What if I don't do formal logic?

[Goldilocks]

Would we really be missing out?  We have done informal logic (The Fallacy Detective, Art of Argument, and we are currently doing the Thinking Toolbox.) 

 

I would like to be able to focus on the subjects that we enjoy (history and science) and the subjects that I know are important (writing and math).

[SilverMoon]

The classical education gods will surely smite thee from the heavens!

 

 

Really though, you have plenty of time to do it later. If other stuff needs more time just shelve it for now. Lump it into writing in high school if you don't pick it up before then. You could even skip it altogether, but when you get to high school essays you and your DC may see more value in it. :)

[Kareni]

We never did formal logic, and my daughter survived.  (There truly are only so many hours in a day and choices must be made.)  She went on to a fairly selective college and thrived there while majoring in Latin and minoring in Geology. 

 

Regards,

Kareni

[Chrysalis Academy]

I have no plans to do formal logic.  We do a lot of critical thinking, statistics & probability, and have plans to study rhetoric, psychology and maybe even philosophy, but no plans to do formal logic.

 

I think it's going to be ok.  :)

[wapiti]

How about a proof-heavy high school geometry course?

[Kareni]

How about a proof-heavy high school geometry course?

 

That's a good thought.  While my daughter didn't do a formal logic program, she did use Jacobs' Geometry, 2nd ed., which is proof intensive.

 

Regards,

Kareni

[Crimson Wife]

I like the looks of Peter Kreeft's logic so we are waiting on formal logic until later on. The options for jr. high logic (Memoria Press, Canon Press, etc.) just look so horribly dull.

[HS Mom in NC]

We used the Martin Cothran series from Memoria Pess and we did Euclid's Elements for Geometry.  Both my older girls (one very mathy and one not at all mathy) said they reinforced each other since one is accomplishing verbally what the other accomplishes mathematically.  I think if you really care about a student being able to argue excellently and you really care about a student being able to analyze arguments and explain what specific kinds of flaws they have, then don't skip formal logic.

 

My oldest hated formal logic and and thought it wasn't really anything useful.  After a semester of college, she realized just how important it was and apologized for not believing me when I told her I was teaching her to think.

 

Can you child be successful, smart and savvy without it?  Absolutely.

[Crimson Wife]

I agree that formal logic is important, but I'm not sold on it being important to do in jr. high rather than high school.

[madteaparty]

Don't plan to. I got into a great law school and survived it :) without a single logic course, ever. ( as a result, the logic games on the LSAT were hard for me which means I just had to learn them from scratch. I scored very high).

[regentrude]

We never did any formal logic with the kids or studied any ourselves. I have not noticed that we missed out on anything - there is plenty of logic in mathematics, especially proofs, and computer programming.

[Erin]

Honestly even informal logic seems like more than 95% of the population will ever see!

[HS Mom in NC]

We never did any formal logic with the kids or studied any ourselves. I have not noticed that we missed out on anything - there is plenty of logic in mathematics, especially proofs, and computer programming.

 

How can you know if you're missing out if you've never done any?  Formal verbal logic can reinforce logic in maths and computer programming, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing as formal argumentation.  Proofs in Geometry are very similar to syllogisms, but syllogisms alone are not a fully developed formal argument. They're just a beginning-an outline of an verbal argument.

[kiwik]

There are a lot of things I never studied including history, geography and grammar. It didn't do me any harm not studying them but that is not really a reason to not have my kids study them.

 

You can't do everything right now though.

[wapiti]

How can you know if you're missing out if you've never done any? Formal verbal logic can reinforce logic in maths and computer programming, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing as formal argumentation. Proofs in Geometry are very similar to syllogisms, but syllogisms alone are not a fully developed formal argument. They're just a beginning-an outline of an verbal argument.

