TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Books on Critical Thinking

127 点作者 raleighm超过 5 年前

9 条评论

bananamerica超过 5 年前
I find it more productive to study logic instead. I have a hard time seeing the difference between logic and critical thinking. If you think I&#x27;m wrong, just take a look at a bunch of kinds of logic[1] and tell me if critical thinking is not subsumed into at least one of them.<p>I put my money on inductive logic[2].<p>For beginners, I recommend the wonderful <i>Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments</i>[3].<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Outline_of_logic" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Outline_of_logic</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;logic-inductive&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;logic-inductive&#x2F;</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bookofbadarguments.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bookofbadarguments.com&#x2F;</a>
评论 #21754392 未加载
评论 #21754443 未加载
评论 #21756264 未加载
评论 #21761711 未加载
misiti3780超过 5 年前
Unfortunately &quot;The Art of Critical Thinking&quot; is completely plagiarized:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fooledbyrandomness.com&#x2F;dobelli.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fooledbyrandomness.com&#x2F;dobelli.htm</a>
评论 #21755425 未加载
cosinetau超过 5 年前
A week or two ago, in a post about books on leadership, someone posted about the US Army&#x27;s ADRP 6-22 Army Leadership handbook, which I started reading. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.benning.army.mil&#x2F;mssp&#x2F;PDF&#x2F;adrp6_22_new.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.benning.army.mil&#x2F;mssp&#x2F;PDF&#x2F;adrp6_22_new.pdf</a><p>Apparently, they keep track of terminology they deprecate in former revisions of the handbook. &quot;Critical Thinking&quot; being one of them as it is &quot;No longer a formally defined term.&quot; (Page vi)<p>So, what does &quot;Critical Thinking&quot; mean to you?
jgwil2超过 5 年前
For those coming here interested in learning about formal&#x2F;mathematical logic, see &quot;Teach Yourself Logic: A Study Guide&quot; (previous discussion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=18757972" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=18757972</a>)
ultra_nick超过 5 年前
Skeptics Guide to the Universe <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly&#x2F;dp&#x2F;1538760533" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increa...</a>
mistermann超过 5 年前
Does anyone know of any particular critical thinking genre books, that somehow focus more on the particulars of <i>language usage</i>? Something that gets into things like the shortcomings of language in properly describing the complexity of reality, as well as detecting usage (both intentional and unintentional) that would indicate potential underlying rhetorical manipulation (intentional), or fallacious thinking (unintentional)?
评论 #21754054 未加载
input_sh超过 5 年前
What&#x27;s with fivebooks? This is the 4th link from that domain in the last 24h.
评论 #21799519 未加载
评论 #21762048 未加载
评论 #21761489 未加载
sidcool超过 5 年前
I have read the art of thinking clearly, but was quite unimpressed.
troughway超过 5 年前
It is unfortunate that Thinking Fast and Slow has received some negative feedback over the years, mostly due to questionable sources and conclusions.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;retractionwatch.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;02&#x2F;20&#x2F;placed-much-faith-underpowered-studies-nobel-prize-winner-admits-mistakes&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;retractionwatch.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;02&#x2F;20&#x2F;placed-much-faith-und...</a>
评论 #21754346 未加载
评论 #21757524 未加载
评论 #21754187 未加载
评论 #21754087 未加载