲鬲兀賳賷丞貙 賵丕賱鬲賱匕賾匕 亘噩賲丕賱 丕賱鬲賮賰賾乇 丕賱氐丕賮賷 廿匕 賷賳賯賷 丕賱兀賯賵丕賱 賲賳 丕賱卮賵丕卅亘 鈥徺堎冐� 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇. 睾賷乇 兀賳賾 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 賯丿 兀賮爻丿鬲賴 賵兀賮爻丿鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賯丕乇賷亍 賲鬲毓鬲賴. 賱賯丿 鈥徹池官娯� 賲賳匕 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱賶 丕賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賶 賳爻禺鬲賴 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞貙 賮賱賲賾丕 毓噩夭鬲 毓丿鬲購 鈥徺呚池迟勝呝嬝� 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲. 鈥�
賱賯丿 賯丕賲 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 亘鬲睾賷賷乇 毓賳賵丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱鬲賵囟賷丨 賮丨賵丕賴 賲賳 (丕賱亘胤丞 丕賱鬲賷 乇亘丨鬲 丕賱賷丕賳氐賷亘) 廿賱賶 鈥忊€�(丨噩噩 賮丕爻丿丞)! 賵 賱賰賳賾賴 賮卮賱 賮賷 賳賯賱 乇賵丨 賲賵丕囟賷毓 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賲丕丿鬲賴 賮賷 丕賱丿丕禺賱! 賮兀賳賴賰 賯丕乇卅賴 賮賷 鈥徹з勜ㄘ� 毓賳 丕賱賲毓丕賳賷 丕賱鬲賷 兀乇丕丿賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘. (賰賳鬲 兀丨丕賵賱 乇丿賾 亘毓囟 丕賱噩賲賱 廿賱賶 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 丕賱賲丨鬲賲賱丞貙 鈥徹池官娰嬝� 賱賮賴賲 賮賰乇丞 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲賳 賵乇丕亍 丨噩丕亘 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞!). 鈥�
賰賲丕 毓賲賱 睾賷丕亘 (毓賱丕賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲乇賯賷賲) 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱噩賲賱貙 賵丕賱禺賱胤 賮賷 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴丕 廿賱賶 賲夭賷丿賺 賲賳 鈥徹促堎娰� 丕賱賳氐 亘鬲乇噩賲鬲賴貙 賵鬲毓爻賷乇 丕賱賮賴賲 亘丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱賲賲賷夭丞 賮賷 毓乇囟 兀賮賰丕乇賴. 鈥�
禺賱丕氐丞 丕賱賯賵賱貨 賴匕丕 賰鬲丕亘賹 賯賷賾賲 噩賲賷賱 賵賲賴賲賾貙 鬲乇噩賲鬲賴 賲乇賴賯丞 爻賷卅丞貙 賱賰賳賾賴丕 賱丕 鬲賯賮 毓丕卅賯賸丕 兀賲丕賲 鈥徹з勜ж池佖ж� 賲賳賴. 賵兀賲賾丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賱賷 賲毓賴 廿賳 卮丕亍 丕賱賱賴 噩賵賱丕鬲 賯丕丿賲丞 賲丕 乇夭賯賳賷 丕賱賱賴 廿賱賶 賰鬲亘賴 爻亘賷賱賸丕.鈥�
August 11, 2014
爻兀亘丿兀 亘丕賱毓賳賵丕賳 丕賱侃伲 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 :
( 賰賳 卮丕賰乇丕 賱兀氐丨丕亘 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱爻賷卅賷賳...兀賮囟賱 賲賳 賱丕 卮賷亍 )
賮賴匕丕 丕賱毓賲賱 禺乇噩 賲賳 爻賱爻賱丞 丕爻賲賴丕 "丨乇賰丕鬲 爻賷卅丞" 賰鬲亘賴丕 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賱兀丨丿 丕賱賲賵丕賯毓 丕賱廿賱賰鬲乇賵賳賷丞 貙 賵賱賰賳 賴賱 賴賵 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 賱丕 卮賷亍 責
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻胤丨賷 賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱賲賱丕賱丞 貙 賷賱鬲賯胤 兀賯賵丕賱 丕賱賲卮丕賴賷乇 賱賰賷 賷丨賱賱賴丕 賲毓 兀賳 賯乇丕亍丞 賳氐賴丕 賷睾賳賷賰 毓賳 鬲丨賱賷賱賴丕 亘爻亘亘 亘丿賷賴賷鬲賴丕 丕賱賲賮乇胤丞 貙 賱賲 鬲卮丿賳賷 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘爻亘亘 鬲亘丕賷賳賴丕 賵丕禺鬲賱丕賮賴丕 賵毓丿賲 丕賳爻賷丕亘鬲賴丕 賲毓 毓賳丕賵賷賳賴丕 丕賱賮乇毓賷丞 貙 兀鬲賲賳賶 賱賵 亘賯賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓賲賱 賮賷 氐賮丨丕鬲 丕賱廿賳鬲乇賳鬲 丕賱賲胤賵賷丞 貙 賷囟丕賮 廿賱賶 匕賱賰 爻賵亍 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 氐亘鬲 丕賱夭賷鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賳丕乇 賮夭丕丿鬲 丕賱毓賲賱 爻賵亍丕.