FWIW, I too never had a course in formal logic (that I am aware of - not even the lame "legal writing" course in law school would count). However, once I realized that a written argument is essentially a mathematical proof, writing suddenly became a piece of cake. It's ironic that a person like me, whose strengths lie much more in the area of math than in language and who hated AP English, would go on to enjoy writing appellate briefs as an occupation. For me, once I can see in my mind the logic bones of the argument, layering the language on top is easy.

 

On the other hand, my educational path might have been easier had I been taught that connection earlier. What I imagine a formal logic course to be might have been much more useful to learn in high school than, say, what passes for lit analysis in American high schools these days.

 

I want all my kids to have a proof-heavy geometry and then maybe I can help them see the connection later. My dd13 just started her AoPS class...keeping my fingers crossed that all goes smoothly.

[regentrude]

How can you know if you're missing out if you've never done any?  Formal verbal logic can reinforce logic in maths and computer programming, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing as formal argumentation.  Proofs in Geometry are very similar to syllogisms, but syllogisms alone are not a fully developed formal argument. They're just a beginning-an outline of an verbal argument.

 

OK, let me specify: I have never been in in a situation where I felt that the lack of a formal logic education has been in any way detrimental. I have not been hindered in conducting, and following, verbal argumentation, analyzing arguments, thinking critically, using deduction and induction to make rational decisions, achieving a professional position that requires logical thinking and argumenting. (I teach physics for a living - so I use verbal argumentation and critical thinking every.single.time I teach.)

 

It's not rocket science - most of it is completely obvious. You can understand logic without knowing the specialized terminology. You can construct a syllogism completely without knowing the meaning of the term, simply by logical thinking, which can be developed in other ways. And you most definitely need logic for developing computer programs, because if you draw false conclusions from your premises, the program won't do what it is supposed to do - but you just need to think through the statements, you don't have to classify them into groups and label them. The thinking is still the same, just the way of writing it down is different.

[Momling]

There are many ways to becoming an educated person capable of critical thinking. The study of logic is not a requirement.

[HS Mom in NC]

Just because you continue to function well in life without something doesn't mean that something can't add greatly to your life.  It's like Classical Education in general.  Are most Americans getting by with something far less rich than some form of a Classical Education when it comes to a K-12 education?  Yes.  Does that mean people should immediately write it off as an option because they're managed without it?  No. Like I stated up thread people can be smart and savvy and educated without formal logic.  Yes, people get by without it all the time.  They also get by without great literature and world history studies.  So they question isn't "Does everyone need formal logic?" The question is, "Is formal logic worth doing and if so, why?" Unless you have a basic grasp of what it is compared to what it isn't,  you can't really participate fully in a conversation about it and its value. It's high level thinking and a type of mental discipline.

 

If you actually look at what's covered in the Cothran Series (Traditional Logic 1&2, Material Logic and Rhetoric)  by Memeoria Press you're going to see more than just proofs.  Proofs are Traditional Logic books 1 and 2.  There are 2 more books after that ending with Aristotle's Rhetoric. 

The terminology isn't what's most important. Terminology is a set of labels we use to classify the important ideas.  What's most important is knowing  what an argument is lacking or why it's faulty.That requires understanding the ideas enough to be able to analyze and classify what sort of void or error exists and then what is required to correct it.  Being able to build an argument from the ground up and being able to analyze if it's internally consistent and is geared well to a particular audience is the ultimate goal. This is different than common sense and just proofs.  No one is going to intuit all the encompasses formal logic.
 

So here are the tables of Contents from the Cothran Series.  I didn't list all the case studies that go along with most of them.

