I don’t think I’d agree with the review that talks about the ‘secrets of Donald Trump’s savvy speechmaking’ (it may be because I have an earlier edition that leaves that chapter out) but as a book on oratory skills, Thank You for Arguing: What Cicero, Shakespeare and the Simpsons Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion by Jay Heinrichs is a useful pop-textbook style read. The title itself gives you a clue to the range; while not every discussion is about philosophy (although it covers basic fallacies, structure and delivery of an argument), argument is undeniably an element of philosophy. It’s being able to interrogate and investigate ideas with others, beyond paper exercises.

I particularly liked how the book encourages a critical look at persuasive techniques and how to develop and present a speech for the public. While the emphasis is on American culture and the layout of the book itself is a little crowded (and perhaps it’s the footnotes on the side that distract me), the appendix is a really useful addition. I’d recommend this for upper high school, and anyone interested in the practical applications of argument.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s some general revision questions:

What are the three elements of an argument?

What is a fallacy?

What is the difference between cum hoc ergo propter hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc?

What is the difference between a serial, a convergent and a linked argument?

What is cogency/soundness in reasoning?

Write your answer in the comments! Answer will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s some revision exercises on synthetic and analytic statements, covered earlier in the year on 365 Days Of Philosophy.

Identify the following as either synthetic or analytic statements:

A cat is an animal.

Apple pie is made with apples.

A cat can have stripes or spots.

Apple pies can be found in New Zealand.

All squares have sides.

Some shoes have stripes or spots.

Put your answers in the comments — solutions out tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today’s episode is the revision on fallacies from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com.

If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess

Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy:

weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum.

See if you can identify some of them in the examples below:

Four out of five chocolate eaters recommend chocolate bars! It must be the best chocolate to buy. 

I’ve heard that chocolate bars are some of the best chocolate bars out there. 

I’ve seen so many chocolate bars sold, so they must be the best chocolate to buy.

I ate the chocolate bars and then I got pimples, so the chocolate must be the cause of pimples.

I saw the queen eating these chocolate bars, so they must be the best chocolate bars.

Answers tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess — put your answers below!

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy:

weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum.

See if you can identify some of them in the examples below:

We don’t really know if environmental warming is due to elephants, but we cannot say that it is not due to elephants. I can therefore suggest that environmental warming is due to elephants.

The problem with gun control isn’t the liberties that people can have with the use of guns, it’s the illiberal utilisation of personal freedoms that can lead to existence limitations.

You may be worried about the environment but I don’t see people worrying about the limitations that companies have with building.

No real environmental policy would put forward one species survival over another.

There must be environmental problems at the lake because I’ve experienced what can only be defined as problems with the lakeside environment.

Answers tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess — put your answers below!

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy:

weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum.

See if you can identify some of them in the examples below:

People in the environment lobby probably just worry about stepping on ants, and let’s face it, that’s what pro-environment arguments are really on about, ant-stepping. 

They were talking about ant-stepping the same time they were going to the environmental meeting, so the environmental meetings must be all about ant-stepping. 

They were talking about ant-stepping after going to that environmental meeting, so environmental meetings must be about raising awareness of ant-stepping. 

You’re worried about the environment, but I don’t see you worrying about ant stepping! Isn’t that part of the environment too? 

We’re meant to care about the environment, but I don’t see the President talking about the environment, so it mustn’t matter as much. 

Answers tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess — put your answers below!

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy:

weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum.

See if you can identify some of them in the examples below:

Sure, you may be concerned about a rise in sea levels which you think is a sign of global warming, but where’s your donation to the children’s fundraiser? 

You first claim there’s evidence of global warming, and then you’ll start claiming there’s evidence of more environmental destruction and then everyone will panic and start making children scared, is that what we want? 

Anyone who really cares about the environment wouldn’t be spreading stories about how there’s environmental destruction happening, it’s just not caring about the impact of the news. 

Anyone who really cares about the environment would either talk about it all the time, or shut up so not to make people panic about it. 

You’re only talking about environmental destruction because you’re seeking attention for yourself and it’s really all about you and your attention needs. 

Answers tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess — put your answers below!

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I haven’t written much about graphic novels and their contribution to learning about philosophy, but released this year was Heretics! The Wondrous (and Dangerous) Beginnings of Modern Philosophy. It’s focused on “contentious and controversial philosophers”, which could mean a great many. However, it’s looking at the likes of Galileo and Descartes, Locke and Newton, who have certainly made an impact in terms of not only philosophy but the way we see the world. 

It’s got a great overview of the history of philosophers, the period in which they lived in and the influence that they had (and the influences on each other). It helps to put into perspective why great thinkers can be a challenge intellectually as well as socially. It’s by a father and son team (Steven and Ben Nadler), and while some of the content is a little cartoonish at times, it’s a colourful and engaging style. I’d recommend this as a young teen introduction and certainly as an inspiration for introducing people to philosophy.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today’s episode is the revision on argument structues from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com.

If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess

Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.