兀賳氐丨 廿禺賵丕賳賷 丕賱賯乇丕亍 亘兀賳 賱丕 賷睾鬲乇賵丕 亘丕賱兀爻賲丕亍 丕賱兀毓噩賲賷丞 貙 賮賲孬賱賲丕 毓賳丿賳丕 胤丕賲丕鬲 賰鬲丕亘賷丞 賮賴賲 毓賳丿賴賲 兀囟毓丕賮 賲丕 毓賳丿賳丕 亘爻亘亘 鬲賮賵賯賴賲 毓賱賷賳丕 賮賷 賰賲賷丞 廿賳鬲丕噩 丕賱賲胤亘賵毓丕鬲 賲賲丕 賷毓賳賷 夭賷丕丿丞 賰賲賷丞 丕賱睾孬 賮賷 賰鬲亘賴賲 賲孬賱賲丕 賴賷 賮賷 賰鬲亘賳丕.... 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賮賯乇丞 氐丕賱丨丞 兀賷囟丕 賱廿囟丕賮鬲賴丕 廿賱賶 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲丐賱賮 ... 丨鬲賶 賱丕 賳亘丿賵 兀睾亘賷丕亍.
( 賰賳 卮丕賰乇丕 賱兀氐丨丕亘 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱爻賷卅賷賳...兀賮囟賱 賲賳 賱丕 卮賷亍 )
賮賴匕丕 丕賱毓賲賱 禺乇噩 賲賳 爻賱爻賱丞 丕爻賲賴丕 "丨乇賰丕鬲 爻賷卅丞" 賰鬲亘賴丕 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賱兀丨丿 丕賱賲賵丕賯毓 丕賱廿賱賰鬲乇賵賳賷丞 貙 賵賱賰賳 賴賱 賴賵 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 賱丕 卮賷亍 責
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻胤丨賷 賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱賲賱丕賱丞 貙 賷賱鬲賯胤 兀賯賵丕賱 丕賱賲卮丕賴賷乇 賱賰賷 賷丨賱賱賴丕 賲毓 兀賳 賯乇丕亍丞 賳氐賴丕 賷睾賳賷賰 毓賳 鬲丨賱賷賱賴丕 亘爻亘亘 亘丿賷賴賷鬲賴丕 丕賱賲賮乇胤丞 貙 賱賲 鬲卮丿賳賷 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘爻亘亘 鬲亘丕賷賳賴丕 賵丕禺鬲賱丕賮賴丕 賵毓丿賲 丕賳爻賷丕亘鬲賴丕 賲毓 毓賳丕賵賷賳賴丕 丕賱賮乇毓賷丞 貙 兀鬲賲賳賶 賱賵 亘賯賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓賲賱 賮賷 氐賮丨丕鬲 丕賱廿賳鬲乇賳鬲 丕賱賲胤賵賷丞 貙 賷囟丕賮 廿賱賶 匕賱賰 爻賵亍 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 氐亘鬲 丕賱夭賷鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賳丕乇 賮夭丕丿鬲 丕賱毓賲賱 爻賵亍丕.
兀賳氐丨 廿禺賵丕賳賷 丕賱賯乇丕亍 亘兀賳 賱丕 賷睾鬲乇賵丕 亘丕賱兀爻賲丕亍 丕賱兀毓噩賲賷丞 貙 賮賲孬賱賲丕 毓賳丿賳丕 胤丕賲丕鬲 賰鬲丕亘賷丞 賮賴賲 毓賳丿賴賲 兀囟毓丕賮 賲丕 毓賳丿賳丕 亘爻亘亘 鬲賮賵賯賴賲 毓賱賷賳丕 賮賷 賰賲賷丞 廿賳鬲丕噩 丕賱賲胤亘賵毓丕鬲 賲賲丕 賷毓賳賷 夭賷丕丿丞 賰賲賷丞 丕賱睾孬 賮賷 賰鬲亘賴賲 賲孬賱賲丕 賴賷 賮賷 賰鬲亘賳丕.... 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賮賯乇丞 氐丕賱丨丞 兀賷囟丕 賱廿囟丕賮鬲賴丕 廿賱賶 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲丐賱賮 ... 丨鬲賶 賱丕 賳亘丿賵 兀睾亘賷丕亍.
January 13, 2018
丕賰賲賱鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賷賵賲 賵亘乇兀賷賷 賲囟賲賵賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱丕 賷胤丕亘賯 毓賳賵丕賳賴
(賱丕賳 丕睾賱亘 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 (丨爻亘 乇兀賷賴
賴賷 賲噩乇丿 鬲賱丕毓亘 賱賮馗賷 亘胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱賰賱丕賲 賵賲賰乇乇丞 丕賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞
賰賲丕 丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱丕 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲卮賴賵乇丞
亘丕賱賲噩賲賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲賱 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 賵丕馗賳賴 爻賷賰賵賳 賲賲鬲毓丕 賱賲賳 賱丕 賷毓乇賮 賲丕 賴賷 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞
(賱丕賳 丕睾賱亘 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 (丨爻亘 乇兀賷賴
賴賷 賲噩乇丿 鬲賱丕毓亘 賱賮馗賷 亘胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱賰賱丕賲 賵賲賰乇乇丞 丕賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞
賰賲丕 丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱丕 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲卮賴賵乇丞
亘丕賱賲噩賲賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲賱 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 賵丕馗賳賴 爻賷賰賵賳 賲賲鬲毓丕 賱賲賳 賱丕 賷毓乇賮 賲丕 賴賷 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞
December 22, 2014
亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 爻賷卅丞 噩丿丕 貙 賱匕賱賰 兀賷 賵丕丨丿 爻賷丨丕賵賱 兀賳 賷賯乇兀 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賷賴賽 亘賱睾鬲賴賽 丕賱兀氐賱 貙 賱毓賱賴 賷氐賱 廿賱賶 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱丨賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀乇丕丿 賱賴丕 氐丕丨亘賴丕 兀賳 鬲鬲毓賲賯 賮賽賷 禺賱賮賷丞 丕賱賯丕乇卅 丕賱毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 貙 孬丕賳賷丕 賰兀賮賰丕乇 賱賲 鬲賰賳 噩賷丿丞 噩丿丕 廿賯賳丕毓賸丕 貙 賮賴賳丕賰 兀賲孬賱丞 賳賯丿賷丞 乇丕賯鬲 賱賷 賵 賴賳丕賰 兀購禺乇 賰丕賳鬲 賲噩乇丿 丨卮賵 賲賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賳賮爻賴 貙 賴匕丕 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲亘賳賶 兀鬲毓爻 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵 兀賰孬乇賴丕 丨丿丞 賵 氐賱丕亘丞 賱丕 鬲鬲爻賲 亘丕賱賲賵丕夭賳丞 賰賲丕 兀卮丕丿 賴賵 賮賽賷 丌禺乇 賲丕 賯丕賱賴 .