 

Traditional Logic 1
Simple Apprehension

Comprehension and Extension

Signification and Supposition

Judgement

Four Statements of Logic

Contradictory and Contrary Statements

Sub-contraries and Subalterns

Distribution of Terms

Obversion, Conversion and Contraposition

Deductive Inference

Terminological Rules for Categorical Syllogisms

Quantitative Rules for Categorical Syllogisms

Qualitative Rules for Categorical Syllogisms

 

Traditional Logic 2

Figure in Syllogisms

Mood in Syllogisms

Reducing Syllogisms to the First Figure

Indirect Reduction of Syllogisms

Translating Ordinary Sentences into Logical Statements

Enthymemes

Conditional Syllogisms

Disjunctive Syllogisms

Conjunctive Syllogisms

Poly-syllogisms and Aristotelian Sorties

Goclean Sorties and Conditional Sorties

Epicheirema

The Dilemma

The Oblique Syllogism

 

Material Logic

Ten Categories used in Predication

Eight Divisions of the Ten Categories

Three Uses of the Ten Categories

The Essential Predictables

The Accidental Predictables

What is Definition?

The Rules of Definition

What is Division?

 

Rhetoric with Aristotle

Scope and Sequences of Rhetoric

Definition and Division of Rhetoric

Topics and Aims of Political Rhetoric

The Object of Political Rhetoric

The Content of Political Rhetoric

Content and Aims of Ceremonial Rhetoric

Forensic Rhetoric

Non-Artistic Means of Persuasion in Forensic Rhetoric

Rhetoric as it Concerns the Audience

Pathos parts 1 & 2

Ethos

Use of Example in Argument

Use of Enthymeme in Argument

The 28 Lines of Argument

The 9 Enthymemes

[HS Mom in NC]

OK, let me specify: I have never been in in a situation where I felt that the lack of a formal logic education has been in any way detrimental. I have not been hindered in conducting, and following, verbal argumentation, analyzing arguments, thinking critically, using deduction and induction to make rational decisions, achieving a professional position that requires logical thinking and argumenting. (I teach physics for a living - so I use verbal argumentation and critical thinking every.single.time I teach.)

 

It's not rocket science - most of it is completely obvious. You can understand logic without knowing the specialized terminology. You can construct a syllogism completely without knowing the meaning of the term, simply by logical thinking, which can be developed in other ways. And you most definitely need logic for developing computer programs, because if you draw false conclusions from your premises, the program won't do what it is supposed to do - but you just need to think through the statements, you don't have to classify them into groups and label them. The thinking is still the same, just the way of writing it down is different.

 

My husband is a computer programmer.  He would tell you the computer programming industry is plagued by programmers who can't think logically. He thinks formal logic should be a requirement because the industry wastes billions of dollars and millions of man hours because it's a rare computer programmer who can truly apply logic to situations. He's been doing this for almost 30 years now and is seen as a "miracle worker" by those he's worked with over the years.  He's not miraculous.  He is able to use logic meticulously and analytically.

[wapiti]

Thinking out loud:  similar to general intelligence, some people are innately more talented in the area of logic than other people.  However, an individual's skill with logic may be subject to improvement via practice within a particular context.

[regentrude]

My husband is a computer programmer.  He would tell you the computer programming industry is plagued by programmers who can't think logically. He thinks formal logic should be a requirement because the industry wastes billions of dollars and millions of man hours because it's a rare computer programmer who can truly apply logic to situations. He's been doing this for almost 30 years now and is seen as a "miracle worker" by those he's worked with over the years.  He's not miraculous.  He is able to use logic meticulously and analytically.

 

I completely agree that it is impossible to develop computer programs if one can not think logically.

I do not know how computer programmers are educated. I can, however, ascertain that all my theoretical physicist colleagues whose research involves analytical or computational work seem to be able to "use logic meticulously and analytically". They would not have gotten to the point they are by not being able to think logically - but for most of us, this did not involve education in formal logic. It seems that either upper level math and physics were sufficient to develop these skills, or that people without the innate skill would not have been able to success in those courses.

[texasmama]

My oldest homeschooled students are not yet in the "formal logic" stage.  Last year, we did (orally) Art of Argument, and this year we are working through (again, orally) The Argument Builder.  I did ask the boys to do one written assignment so far this year.

 

It does not take much time to do the program in the way we are using it.  I find that my boys have retained quite a lot of the fallacy terminology from Art of Argument, and we are forever using the amphiboly example of Odysseus and the Cyclops ("No One blinded me!") from The Argument Builder.  The boys think that is hysterical.

