Logic-For those using Critical Thinking Books 1 and 2-How's it going??

[Brenda in FL]

We just completed Book 1, and will be starting Book 2 this week. Overall - My son and I enjoyed going through most of this book (except for the Ps and Qs!!). I have learned alot as well.

 

It's been challenging and reading the intro for book 2 has me a little concerned about difficulty - but we'll take it one day at a time I guess - I'm hoping that if we have to skim through chapter 2 again that it won't affect him in future courses.

 

I'm really treating it as a basic introduction - because I feel very inadequate at times trying to respond to some of the discussion questions. But I know that he is getting the basic idea about thinking critically - and he has used some of the things he's learned, when he catches dh and I in some heated discussions!!

 

I'm interested to hear how things are going for others doing this series!

[lovemykids]

:lurk5:

[JudoMom]

We just completed Book 1, and will be starting Book 2 this week. Overall - My son and I enjoyed going through most of this book (except for the Ps and Qs!!). I have learned alot as well.

 

It's been challenging and reading the intro for book 2 has me a little concerned about difficulty - but we'll take it one day at a time I guess - I'm hoping that if we have to skim through chapter 2 again that it won't affect him in future courses.

 

I'm really treating it as a basic introduction - because I feel very inadequate at times trying to respond to some of the discussion questions. But I know that he is getting the basic idea about thinking critically - and he has used some of the things he's learned, when he catches dh and I in some heated discussions!!

 

I'm interested to hear how things are going for others doing this series!

 

How much time do you spend a week on this?

[Colleen in NS]

We just completed Book 1, and will be starting Book 2 this week. Overall - My son and I enjoyed going through most of this book (except for the Ps and Qs!!). I have learned alot as well.

 

It's been challenging and reading the intro for book 2 has me a little concerned about difficulty - but we'll take it one day at a time I guess - I'm hoping that if we have to skim through chapter 2 again that it won't affect him in future courses.

 

I'm really treating it as a basic introduction - because I feel very inadequate at times trying to respond to some of the discussion questions. But I know that he is getting the basic idea about thinking critically - and he has used some of the things he's learned, when he catches dh and I in some heated discussions!!

 

I'm interested to hear how things are going for others doing this series!

 

:lurk5: as well!!

 

We did book 1 (skipping that nasty chapter 2! I tried, really I did.). We enjoyed book 1, too - I have learned a lot about just questioning things, not taking things at face value that people tell me, etc.. Ds has absorbed some of the concepts, too, and he "catches me" in conversations. We started book 2 about two months ago or so. I had to skip that ch. 2 as well. I knew it would require a lot of time for me to preview it, understand it, and turn around and teach it to him...and with juggling Latin, math, grammar, writing, and science skills, it seemed like one new thing too many for me to learn and teach. So we moved on. I think we are on ch. 5 or 6, and I am sort of half-hearted about it now - I can see now why people have posted in the past about it being dry, boring, or whatever. Yet, I will keep going through it because WTM says it's a good preparation for formal logic next year (we will use TL). I can see why; it does get you thinking about what you say. I have scaled down to reading through the text, doing only some of the exercises, and not working so hard on remembering every single technique - there are so many. And I just hope that this sort of loose preparation is good enough for formal logic. I hope others will pipe up with their experience, because it's sort of worrying me. We spend about an hour a week on it. It's not the 3 or so hours rec'd in WTM, but I don't have the time to devote to that - I'd rather devote it to the other skills.

 

I'm glad you posted - I remember you and I chatting when we were starting out with these books!

[KarenC]

So far we are really enjoying it. Now I'm going look ahead farther in Chapter 2 and see if there will be an issue for us.

 

We use this once or twice a week for 15 - 20 minutes at a time.

 

Karen

[Oak Knoll Mom]

I'm hoping that if we have to skim through chapter 2 again that it won't affect him in future courses.

 

We did book 1 (skipping that nasty chapter 2! I tried, really I did.). ....

 

I had to skip that ch. 2 as well.

 

So far we are really enjoying it. Now I'm going look ahead farther in Chapter 2 and see if there will be an issue for us.

Karen

 

What's wrong/difficult with chapter 2?

[ondreeuh]

It's not just me? We got most of the way through chapter two and we gave up. We are smart people, but we just didn't "get it" towards the end and I think there may have been some mistakes in the answer key ... at least that's how I console myself.

 

If it gets better, maybe we will start again at chapter 3.

[Cami in UT]

We are half way through chapter 1 of book 2. We spend about 15 minutes a day working on it. Ds11 says it is one of his favorite subjects. But I'm also not very strict with "getting it" either. We take turns turn talking through each problem but if we are stumped or not right I'll just read the answer. We do try to figure out why the answer is what it is but that is as far as we go. I figure if I'm learning all the material next to my boy then he is getting more than I got in PS, so it is good enough. That's my 2 cents worth. :lol:

[TexasRachel]

We are half way through chapter 1 of book 2. We spend about 15 minutes a day working on it. Ds11 says it is one of his favorite subjects. But I'm also not very strict with "getting it" either. We take turns turn talking through each problem but if we are stumped or not right I'll just read the answer. We do try to figure out why the answer is what it is but that is as far as we go. I figure if I'm learning all the material next to my boy then he is getting more than I got in PS, so it is good enough. That's my 2 cents worth. :lol:

 

We just finished chapter 2 in book 1. And this is what we do. For most days, it doesn't take very long, DD reads the chapter and then we do the questions. I figure it's a good intro and hopefully later on it'll make more sense. I definitely think I'm getting more out of it than she is though.