鬲丨賲賷賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 :
鬲丨賲賷賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 :
March 6, 2014
This is a fun, useful, and quick-to-read book with a lousy title. The Duck part is fine because it's intriguing, but what are "experiments for the armchair philosopher" when they're at home? I had no idea what I was going to read when I picked this one up.
I see that there's another edition that is subtitled, instead, "and 99 Other Bad Arguments" and that's much more representative of the content. The author is indeed a professor of philosophy and the book is about rhetoric, with a very accessible and pop culture sort of treatment of the subject. He takes 100 different statements from the news that are badly argued in some way - either logically deficient or using rhetorical techniques meant to persuade by emotion, side stepping logic. He analyzes each one for its deficiencies and labels it with the kind of error being made or technique being used. Baggini encourages analytical thinking, both by example and by instruction.
Some of the examples don't require a philosopher to determine that they are poor arguments. In the title story, a lottery winner ascribes his luck to having followed a waiter's instruction in a Chinese restaurant to stroke a duck statue. Most of us would realize that didn't cause him to win the lottery, even if we might not know to label the error a post-hoc fallacy. Others are much more subtle and seem well argued at first.
Each quote is only a sentence or two and each analysis is a page or two, making this a quick read. An interesting extra feature is after each analysis he walks the condemnation of the kind of argument back a little, asking when it might be appropriate to defer to authority, or argue from uncertainty or whatever. These thought provoking final paragraphs underscore the idea that many of these questions do not have settled answers.
A good book for those who enjoyed Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
by Michael Shermer, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner, and How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff. And if you haven't read those, read them too.
I see that there's another edition that is subtitled, instead, "and 99 Other Bad Arguments" and that's much more representative of the content. The author is indeed a professor of philosophy and the book is about rhetoric, with a very accessible and pop culture sort of treatment of the subject. He takes 100 different statements from the news that are badly argued in some way - either logically deficient or using rhetorical techniques meant to persuade by emotion, side stepping logic. He analyzes each one for its deficiencies and labels it with the kind of error being made or technique being used. Baggini encourages analytical thinking, both by example and by instruction.
Some of the examples don't require a philosopher to determine that they are poor arguments. In the title story, a lottery winner ascribes his luck to having followed a waiter's instruction in a Chinese restaurant to stroke a duck statue. Most of us would realize that didn't cause him to win the lottery, even if we might not know to label the error a post-hoc fallacy. Others are much more subtle and seem well argued at first.
Each quote is only a sentence or two and each analysis is a page or two, making this a quick read. An interesting extra feature is after each analysis he walks the condemnation of the kind of argument back a little, asking when it might be appropriate to defer to authority, or argue from uncertainty or whatever. These thought provoking final paragraphs underscore the idea that many of these questions do not have settled answers.
A good book for those who enjoyed Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
by Michael Shermer, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner, and How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff. And if you haven't read those, read them too.
August 22, 2013
Julian Baggini's "Do They Think You're Stupid" is a light, amusing read with a serious meta-lesson tucked away inside. Presented as a list of 100 common argumentative fallacies and why they're wrong, it can actually be interrogated as a guide to good analysis.
The key take away messages are two:
Firstly, critical thought and engagement with other people's reasoning and your own is crucial. There isn't any formulaic response or recipe to good thinking, only practice, care and diligence. As Baggini notes, it "requires not so much memorizing a catalogue of fallacies but adopting a habit of constructive, thoughtful skepticism in our reading and listening." A simple message but the most important.
Secondly, a point made again and again with different fallacies: The key to understanding and unveiling them is through analogy. For example, in the abortion debate it's common to claim that something like "when life begins" is not black and white, but grey, and this claim means, well, whatever, depending on who you talk to. Regardless though, the strength of the claim rests on the argument that there is no clear boundary between life and death, just like there is no real distinction between black and white. Except that when you phrase it like that the fallacy is obvious. By the colour analogy it uses to make the claim clear it is also clear that actually we can make distinctions between things which vary in a smooth, continuous fashion. Black really is different from white, even though there are all the shades of grey. In other words, the question of "when life begins" cannot be so blithely swept from the table. Interesting...