 

I don't know what we will do next year during the boys' 9th grade year, but I think that most people could work into their schedule an informal fallacy logic program like the two above and receive some benefit with a small amount of time and effort.  We probably spend thirty minutes on logic twice a week, and I believe it to be time well spent.  Yes, we could probably gain more out of the program if it were done as written, but I am pleased with the benefits of using it orally and having a small group discussion.  I think that high school students would benefit from an informal fallacies program if a formal logic program is not an option, for whatever reason.  I am no logic expert by any means, but those are my "living in the gray area" thoughts.

[purduemeche]

How about a proof-heavy high school geometry course?

 

Great question here - I think the answer depends on what you want.  Most of us assume formal logic is math based, since that is what a lot of the Critical Thinking Co. programs can be.  But, formal logic is language based and is a good foundation for formal rhetoric (needed for the logos part).

[purduemeche]

And to answer the question, if you don't do formal logic, then Martin Cothran won't allow you to visit the Memoria Press homeschool convention booth anymore.

[wapiti]

Great question here - I think the answer depends on what you want.  Most of us assume formal logic is math based, since that is what a lot of the Critical Thinking Co. programs can be.  But, formal logic is language based and is a good foundation for formal rhetoric (needed for the logos part).

 

FWIW, "formal logic" has more than one meaning.  We assume formal logic is math-based because it is, particularly in upper-level college courses within the mathematics department.  "Formal logic" can also refer to language-based courses within a philosophy department or a high-school-level course.

 

In my view, formal logic is about mathematical relationships as expressed in a language of one sort or another (math is one such language).  The fun thing about it is the connection between both sides of the brain, a full-brained activity, LOL.

 

I do think it's important to learn care and precision with language, lest one's rhetoric take on that other meaning of "rhetoric," as in words lacking in substance, or lest excessive language cloud the communication of the thought.  (While it might have been interesting to have had a course in formal logic of the language variety, any real writing instruction would have helped me.  For logic, I found that geometry proofs were more than sufficient training for my rather visual-based perspective of legal arguments.)

 

Eta, this is probably a good place to mention the interesting fact that Abraham Lincoln studied Euclid for improving his logic skill, something I learned on these boards to my surprise.

[RootAnn]

Some of mine will do formal logic & I won't make the time for others. Each has priorities and desires for their education. Some of mine have challenges that mean I have to spend more time on "the basics" and have less time down the road for electives like formal logic. Some are more interested in fields where formal logic will be helpful to have in their educational toolbox. One never has time to teach EVERYTHING. 

 

I'm trying to help my kids learn how to learn and have an interest in continuing their education past "school" time. So, if we don't get to something, they can always pick up a book or books later and learn it on their own. DH & I certainly model this behavior as much as we can.

[FloridaLisa]

Would we really be missing out?  We have done informal logic (The Fallacy Detective, Art of Argument, and we are currently doing the Thinking Toolbox.) 

 

I would like to be able to focus on the subjects that we enjoy (history and science) and the subjects that I know are important (writing and math).

 

Yes, you'll be missing out. But then, there are going to be things that your kids will miss out on because you cannot do every good looking thing in 13 years of education. Rats. 

 

So, you're asking the right question. You want to focus on the cores -- history, science, writing and math. Those are nothing to sneeze at and done well they will help your kids develop logical and analytical thinking skills. 

 

Formal and informal logic is one tool to help your child learn how to analyze and reason. But not at all the only tool. We have been hit and miss with logic. My oldest three did the the Bluedorn books and then the Memoria Press books. I was happy. We checked a box. They're doing great in college. 

 

My next two probably won't get formal logic because ... life happened and logic was one of the things cut in the last couple of years. I'm fine with it because I'm happy with what they are studying -- lots of lit, lots of math, philosophy, apologetics and Latin and some other really good things. They'll be fine. I think they'll do great in college. 

