I had a mini-meltdown in my favorite bookstore last night. “Never judge a book by its cover,” or so they say, but when a book by an academic psychologist claiming to help us become more like Sherlock Holmes in our reasoning states on the inside flap that Sherlock Holmes used “logical deduction” to solve his cases, I jolly well reserve the right to judge the book by its inside flap. Yes, I realize that these things are seldom written by the authors themselves; and it is almost certain that some harebrained editor probably wrote that absurdity; but the Amazon reviews make it clear that the author herself is quite confused about the differences among deduction, induction, and abduction. Worse yet, there are now reviews of this book in places like the Boston Globe that continue to perpetrate this abominable deception that Holmes used logical deduction. Really, if you want to teach people to reason correctly, you’d better start with the rectification of names.
I have no time right now to flesh this out, but I most certainly will get to this in the next few days. Once my hands stop trembling.
(Bonus points if you can “logically deduce” where I’m going with this series of posts based on its title!)
I have no time right now to flesh this out, but I most certainly will get to this in the next few days. Once my hands stop trembling.
(Bonus points if you can “logically deduce” where I’m going with this series of posts based on its title!)
You will start with the rectification of names!
ReplyDelete