Ultimately, the book advises a humble approach, and warns especially of the "fallacy fallacy": the easy assumption that having thought about how to think one should just assume one is right, when in actual fact it is all too easy still to make glaring logical mistakes. As salulatary warnings, Baggini lists a few examples of reknowned people who should have "known better". The ultimate point? Thinking rightly is not easy!
The key take away messages are two:
Firstly, critical thought and engagement with other people's reasoning and your own is crucial. There isn't any formulaic response or recipe to good thinking, only practice, care and diligence. As Baggini notes, it "requires not so much memorizing a catalogue of fallacies but adopting a habit of constructive, thoughtful skepticism in our reading and listening." A simple message but the most important.
Secondly, a point made again and again with different fallacies: The key to understanding and unveiling them is through analogy. For example, in the abortion debate it's common to claim that something like "when life begins" is not black and white, but grey, and this claim means, well, whatever, depending on who you talk to. Regardless though, the strength of the claim rests on the argument that there is no clear boundary between life and death, just like there is no real distinction between black and white. Except that when you phrase it like that the fallacy is obvious. By the colour analogy it uses to make the claim clear it is also clear that actually we can make distinctions between things which vary in a smooth, continuous fashion. Black really is different from white, even though there are all the shades of grey. In other words, the question of "when life begins" cannot be so blithely swept from the table. Interesting...
Ultimately, the book advises a humble approach, and warns especially of the "fallacy fallacy": the easy assumption that having thought about how to think one should just assume one is right, when in actual fact it is all too easy still to make glaring logical mistakes. As salulatary warnings, Baggini lists a few examples of reknowned people who should have "known better". The ultimate point? Thinking rightly is not easy!
July 25, 2011
Published in The Sacramento Book Review (
Baggini鈥檚 books cater to the exact audience that they claim to cater to: 鈥渁rmchair philosophers鈥�. This time around we are considering the various fallacies of argument, here conjoined with a collection of humorous, insightful, sometimes stupid, sometimes shockingly every-day and drab, quotes. The book鈥檚 strength lies in accomplishing all that it aims to with clarity and ease, giving those readers with no philosophical background the ability to decipher the sometimes hard-to-spot (and often unintentional) mistakes in most people鈥檚 logic, or the (often intentional) manipulation of sentence structure in politics and journalism.
Yet, if you are looking for anything more, perhaps a deeper analysis past the simple 鈥減oint at it, pick at it, move on and repeat鈥� attitude, then you aren鈥檛 going to find much of interest in the book鈥檚 three-hundred-plus pages. Witty references to philosophers and philosophical traditions seem empty of fruition, and act more as a means to fill the page than educate. In essence: the book is a segment of an extremely basic Logic/Critical Reasoning class that you could take at any community college, but with a jesting twist that you might not find in every classroom. A quick read, an easy read, and a decent introduction into the world of philosophy but by no means as interesting as Baggini鈥檚 The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten or Do You Think What You Think You Think.
Reviewed by Dylan Popowicz
Baggini鈥檚 books cater to the exact audience that they claim to cater to: 鈥渁rmchair philosophers鈥�. This time around we are considering the various fallacies of argument, here conjoined with a collection of humorous, insightful, sometimes stupid, sometimes shockingly every-day and drab, quotes. The book鈥檚 strength lies in accomplishing all that it aims to with clarity and ease, giving those readers with no philosophical background the ability to decipher the sometimes hard-to-spot (and often unintentional) mistakes in most people鈥檚 logic, or the (often intentional) manipulation of sentence structure in politics and journalism.
Yet, if you are looking for anything more, perhaps a deeper analysis past the simple 鈥減oint at it, pick at it, move on and repeat鈥� attitude, then you aren鈥檛 going to find much of interest in the book鈥檚 three-hundred-plus pages. Witty references to philosophers and philosophical traditions seem empty of fruition, and act more as a means to fill the page than educate. In essence: the book is a segment of an extremely basic Logic/Critical Reasoning class that you could take at any community college, but with a jesting twist that you might not find in every classroom. A quick read, an easy read, and a decent introduction into the world of philosophy but by no means as interesting as Baggini鈥檚 The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten or Do You Think What You Think You Think.
Reviewed by Dylan Popowicz
October 27, 2016
Another book from Julian Baggini, the author of "The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher ".
Some editions of the book are called "The Duck That Won the Lottery: 100 New Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher" to capitalize on the success of the first one, but this title is hugely misleading. No, these are not thought experiments, and even putting the example of a duck in the title gives the first impression. (It's actually an origami duck that was said to bring good luck.)
So, what is this book, then? Instead of creative thought experiments, Baggini analyzes 100 bad arguments taken from real life. The humour of the the first book is not completely gone, but the attachment to actual events makes the book a little bit less wacky.
Once I got into the concept and style of the book, I really started to like it. Baggini goes through all the major logical fallacies in argumentation. Even better, he really examines the cases from different angles. So, instead of a simple conviction of a foolish mistakes, each excerpt ends by offering another point of view that shows the fallacy in a different light.
Some editions of the book are called "The Duck That Won the Lottery: 100 New Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher" to capitalize on the success of the first one, but this title is hugely misleading. No, these are not thought experiments, and even putting the example of a duck in the title gives the first impression. (It's actually an origami duck that was said to bring good luck.)
So, what is this book, then? Instead of creative thought experiments, Baggini analyzes 100 bad arguments taken from real life. The humour of the the first book is not completely gone, but the attachment to actual events makes the book a little bit less wacky.