 

So, make good choices for your family, your schedule and do what you're doing really well. I'm actually a logic proponent but only when it fits into the schedule. I'd choose not to do it to go deep and thorough on the core subjects rather than doing it and skim on a core. 

[HomeschoolingHearts&Minds]

My husband teaches logic to college students.  While he wishes more high schoolers studied formal logic, he himself didn't study it in high school (wasn't an option at his ps anyway). That didn't stop him from studying it in college and going on to get his PhD in philosophy.  And reading books on complicated mathematical proofs for fun.

 

He was always good at logic puzzles, though.

 

As far as computer programmers who lack the knowledge/training to properly do the job they are being paid for---it sounds like those adults ought to acquire the necessary training. 

 

Your kids' education does not stop with what you give them.  At a certain point, they need to start accepting responsibility and begin to work towards amassing the knowledge and skills they need to lead their lives independently.  That is your ultimate goal.  You can never provide them with the "perfect" education; something will always be lacking. 

 

But the OP also has time, as her oldest is 13.  I would suggest that you continue with logic games and see if things get to the point in the future where you can embark on a more formal study of logic.

[redsquirrel]

hmmm... well, my son had a small amount of formal logic in 8th grade. I had planned to peruse it with him more intently in 9th and 10th grade, but he decided to attend public high school. The small amount of formal logic he did have stood him in good stead in the first couple weeks of geometry. The teacher spent the first week covering the basics of formal logic and talking about how it was going to be needed throughout the year. My son had a bit of a head start on what was taught and the transition from algebra to geometry has been smooth.

 

So, I didn't plan it, but having even a basic introduction to the topic, along with some of the vocabulary, can be handy to have before geometry starts.

[angela in ohio]

This is one of those "you don't know what you lacked until you have it" areas. Yes, you will be missing out. If I had to choose between a year of history or science and a year of logic, I would choose logic. That's a choice between teaching a skill that will last a lifetime versus teaching one year of content.

[Momling]

This is one of those "you don't know what you lacked until you have it" areas. Yes, you will be missing out. If I had to choose between a year of history or science and a year of logic, I would choose logic. That's a choice between teaching a skill that will last a lifetime versus teaching one year of content.

When I did teacher training years ago, there was a theme running that we could teach "critical thinking" instead of teaching content and that it was somehow a more efficient way of educating children. The idea was that history and science are dry boring facts, but that teaching critical thinking would be inspiring and engage the brain and produce smarter kids. I remember thinking it was kind of like they were proposing a diet pill instead of the hard work of actually getting fit. So in my class I was expected to give the students fun little logic puzzles for them to work on in groups and I did. And they were fun -- but I always felt like my teaching professors had missed the point. History and science are themselves inspiring and involve engaging the brain and making connections.

 

I have studied logic in grad school and don't feel the need to teach it to my kids other than having spent a day or two on logical notation and truth tables, and some basics of logical fallacies in writing. It's not that it's useless, it's that there are so many awesome other subjects too. In fact, every academic subject I can think of is worthy of study and offers benefit to a child's educational development.

 

We teach history to understand the world by looking at the past - looking for patterns, for reasons why larger events happened, history teaches how to think about ideas in a context of time and place. History involves big thinking and surely has applications in understanding present and future events unfolding. These are skills for a lifetime.

 

Science is also not just trivial content, we teach science so that our kids understand how the entire world works. When you study science you are learning how ideas can be tested - that you can ask a question and devise an experiment and set up controls and have evidence pointing towards an answer. Science teaches that the answers to research are constantly being built upon by generations of a scientific community. The study of science drives technology and health and surely is worthy of study.

 

But then again, every field is seeking to understand the world by understanding one part of it. Sociology can help our kids understand how the social world works -- how we create society and are molded by it. Studying psychology could help your child understand emotion and behavior and perception. Studying philosophy helps you to have an understanding of truth, knowledge, reality itself, these are huge important questions too. It just depends on what your priorities are. There are many paths to becoming an educated person and you don't have to study logic if you don't want to.