We bought this book, “The Basics of Critical Thinking” (TBoCT), back in 2017 (for our son), and along the way, wrote the following comments, and much more that does not fit on Amazon, about this distinctly unscholarly product. At long last here – it has stuck in our craw – we have decided to “publish” the comments, put them on the record.“The emperor's new clothes”... doesn't anyone else see that he’s not wearing any? that this book, and the fact that it is “Award Winning!”, is a paradigm of that phenomenon?Actually, someone else *does* see! ...another 1-star review. And we fully agree – no curriculum should exist to mislead students as TBoCT does.In this day and age of “LOL nothing matters”, general slovenliness, this critique may not be well accepted – so be it. It seems that those who have come out with this book have consciously or unconsciously decided to (p iv) “avoid expending the necessary effort to carry out the process” of proper thinking and editing.It seems that it is not possible to criticize this book more than is warranted – most pages have something to criticize. Although the book does have some few good points, yet for us, the flagrant “bad apples” that we document below “spoil the whole barrel”. In fact, however, the book does have some redeeming value: It forces the reader to do critical thinking about the book itself.Some might perceive here a vituperative tone – regrettable, but perhaps unavoidable? ...because our position is equal in strength of conviction to Bertrand Russell's statement “Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle” (which, by the way, we do not agree with).There should be no issue here of us not “liking” the book, nor is it a matter of us being curmudgeons. No, it is at bottom a matter of there being too much simply *wrong* (along with much silliness and/or slovenliness, less important).• (p ii) The first intimation to us that something might be amiss – upon our very first opening to this page ii! – was Michael Baker’s “majored in philosophy for 6 years”, which seems to be “damning with faint praise”: Did he graduate? get a degree? why not say so? why did it take so long? all undergrad? graduate work is not usually referred to as “majoring” in anything... what record of achievement (grades, etc.) did he compile? etc. Seemed then to us, and seems now, pretty evasive.And in the end, it seems, he just didn't “get it” – turning logic on its head, and repeatedly, along with language. Among other things, and fundamentally, he has gotten the notion that “logic” is, and only is, modern / mathematical / symbolic logic... *not!* – and mathematical logic has no place in a book whose stated purpose is to guide students in “grades 4-9” to a better understanding of “critical thinking”, especially “making better decisions”. There *is* other logic – everyday, natural language, decision-making logic – logic for life.• The language and thinking of TBoCT is clearly conditioned by Michael Baker’s exposure to the *academic theory* of philosophy (not the same as the concept simply expressed by the common word “philosophy”). Critical thinking is not philosophy, philosophy is not critical thinking, although they may have significant overlap.One glaring problem with that exposure is the idea that *everything*, it seems, has a “truth value” of TRUE or FALSE; that is, is either true or false, as in mathematical logic ... *not!*(p69) A proper conditional sentence has a premise (antecedent), which if properly formed is either TRUE or FALSE; and depending on that antecedent, the consequent is also TRUE or FALSE; but the sentence *as a whole* is not TRUE or FALSE.(p76) “... whatever conclusion or decision you think is true...” Nonsense! A decision may be correct, or proper, or reasonable, or stupid – but it is not TRUE or FALSE.(p78) “The ads below are true.” An ad may be truthful – the *claims* of an ad may be TRUE or FALSE – but an ad in the aggregate is an ad, neither TRUE nor FALSE. Among other things, what if an ad has one claim that is true, and another untrue? In fact, the caption of the orange drink ad says “Assume everything written in the ad is true” – good!(p144) “This is a good analogy argument and it is true.” Contrariwise, (p116) “the argument’s conclusion is false” – with which latter language we completely agree; but we completely *disagree* that “the argument is false” is a proper abbreviated form – mangling the language. The premises of an argument may be TRUE or FALSE, and likewise the conclusion – but the argument as a whole is not TRUE or FALSE.Poppycock.• The writing is *extremely* repetitive, redundant, both in content and in language.Content:Extreme repetitiveness occurs *within* each of pages 11 and 95 – but not only that, the 2 pages say the same thing. How about having p95 refer back to p11 – not just for the mechanical aim of reducing the repetitiveness, but far more *effective* as a teaching point. Excerpts:(p11) “If you don’t understand someone’s claim, you can’t look for evidence to decide if it is true or false. If you can’t understand a claim, you shouldn’t accept it as true or false.”