Once I got into the concept and style of the book, I really started to like it. Baggini goes through all the major logical fallacies in argumentation. Even better, he really examines the cases from different angles. So, instead of a simple conviction of a foolish mistakes, each excerpt ends by offering another point of view that shows the fallacy in a different light.
September 13, 2013
Many years ago, I took an evening class entitled 'How to win arguments': what was not to like? It turned out the way to win arguments was to use the many kinds of false logic. That false logic is still propagated, and it's in daily evidence - just listen to any politician or personality.
So this book is, for me, a timely reminder of that O Level: a grounding in logic, and a window to a more careful thought process. It's an easy read, with excellent examples of persuasive points or arguments which turn out to be based on pretty shaky foundations. It changed my life (see p.60!)... No, not exactly - but it's jolly useful when - yet again - we hear the dire phrase "This must never happen again"
Seriously, I'm grateful to this author for reminding me to THINK!and I want to read more of his writing.
So this book is, for me, a timely reminder of that O Level: a grounding in logic, and a window to a more careful thought process. It's an easy read, with excellent examples of persuasive points or arguments which turn out to be based on pretty shaky foundations. It changed my life (see p.60!)... No, not exactly - but it's jolly useful when - yet again - we hear the dire phrase "This must never happen again"
Seriously, I'm grateful to this author for reminding me to THINK!and I want to read more of his writing.
November 27, 2021
I enjoy Julian Baggini's work. His book 'Welcome to Everytown: a journey into the English mind' is excellent, and his microphilosophy website makes for interesting reading. Baggini makes philosophical ideas accessible to those of us who've not had the benefit of a philosophy degree, and in 'Do they think you're stupid?' he scrutinises 100 poor arguments, showing us why they fail.
If you're like me, you can probably spot a lot of spin and dodgy argument without a book. But Baggini goes further by explaining WHY certain kinds of statements are unreliable. He provides us with some basic knowledge to unravel poor reasoning using methods established by philosophers - without too much indecipherable jargon. This book is an attempt to better equip those of us with the will to question with some of the tools we need.
If you're like me, you can probably spot a lot of spin and dodgy argument without a book. But Baggini goes further by explaining WHY certain kinds of statements are unreliable. He provides us with some basic knowledge to unravel poor reasoning using methods established by philosophers - without too much indecipherable jargon. This book is an attempt to better equip those of us with the will to question with some of the tools we need.
September 22, 2015
鬲賱賰 丕賱賳賵毓賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 鬲爻丿 孬睾乇丞 賵丕爻毓丞 賮賷 兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞-賵 賲丕 兀賰孬乇 賵 兀賵爻毓 孬睾乇丕鬲賴丕-鬲鬲賲孬賱 賮賷 睾賷丕亘 鬲毓賱賷賲 兀爻爻 丕賱噩丿賱 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷 賵 胤乇賯 鬲賮丕丿賷 丕賱賵賯賵毓 囟丨丕賷丕 賱賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷丞 兀賵 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴丕貙乇睾賲 兀賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賱賷爻鬲 賲孬丕賱賷丞 賱賰賳賴丕 賲賯亘賵賱丞貙賱賰賳 賲卮賰賱丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 兀賳賴 賷毓丕賷 賲賳 亘毓囟 丕賱兀賳鬲賯丕卅賷丞 賮賷 兀禺鬲賷丕乇 兀賲孬賱鬲賴貙賰鬲丕亘 賯賷賲 毓賱賶 賰賱 丨丕賱.
May 16, 2016
賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓 賷丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賵 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賯賷賲丞 賵 賱賰賳賷 賯丿 丕禺鬲賱賮 賲毓 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 亘毓囟 賵噩賴丕鬲 丕賱賳馗乇 賵 丌乇丕亍 丕賱鬲賷 賵噩丿鬲賴丕 睾賷乇 賲賱丕卅賲丞 兀禺賱丕賯賷丕賸 兀賵 丿賷賳賷丕 賲孬賱 丕賱丨噩丞 95 廿賳賴賲 賷賯鬲賱賵賳 丕賱賲丿賳賷賷賳 貙 賱賲 鬲乇賯 賱賷 賲賳丕賯卮丞 賴匕賴 丕賱丨噩丞 賵 賱賲 兀噩丿賴丕 賲賳胤賯賷丞 .
April 20, 2018
I took a LONG time to read this. Each chapter is only a few pages long and so it was easier to read it a little at a time. Still, I enjoyed trying to figure out the flaw in the argument and how an argument made badly can still be persuasive.
June 3, 2012
Typical of Baggini. Don't read in the one sitting as it gets very tedious.
August 22, 2012
Full of great little vignettes of mental gym for the skeptic.
January 9, 2019
鬲乇噩賲丞 賲鬲毓亘丞貙 賵兀胤乇賵丨丕鬲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賰賲丕 賯丕賱 賮賷 丕賱賲賯丿賲丞貙 賲賳胤賯 爻丕賱亘
December 3, 2019
Somewhat Repetitive
The bulk of the examples talk about war. I have very little interest in the topic of military conflict, and I don鈥檛 actively seek out news related to such, so reading about people鈥檚 war arguments was rather dull. Also, war is a pretty extreme topic that I don鈥檛 think many people will find themselves debating, but some of the examples seemed limited in terms of their applicability to other points of conversation.
I think a lot of the flaws had excessive overlap, or were mere variations of one another. This book could probably be cut in half, making it more concise and impactful.
