The author makes an excellent case for critical thinking and the power of a proper argument. Unfortunately, he chooses to colour this with his contentious right wing beliefs, which he implies are the natural conclusion of logical thinking. He justifies this will cherry picked evidence. Ironically, he rages against 'sophists' for using the same techniques. I think he would have been more successful in his goal had he avoided using these subjects as examples. ( )

Ugh. I liked some of Stefan's radio-style interviews (but dislike a lot of his psychology/therapist stuff). I figured I'd listen to this on a plane so I could review it. Maybe 2.5 stars, but the audio version is read by Stefan and is paced really badly (he speaks each word quickly but then has lengthy pauses between each word) so 2/5 is generous.

It starts with a basic primer on logic. Not the best presentation, but nothing factually incorrect. Then a subtle segue into using the logical arguments on abstract social issues (libertarian arguments re: charity), and then more pointed criticism of current events and politics. There's a pretense that the political criticism is just as factual and logically derived as the earlier abstract logical statements, but..no. Ironic for a book which spends 5-10% criticizing sophistry vs. logical argument.

What is with it with people and "argument" or "argumentation" as the basis for their philosophy? I love Hans-Hermann Hoppe, but his "Argumentation Ethics" is horrible. I can't tell if this was inspired by that, or just generally horrible on its own, but it accomplished that task. ( )