(p95) “We can’t evaluate the argument if we don’t fully understand the claim and the conclusion. If you can’t understand the claims or conclusion of someone’s argument, then you cannot evaluate their argument.”Language:(p iii) “... they are purposely using a hurtful name to describe someone. When you use a hurtful name to describe someone, it is a sign...” – typical.This is “empowering the mind”?! We can imagine the student’s eyes glazing over as he or she reads these long, repetitive explanations... drowsy...Please don’t reply that this is for “clarity”! – nonsense. Baker’s repetition seems to have no purpose other than to fill pages, to enlarge the book.• (p iii-iv) “What This Book Teaches” and “Four Myths About Critical Thinking”: This introduction – read it yourself! – is much, *much* too long and repetitive, not really an introduction, but rather marketing, self-aggrandizement.Among other things, Baker speaks here of critical thinking as “the most reliable way we have found”, and repeatedly, “a way”, “a process” – as if it’s a cookbook method, do these steps – use this “method” instead of other “methods”, this one is the best – if you use “it” (as he says repeatedly), then you have done “critical thinking”… *not!* …not at all. Critical thinking is a soft concept, with many “authorities” defining it in many ways – and in the end, it is really just an attitude of *careful* thinking, certainly not a machine to turn on or off.Hogwash.• (p4) “A conclusion is a decision made after thinking about something.”This would clearly have the silly implication that an ordinary decision – one *other than* a conclusion – is made after *not* thinking about something??? otherwise – if made after thinking about something – then it too would be a “conclusion”!Also, this usage / definition of “conclusion” is hardly the common one. The common sense of “conclusion” is, as one dictionary has it, “a reasoned judgment”, *not* a decision or act. The common use of the word in English is in the expression “come to a conclusion”, meaning to arrive at the result of thinking about something in a logical way. Likewise, the common use of “decision” is “make a decision” – we “come to a conclusion”, based on which we “make a decision”.For example, (p134, an answer provided) “I have decided to try a new dive. I have concluded I’m going to get wet.” “Concluded” here, in English, can be assumed to mean, from the way it is presented, a logical conclusion – *because* I’m going to dive, *therefore* I’m going to get wet – it is *not* a *decision* to get wet, which is how Baker defines “conclusion”.In addition, “decision”, as Baker himself defines it, means “anything you choose to do or believe” (awkward language) – but if one can *choose*, then one has the option of choosing something other than what one does choose – if there is only one “choice”, then it is not a choice at all. But if one dives, one *cannot possibly* not get wet – in other words, there is no choice, and getting wet is then not a decision.If Baker wants to say that on the contrary, he intended that the “conclusion” he asks the student to write is supposed to be simply a second, independent decision, then there is really no difference between the “decision” and the “conclusion” he wants the student to write. And who in the world would ever say, unrelated to diving or bathing or rain, “I’ve concluded I’m going to get wet”???The book is rife with this confusion about “decision” and “conclusion” – it’s everywhere.Gibberish.• (p8) “Our beliefs are information that we *think* is true.” And then, “My mom’s car has four wheels”. That’s a “belief”??? We would opine that if that is a belief, and not a fact, then there is no such thing as a fact! And please don’t try to say that any “fact” is also a “belief” ...*not*!In the world of philosophy, the concept of “belief” may be controversial, and fact may be considered by some to be a subset of belief. However, this is the world of making decisions in the day-to-day world – and in that world, my mom’s car does have 4 wheels! ...that is a fact.Tommyrot.