I like the formatting of this book more than 鈥淭he Pig that Wants to Be Eaten.鈥� But that鈥檚 partly because of the more Americanized spelling and punctuation (although I did see one 鈥渟ceptical鈥� instead of 鈥渟keptical鈥�).
Probably my favorite part of the book is the paragraph at the end of every chapter, when the author plays devil鈥檚 advocate. I think the closing paragraphs are consistently short, sweet, and thought provoking.
There were several argument examples throughout the book that I thought were very insightful. Those were the ones where the flaw wasn鈥檛 immediately obvious, or where I thought the argument was more secure than it actually was. It became a fun little game, reading the opening quotation and trying to guess what the flaw would be.
The bulk of the examples talk about war. I have very little interest in the topic of military conflict, and I don鈥檛 actively seek out news related to such, so reading about people鈥檚 war arguments was rather dull. Also, war is a pretty extreme topic that I don鈥檛 think many people will find themselves debating, but some of the examples seemed limited in terms of their applicability to other points of conversation.
I think a lot of the flaws had excessive overlap, or were mere variations of one another. This book could probably be cut in half, making it more concise and impactful.
I like the formatting of this book more than 鈥淭he Pig that Wants to Be Eaten.鈥� But that鈥檚 partly because of the more Americanized spelling and punctuation (although I did see one 鈥渟ceptical鈥� instead of 鈥渟keptical鈥�).
Probably my favorite part of the book is the paragraph at the end of every chapter, when the author plays devil鈥檚 advocate. I think the closing paragraphs are consistently short, sweet, and thought provoking.
There were several argument examples throughout the book that I thought were very insightful. Those were the ones where the flaw wasn鈥檛 immediately obvious, or where I thought the argument was more secure than it actually was. It became a fun little game, reading the opening quotation and trying to guess what the flaw would be.
September 4, 2022
Julian Baggini's Do They Think You're Stupid?: 100 Ways of Spotting Spin and Nonsense From The Media, Celebrities and Politicians" is an excellent explanatory book on fallacious reasoning. Unlike other books that focus on naming a logical fallacy and perfectly defining its theoretical meaning, Baggini, without being bogged down by technical terms, dissects what fallacies look like in practice. The result is a book that is effortlessly read and promotes critical engagement. The examples provided are clear and helpful; the caveats at the end of each chapter ward off dogmatism and serve as a reminder to not fall into the trap of thinking knowledge of fallacious reasoning means logical and argumentative perfection. The only gripes I have with the book are the order and length of the chapters. More space could have been spent on some of the more nuanced fallacious reasoning, and the ordering of the terms seems arbitrary.
September 25, 2017
丕賳 賳賯氐 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賲毓賯賵賱 賱卮賷亍 賲丕 賱賷爻 爻亘亘丕 賰丕賮賷丕 賮賷 丨丿 匕丕鬲賴 賱賱丕氐乇丕乇 丕賳賴 賲爻鬲丨賷賱 丕賱丨丿賵孬
________________
丨噩噩 賮丕爻丿丞 鬲噩毓賱賳丕 賳亘丿賵 丕睾亘賷丕亍
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賱爻賮賷 賷丨賵賷 毓賱賶 丕賮賰丕乇 乇丕卅毓丞 丕毓鬲賯丿 丕賳賴 賷馗賱賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵丕賱賯丕乇賶亍 丨賷賳 賷氐賳賮 丕賳賴 鬲賳賲賵賷 , 賰賱 賲丕賮賷 丕賱丕賲乇 丕賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱賶 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 丕賮爻丿鬲 賲毓賳丕賴 賯賱亘 賵賯丕賱亘丕 :(
丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 丕賲 亘丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱丨乇賮賷丞 亘丿賱丕 賲賳 鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱丕賮賰丕乇 賮噩丕亍丕 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賲鬲賯胤毓丕 ,