[Colleen in NS]

What's wrong/difficult with chapter 2?

 

The only way I can think of to describe ch. 2 of both books, without going into what's taught (because I just don't get it), is that they are more symbol oriented, than word oriented. The rest of both books' chapters seem to be more word oriented.

 

I did some research on these boards a few months ago about logic, and figured out that there are two ways to go: symbol or word. I went back to the logic chapter in WTM and figured out that, for me, I wanted logic that would be useful with words. Useful for writing, useful for analyzing what someone is saying and what someone wrote. So, even though there are a lot of different propaganda techniques in these books, and I am failing to memorize what they all are, they are still word oriented so they make more sense to me. I also did research on the differences between Introductory/Intermediate Logic and Traditional Logic 1/2, and I concluded that TL 1/2 was more word oriented. I had bought IL/IL, and was puzzled as I browsed through it. Then I decided to buy TL after all that research, and it is word oriented, so it makes more sense to me. We will use that instead. I also read somewhere here that if you do word-oriented logic first, then symbol-oriented logic will make more sense if you decide to study it later on, say, for computer programming. There is also an interesting article about the differences and background of each type at the Memoria Press website.

 

I am sure I just butchered that whole explanation, but it's my simple understanding so far. I just hope I'm not making a mistake by breezing over those chapters. Logic is a very new subject for me.

 

It's not just me? We got most of the way through chapter two and we gave up. We are smart people, but we just didn't "get it" towards the end and I think there may have been some mistakes in the answer key ... at least that's how I console myself.

 

If it gets better, maybe we will start again at chapter 3.

 

If you like words, take it back up, minus the ch. 2. :lol: Then come back and tell us what you figured out - maybe we can all collaborate.:D

 

We take turns turn talking through each problem but if we are stumped or not right I'll just read the answer. We do try to figure out why the answer is what it is but that is as far as we go.

 

This is pretty much what I do, too. Sometimes I feel pretty helpless :lol:. With everything else, I will drive myself to figure something out (some new Latin grammar concept or something), but with this, I'm halfhearted. It's because I can't see the "end", the goal, the big picture or something.

[amyco]

Nope, I don't think you butchered that explanation at all! This is an interesting thread, as just today dd and I have decided she'll start Memoria Press's TL next year. Also on the MP website is the "rule" that a traditional logic should be done before the informal/fallacy type logic. Link to the article here. This is not what WTM recommends. After a brief time of being conflicted, I am going with TL first for 7th, then either Art of Argument or Critical Thinking for 8th.

[HRAAB]

The one complaints I've heard about these books is that they are written for a classroom and difficult to implement with one student. Is this true?

[Colleen in NS]

Nope, I don't think you butchered that explanation at all! This is an interesting thread, as just today dd and I have decided she'll start Memoria Press's TL next year. Also on the MP website is the "rule" that a traditional logic should be done before the informal/fallacy type logic. Link to the article here. This is not what WTM recommends. After a brief time of being conflicted, I am going with TL first for 7th, then either Art of Argument or Critical Thinking for 8th.

 

Now that was an interesting article to read! Oh boy, I feel like I don't really know what I'm doing with CT. So, did you think that CT falls under the "informal/fallacy" type logic? Am I doing it backwards? If it conflicts with what WTM recommends, then I wonder why WTM rec'd CT to come before formal logic study....my head is going to explode! And I wonder if the MP article's explanation is why I feel bombarded and overwhelmed with all the propaganda techniques in CT - after awhile they just jumble together in my mind and I can't keep them sorted. Yet Cothran says that formal logic is systematic. It makes sense to me, the idea of studying something correctly so that you can spot incorrectness. Guess what I'll be dreaming about tonight....

 

The one complaints I've heard about these books is that they are written for a classroom and difficult to implement with one student. Is this true?

 

Well, it *is* written for a classroom, and it's very wordy, and has lots of exercises. I don't think it has been difficult to implement with my one student, but I suppose we could have fuller discussions if we had more than just the two of us. However, I'm already unsure of how good of a job I am doing with it, so I'm probably naive in my thinking here.

[amyco]

Colleen--CT covers the whole gamut of informal and includes some more of the symbolic (the pesky chapter 2). TL is all about the syllogism. I don't think, even after reading the MP article, that there is necessarily a correct sequence--they are just so different. You won't find truth tables in TL, for example.

 

I'll be following this thread, I'm interested to hear more opinions about Critical Thinking!