• (p29ff) The Accident: There are several egregious problems here:The whole “accident” story is written using sly language seemingly designed to bias and mislead the student’s thinking – in particular, “the witnesses”, biasing *toward* one view; and “the hole in the road that [the driver] claimed caused the noise”, the word “claim” biasing *against* the other.Both the text of Part 2 (p30), and the analysis on p32, repeatedly refer to “the witnesses”, as if the driver of the red car is not herself a “witness”, no, she’s just the driver of the “accident” car, someone for the policewoman to look at “in disbelief”.And (p32) “The evidence that the red car hit the blue car is still stronger than the evidence it did not” and then “the evidence still supports the witnesses’ claim ... but we are a little less certain...” – gimme a break! ...once there was an obvious explanation – hitting the pothole – the notions of “the witnesses” and “the accident” could just be ignored, since they were easily explained away. Did Baker in his philosophy never hear of Occam’s Razor? All we can do is shake our heads “in disbelief”.Then, in that same “analysis”, “What makes this evidence strong is that ... the driver of the red car says she did not hit the blue car and pointed out a hole in the road that she drove over that made her car shake”... again, you gotta be kidding ...“makes this evidence strong”??? ...incredible.And Baker neglects to mention that even people who *really do* witness an accident, a crime, whatever, are *notoriously* unreliable in their statements / descriptions of what they witnessed!Horsefeathers.• (p37) “A fact is information that has been proven true”... *not!*...“Information that has been proven true” is a fact, yes, but whether something is known or claimed is irrelevant to its being a fact. A fact is a fact is a fact. Only when it is desired to *claim* it as a fact does the issue of being “somehow known” or “proven” become of interest.Among other things – one would have expected Baker to be cognizant of this: How does one prove that the proof is in fact a “proof”? At some point, certain things have to be *accepted* as fact – axiomatic.In regard to this, various articles discuss about the complexity of the idea of proof, and the fact (!) that it is not all cut-and-dried, and in particular, depends on the field in which the “proof” is to be shown – and mathematical / philosophical logic is *only one of these*.And his “proofs” are absolutely silly, things like (p50) “Most ducks cannot swim. Ornithologists – scientists who study the birds – have proven this false.” – as if an ordinary human being cannot ascertain this “fact” for oneself! Perhaps these “proofs” are intended to be tongue-in-cheek? but if so, that ought to be at least *hinted* at!Even Baker’s language betrays him: “this was proven” by all rights should be “this is proven”, or “this can be proven”, because none of these so-called proofs involve solely past events, but rather things that can be done at any time in the present.Malarkey.• Whereas Baker speaks of using the dictionary as a “proof” on p137 – yet he himself does not make this a habit, as evidenced by the contrary views in various examples in this critique, examples where we *have* used dictionaries (without quotation in this short version).Not only that, but although we refer and defer to authorities (in general! :-) – in *every case*, when something has *seemed to us wrong* in TBoCT, subsequently researching it in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and textbooks has confirmed our impression.• (p69) “ ‘If – Then’ (Conditional) Statements” – *not!*...How in the world did Michael Baker have the temerity to put this ringer, this fake, this fraud, this farce in a book about critical thinking???We ask you, any reader of this book, what this means:“If the lioness catches some food, then she will feed it to her cubs. = False”______________T_______________ ______________F______________Baker says that the *sentence as a whole* “= False”! In what way is “If the lioness catches some food...” part of any false-ness??? especially when he says (quite arbitrarily) that it is True?It’s no wonder you and we don’t understand... because what Baker presents here is not “conditional statement [sentence]”, but rather the so-called “material conditional” of mathematical logic – and they are not at all the same thing, hardly even related.This is not a mere technicality. The two constructs are *fundamentally not the same*:A proper “conditional statement / sentence” – “if this then that” – says that the consequent (the second part), is to be taken as true if the antecedent (the first part) is true, *and if the consequent follows* (in a logical sense) from the antecedent.A “material conditional” construct says that *the whole statement* – the first argument and the second *taken together in the aggregate* – is TRUE or FALSE, depending on a combination of the truth values of the two parts, as defined by the accompanying “truth table” (see picture), where → is the material conditional operator.In particular, the second argument of the material conditional *does not depend* in any way on the first part!This constitutes Baker’s definition (for purposes of students using the book):“The two most important things to remember about “if – then” statements are:1. If both parts of the conditional statement are true, then the claim is