賰賲丕 丕賳賰 賱鬲賯乇兀 賰鬲丕亘丕 賰賴匕丕 毓賱賷賰 丕賳 鬲毓賷卮 賮賷 丕賲乇賷賰丕 賵亘乇賷胤丕賳賷丕 賮丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱氐丨賷丞 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇丞 賱丕 賳賮賴賲賲賴丕 賵賱丕賳丿乇賰 丕賴賲賷鬲賴丕 賮賴賷 賱丕 氐賱丞 亘賳丕 賰賲賵丕胤賳賷賳 毓乇亘
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賲 賷賳氐丨 亘賴 賱賲賳 賱丿賷賴 丕賱賵賯鬲 丕賱賰丕賮賷 賱丕毓丕丿丞 囟亘胤 丕賱賳氐賵氐 孬賲 丕毓丕丿丞 賯乇丕卅鬲賴丕 賱賷賮賴賲 :)
賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨丕賵賱 禺賱賯 毓丕丿丞 丕賱卮賰 丕賱亘賲丕亍 賵丕賱賲丿乇賵爻 賮賷 賯乇丕亍鬲賳丕 賵丕爻鬲賲丕毓賳丕
丕匕丕 賮毓賱賳丕 賴匕丕 爻鬲購毓乇賮 丕賱丨噩噩 丕賱賮丕爻丿丞 毓賳 賳賮爻賴丕 賵丨鬲賶 丕匕丕 馗賱賱賳丕 睾賷乇 賰丕賲賱賷賳 賮爻賳氐亘丨 賲賮賰乇賷賳 丕賮囟賱
________________
丨噩噩 賮丕爻丿丞 鬲噩毓賱賳丕 賳亘丿賵 丕睾亘賷丕亍
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賱爻賮賷 賷丨賵賷 毓賱賶 丕賮賰丕乇 乇丕卅毓丞 丕毓鬲賯丿 丕賳賴 賷馗賱賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵丕賱賯丕乇賶亍 丨賷賳 賷氐賳賮 丕賳賴 鬲賳賲賵賷 , 賰賱 賲丕賮賷 丕賱丕賲乇 丕賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱賶 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 丕賮爻丿鬲 賲毓賳丕賴 賯賱亘 賵賯丕賱亘丕 :(
丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 丕賲 亘丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱丨乇賮賷丞 亘丿賱丕 賲賳 鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱丕賮賰丕乇 賮噩丕亍丕 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賲鬲賯胤毓丕 ,
賰賲丕 丕賳賰 賱鬲賯乇兀 賰鬲丕亘丕 賰賴匕丕 毓賱賷賰 丕賳 鬲毓賷卮 賮賷 丕賲乇賷賰丕 賵亘乇賷胤丕賳賷丕 賮丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱氐丨賷丞 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇丞 賱丕 賳賮賴賲賲賴丕 賵賱丕賳丿乇賰 丕賴賲賷鬲賴丕 賮賴賷 賱丕 氐賱丞 亘賳丕 賰賲賵丕胤賳賷賳 毓乇亘
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賲 賷賳氐丨 亘賴 賱賲賳 賱丿賷賴 丕賱賵賯鬲 丕賱賰丕賮賷 賱丕毓丕丿丞 囟亘胤 丕賱賳氐賵氐 孬賲 丕毓丕丿丞 賯乇丕卅鬲賴丕 賱賷賮賴賲 :)
賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨丕賵賱 禺賱賯 毓丕丿丞 丕賱卮賰 丕賱亘賲丕亍 賵丕賱賲丿乇賵爻 賮賷 賯乇丕亍鬲賳丕 賵丕爻鬲賲丕毓賳丕
丕匕丕 賮毓賱賳丕 賴匕丕 爻鬲購毓乇賮 丕賱丨噩噩 丕賱賮丕爻丿丞 毓賳 賳賮爻賴丕 賵丨鬲賶 丕匕丕 馗賱賱賳丕 睾賷乇 賰丕賲賱賷賳 賮爻賳氐亘丨 賲賮賰乇賷賳 丕賮囟賱
May 9, 2017
丨噩噩 賮丕爻丿丞 鬲噩毓賱賳丕 賳亘丿賵 兀睾亘賷丕亍, 賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓, 賷丿毓賵 賱賱賰卮賮 毓賳 丕賱丨噩噩 睾賷乇 丕賱賲賯賳毓丞, 丕賱賲賳賮鬲毓賱丞, 丕賱賲賳賲賯丞, 亘丨噩丞 丕賱賲賳胤賯, 賱賲睾丕賱胤丞 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯, 賲賲丕 賷爻鬲賵噩亘 毓賱賷賳丕 丕賱鬲卮賰賷賰 賮賷 賰賱 賲丕 賴賵 睾賷乇 賲丿乇賵爻 賲爻亘賯丕, 賱丕賰鬲卮丕賮 丕賱丨噩噩 丕賱賮丕爻丿賴 毓賳 睾賷乇賴丕.
噩丕亍 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 囟賲賳 賳賵毓賷丞 鬲爻丿 孬睾乇丞 賵丕爻毓丞 賮賷 兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞, 賵 賲丕 丕賵爻毓 孬睾乇丕鬲賴丕, 丨賷孬 賷睾賷亘 丕賱噩丿賱 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷, 賵 丕賱鬲卮賰賷賰 賮賷 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲, 亘賱 賵 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴丕 賰賲爻賱賲丕鬲 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱兀丨賷丕賳.
賱賱兀爻賮 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 賱賲 賷賵賮賯 賮賷 丕賱鬲乇噩賲賴 賲賲丕 丕囟丕毓 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賮賷 爻胤賵乇 丕賱賲丨鬲賵賷
噩丕亍 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 囟賲賳 賳賵毓賷丞 鬲爻丿 孬睾乇丞 賵丕爻毓丞 賮賷 兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞, 賵 賲丕 丕賵爻毓 孬睾乇丕鬲賴丕, 丨賷孬 賷睾賷亘 丕賱噩丿賱 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷, 賵 丕賱鬲卮賰賷賰 賮賷 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲, 亘賱 賵 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴丕 賰賲爻賱賲丕鬲 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱兀丨賷丕賳.
賱賱兀爻賮 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 賱賲 賷賵賮賯 賮賷 丕賱鬲乇噩賲賴 賲賲丕 丕囟丕毓 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賮賷 爻胤賵乇 丕賱賲丨鬲賵賷
May 4, 2024
The Duck That Won The Lottery is a series of fallacious arguments. The book presents these arguments for your perusal. The book's cover lied to me, so I didn't go into this book with all the information I needed.
The book is not bad, but it wasn't what I expected. I expected more thought experiments along the lines of The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten.
I enjoyed the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
The book is not bad, but it wasn't what I expected. I expected more thought experiments along the lines of The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten.
