Material Logic - Cothran

[Half-Elven]

I'm looking into Material Logic for my student next year.  We've done Fallacy Detective, Thinking Toolbox, Intro to Logic (Nance) and Intermediate Logic (Nance).

 

When we did Intermediate Logic this year, I told my daughter that she will be adequately prepared for Geometry next year!  There were a lot of proof like problems to work through, using symbols.

 

In looking at the samples on-line, it seems that Material Logic is equivalent to Intermediate Logic but instead of symbols (if P then Q), there is actual "material" or content to P and Q. 

 

For example:  If all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.....this sort of thing.

 

Is my assumption correct?  Memoria Press only has a few pages worth of sample to look at so therefore I'm not sure.

 

Also, did you like Material Logic?  Was it worth going through? 

 

 

 

[JDoe]

I would suggest you start with Traditional Logic I if you like what you see on the Memoria Press website.

 

Both Traditional Logic I and II are fairly good, whereas Material Logic unfortunately is a little bit weak and I recall having some reservations about the material in it.

 

Also please be advised that all these texts do use religious statements in the examples as if they were uncontroversial facts instead of subjective beliefs, which for secular students may detract from the text somewhat. Still, we have used them despite this, for us, drawback.

[RootAnn]

Traditional Logic I & II would be equivalent to Nance's Intro & Intermediate Logic, so you shouldn't have to repeat those. I think Material Logic takes what is taught in the regular 'logic' books and goes further. 

 

The 10 ways in which something can exist
The 5 ways you can say something about something else
The 4 questions you must answer in order to know what something is
Analyses of famous essays by St. Thomas Aquinas, Hillaire Belloc, and Sir Francis Bacon

 

 

Although I don't think they quite answer your question as to the content of the program, here are some past threads on Material Logic. Perhaps you can find a poster from one of these who used Material Logic that you can PM for more info:

Formal vs. Material Logic

Memoria Press Material Logic?

Material Logic

Logic textbook?

Logic - a waste of time?

Please share your thoughts re: logic & rhetoric... (this one discusses how some people do better with Nance & some better with MP's version)

[HS Mom in NC]

We used the series in order.  We did Traditional Logic I and II, then Material Logic then Rhetoric.  They're designed to build on each other.

 

Not only are there religious statements, some are very denominational, but that's fine with me.  I never demand everything we use match all of my religious views because that's not how real life is.  In real life we have to deal with differences and that's not a bad thing.  Any kid old enough to use these materials should be old enough to start dealing with that kind of thing. 

 

We thought the series was worth doing even though one of my kids griped about it a lot at the time.  Later, after her first semester of college that same kid thanked me for it.

 

We used them in conjunction with Euclid's Elements for Geometry at one point and both my older kids, one mathy one not, said it was very helpful to do it that way.

[JDoe]

Traditional Logic I & II would be equivalent to Nance's Intro & Intermediate Logic, so you shouldn't have to repeat those. I think Material Logic takes what is taught in the regular 'logic' books and goes further. 

 

 

Material logic does not in my view go further but may be said to go a little deeper, however going deeper in this case relates to definitions of terms, and I am not entirely happy with how it proceeds about it. 

 

I will probably look for something in semantics and pragmatics to complement it.

 

 

To go further in logic, I believe the next natural step would be inductive logic (of which there seem to be a total lack of newer course material). JS Mill's "A system of logic" might be a good place to start.