true.2. If the first part of the conditional statement is true and the second part of the conditional statement is false, then the claim is false.”This, combined with the footnote on the same page, referencing what he calls “logic” (see p ii note above), is exactly a definition of “material conditional”. Here, at the bottom of the page, Baker’s own confession:“Teaching note: This book does not address logic's treatment of conditional statements where the first part ... is false and the second part is true OR both parts ... are false. In both instances, logic views these statements as true, but that seems nonsensical in ordinary language.”The very fact that he felt the need to add this footnote indicates that he knows he is way off base! However, we wish to make the point emphatically, that the *two cases* are not the problem. No, *this whole idea* is out of place here.Note that Baker’s examples about eagle and lioness are *phrased* as standard conditional sentences – but he analyzes them, first part and second part separately, and applies the “truth value” of each according to the truth table of material conditional.And note the supreme irony: Even Baker’s “rules” themselves are *quite proper conditional sentences*! – not at all to be “evaluated” as he does with the examples themselves!Furthermore, every single instance in TBoCT – other than in this section – where Baker has an “if ... then ...” sentence, it is meant in the normal / natural language sense!Baker presents a number of “if... then...” examples starting on p71; all of which, at least *when evaluated in this way*, are nonsense in the context of this book, with the second part of the given sentence generally not depending on the first part – such as number 8, “If there is a boat behind a curtain, then there is [a] dog in front of a curtain”.One more extremely important thing here: While the material conditional is sometimes read aloud as “if... then...”, yet reading it that way does *not* mean that that is what it *is*! ...contrariwise, that is *not* what it is.Any first-grader understands a proper conditional sentence. Material conditional, however, is the stuff of college and beyond, and does not belong in this book – not because it is difficult (which it can be), but because it has no connection with critical thinking.Confirming and expanding these thoughts, there is an abundance of articles and discussion online about this, including especially encyclopedic sources as a jumping-off point.Doublespeak.• (p106) “Test to see if the argument form is valid by trying to come up with true claims that produce a false sentence.”One can try examples, look for patterns, to contribute to one’s understanding of a problem. But sorry, Michael Baker, surely you appreciate that no number of examples of being unable to “come up with” something can be considered a “test” for validity. What if you can’t so come up with something to produce a false sentence? maybe that is just your own lack of creative thinking?To the student, this is misleading in the extreme... “fun”, perhaps? ...but to us, fun is not fun, if one “learns” what is not correct.Balderdash.• Various errors of fact (other than misunderstandings of concepts):(p100) “dead red herring” – there is no such thing as a *live* “red herring”. And apparently, even the idea of dragging such across a scent trail was invented by one writer, not factual.(p138) Grass cannot be said to grow faster than weeds, except when the growth of grass is promoted by humans – think the common expressions “growing like a weed” and “like watching grass grow”!(p143) “nearly all venomous snakes” have triangular heads: not true! not cobras, not kraits, not coral snakes (our experience!). And by the way, a rattlesnake itself is in fact a viper.• (back cover) “Better Grades & Higher Test Scores – Guaranteed!” – a prime example of illogic......because, folks, that is absolutely impossible! ...neither true nor untrue, but simply impossible... because each student is an experiment of one, each of us has only one life to live – and results *with* any curriculum *cannot possibly be compared* to results *without* it for any one individual student. Speak of the... ummm, speak of “advertising schemes” (p iii)!Claptrap.The people who gave this book their “Tillywig Brain Child Award” have clearly not truly evaluated TBoCT – as evidenced by their “review”, which simply copies the language of the book’s introduction!In summary, then:In the “Euthydemus” of Plato, Socrates asks two newly-minted “sophists” to use their vaunted new talent to steer a young friend toward philosophy and virtue – but what they proceed to do is to demonstrate their sophist cleverness and “erudition” by intentionally confusing the issues and the young man, and boasting to Socrates about that intention.That in a nutshell is “The Basics of Critical Thinking”.~~~~~~~~~~