I enjoyed the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
February 18, 2017
賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 賷賮鬲丨 兀賲丕賲賰 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 賵丕賱丨噩噩 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賰賵賳 乇亘賲丕 賯丕亘賱鬲賴丕 賰孬賷乇丕賸貙 賵兀賵丿 兀賳 兀卮賷乇 廿賱賷 噩賲賱丞 噩丕卅鬲 亘丌禺乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 "廿賳 賰卮賮 賴匕賴 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷 賱丕 賷鬲胤賱亘 丨賮馗丕賸 賱賴匕賴 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 兀賵 丕賱乇噩賵毓 廿賱賷賴丕貙 賵賱賰賳 毓賱賷賳丕 鬲亘賳賷 毓丕丿丞 丕賱卮賰 丕賱亘賳丕亍 賵丕賱賲丿乇賵爻 賮賷 賯乇丕亍丕鬲賳丕 賵丕爻鬲賲丕毓賳丕貙 賵爻鬲毓乇賮 丕賱丨噩噩 丕賱賮丕爻丿丞 賳賮爻賴丕貙 賵丨鬲賷 廿匕丕 馗賱賱賳丕 睾賷乇 賰丕賲賱賷賳貙 賮爻賳氐亘丨 賲賮賰乇賷賳 兀賮囟賱.
November 28, 2023
This book will not change your life, but it does have the power to reframe some general philosophical beliefs in a way that makes those beliefs easier to bicker about internally. It鈥檚 a fun book to thumb through and can reasonably be considered 鈥減hilosophy on easy mode鈥�. Just what you鈥檙e looking for, on occasion.
July 19, 2018
An exciting first read for "Julian Baggini". It's always beneficial to criticize the ideas around us especially when they are fallacies. Many of the book examples already familiar to me, however, we cannot doubt how well-chosen they were and we supposed to read them constantly.
September 26, 2021
En cap铆tulos cortos expone diferentes ejemplos sobre razonamientos o declaraciones de personajes p煤blicos que no son correctos. Me ha hecho reflexionar, aprender y sonre铆r, porque tambi茅n lo hace con sentido del humor.
August 15, 2022
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賯氐賵丿丕 賲賳賴 丕賱鬲丨丿賷 賵丕賱廿爻鬲毓丿丕丿 賱賲乇丕噩毓丞 賲丕 鬲爻賲毓賴 賵鬲賯乇丐賴貙 100 丨噩丞 賮丕爻丿丞 賷爻鬲禺丿賲賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 毓賱賷賳丕 賮賷 賰賱 丕賱賲噩丕賱丕鬲 賵賳氐丿賯賴丕 丕丨賷丕賳丕 . 爻兀囟毓 丕賱丨噩噩 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲賳丕 賮賯胤 貙 賱兀賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賷賰鬲亘 丕賱丨噩噩 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 亘乇賷胤丕賳賷丕 賵兀賲乇賷賰丕 貙 賵丕賱賰孬賷乇 賳鬲卮丕乇賰 賲毓丕 .
June 17, 2023
賱丕 鬲爻賱賲 亘氐丿賯 賰賱 賲丕 鬲賯乇兀 丕賵 鬲爻賲毓 亘賱 賷噩亘 毓賱賷賰 兀賳 鬲賮賰乇 噩賷丿丕 賯亘賱 鬲氐丿賷賯賰 賱賲丕 鬲賯乇兀賴 丕賵 鬲爻賲毓賴. 賴匕丕 賲丕 賷丿賵乇 丨賵賱賴 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賴賵 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 毓丿丞 賲賯丕賱丕鬲 賰鬲亘賴丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賱乇丿 毓賱賶 亘毓囟 賲賳 丕賱鬲氐乇賷丨丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 噩丕卅鬲 毓賱賶 賱爻丕賳 亘毓囟 丕賱爻丕爻丞 賵丕賱賲卮丕賴賷乇 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘.
August 27, 2023
賷爻鬲毓乇囟 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲卅丞 丨噩丞 賵賲睾丕賱胤丞 賷爻鬲毓賲賱賴丕 丕賱賳丕爻 丨賵賱 丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘賯氐丿 兀賵 亘睾賷乇 賯氐丿貨 賱鬲丨賵賷乇 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 賵鬲睾賷賷乇 鬲賮丕毓賱 丕賱賳丕爻 賲毓賴丕 賵丕爻鬲噩丕亘鬲賴賲 賱賴丕 賵賷賳丕賯卮賴丕 賵賷丿丨囟賴丕 亘卮賰賱 賲禺鬲氐乇
亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 賮丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賲 賷兀鬲賽 亘賲丕 賴賵 賲鬲賵賯毓 賲賳賴
廿賲丕 賴匕丕 兀賵 兀賳賷 兀爻兀鬲 賮賴賲賴貙 賱賰賳賴 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 賱賲 賷賰賳 毓賱賶 賯丿乇 丕賱鬲賵賯毓丕鬲
亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 賮丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賲 賷兀鬲賽 亘賲丕 賴賵 賲鬲賵賯毓 賲賳賴
廿賲丕 賴匕丕 兀賵 兀賳賷 兀爻兀鬲 賮賴賲賴貙 賱賰賳賴 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 賱賲 賷賰賳 毓賱賶 賯丿乇 丕賱鬲賵賯毓丕鬲
Read
July 18, 2018I enjoyed it tremendously, even more than
August 7, 2018
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷賱 賱賰賳 丕賱賲夭毓噩 賮賷賴 賴賵 丕賱鬲賰乇丕乇.. 賳賮爻 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賱賰賳 亘賯丕賱亘 賲禺鬲賱賮 !
賵兀賷囟賸丕 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 乇賰賷賰丞 噩丿丕賸 賱賱兀爻賮
賵兀賷囟賸丕 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 乇賰賷賰丞 噩丿丕賸 賱賱兀爻賮
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.