[Sunshine State Sue]

I'm brain dead and need to go to bed, but wanted to respond to the thread quickly. We are in Chapter 6 of book 1. It's gone better than I expected. Sometimes I find myself just reading the answers out of the TM, though. :tongue_smilie: I have no intention of continuing with book 2. I've decided that I'm not continuing with logic in high school. At least not as a separate subject. I imagine geometry is going to have something in it.

 

The one complaints I've heard about these books is that they are written for a classroom and difficult to implement with one student. Is this true?

Initially, I thought this was going to be a big deal, and I think it would be better in a group, but it's gone better than I expected overall.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Sue in St Pete

[sassenach]

It's not just me? We got most of the way through chapter two and we gave up. We are smart people, but we just didn't "get it" towards the end and I think there may have been some mistakes in the answer key ... at least that's how I console myself.

 

If it gets better, maybe we will start again at chapter 3.

 

No, it's not just you. I gave up half way through chapter 2. I didn't know that skipping a chapter was an option. I guess I just figured that each chapter built on the next. It was becoming a chore and it wasn't a hill that I was willing to die on. I think I'll look it over and maybe just pick up at ch 3.

[jibaker103]

OMG!!!! I thought I was the only one who did not get chapter 2 and wanted to bang my head against a wall at the mere suggestion of carrying on!!!!! I am so excited to here that we can skip the chapter and move on without any repercussions!!! We're going to pick it back up tomorrow. I will be alloting 30-45 min. 1 day per week.

[Sunshine State Sue]

Colleen--CT covers the whole gamut of informal and includes some more of the symbolic (the pesky chapter 2). TL is all about the syllogism.

Dumb question - what is syllogism? Is it related to symbolic?

[MIch elle]

Am I doing it backwards? If it conflicts with what WTM recommends, then I wonder why WTM rec'd CT to come before formal logic study....my head is going to explode! And I wonder if the MP article's explanation is why I feel bombarded and overwhelmed with all the propaganda techniques in CT - after awhile they just jumble together in my mind and I can't keep them sorted. Yet Cothran says that formal logic is systematic. It makes sense to me, the idea of studying something correctly so that you can spot incorrectness. Guess what I'll be dreaming about tonight....

 

 

 

 

Many TTC courses are available through inter-loan library.

 

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

The first four lectures would help with understanding formal vs. informal logic and why informal logic is widely used and studied.

Edited March 3, 2010 by MIch elle
typo

[TeaTotaler]

I am so relieved to read this thread. We started Book 1 in Jan and got half-way through Chapter 2. After much head banging we abandoned it thinking that each chapter probably built on the previous ones. I purchased this from Resource without having seen it in person. If I had, I probably would have decided to purchase something else. I may have to pull it back out again and see if we can go on with Chap 3.

 

Whew, I was starting to wonder if I could homeschool for high school, if I couldn't tackle a junior high book for Logic!!

 

 

We just completed Book 1, and will be starting Book 2 this week. Overall - My son and I enjoyed going through most of this book (except for the Ps and Qs!!). I have learned alot as well.

 

 

I'm interested to hear how things are going for others doing this series!

[Matryoshka]

Many TTC courses are available through inter-loan library.

 

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

The first four lectures would help with understanding formal vs. informal logic and why informal logic is widely used and studied.

 

 

I think I love you! :D This is indeed available in my library system, and maybe now I can wrap my head around all this! I liked the article about Traditional before Informal, but honestly I couldn't tell the difference right now unless someone pointed it out to me. I'm guessing a simple mention of Ancient Greek philosophers is not enough to classify something as Traditional... I think I could really use a better education on what the different kinds of Logic *are* before I try to teach it! :glare:

 

So, for the Teaching Company Argumentation lectures - should I get the videos, or are the CDs okay? The library has both.

 

Critical Thinking Book 1 is currently in a box somewhere on its way to me, but I wasn't thinking of starting till the fall. I'm glad to see this thread!

 

Oh, and as for Traditional Logic, everything I've seen has been rumored to have a particular religous bent which would make it not work for me. Someone in another thread mentioned this book - anyone know if it's usable secularly? And usable with 7th graders? (and I know religious isn't the only bias that can creep in - while at Amazon I clicked over to another text that is rumored to have a stron objectivist bias - don't want that either!) If no one knows, I may be forced to buy it myself... annoyingly, the library doesn't have that one...

[Colleen in NS]

No, it's not just you. I gave up half way through chapter 2.

 

OMG!!!! I thought I was the only one who did not get chapter 2 and wanted to bang my head against a wall at the mere suggestion of carrying on!!!!!

 

I am so relieved to read this thread. We started Book 1 in Jan and got half-way through Chapter 2. After much head banging we abandoned it thinking that each chapter probably built on the previous ones.

 

I am SO glad I'm not the only one!

 

Many TTC courses are available through inter-loan library.

 

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

The first four lectures would help with understanding formal vs. informal logic and why informal logic is widely used and studied.

 

Thanks MIch elle. My library system only has ONE TTC lecture series, that I asked them to order. They wouldn't order anymore that I asked for (basic science ones), even with the great sales a few months ago. And I can't afford them right now. I may see if I can get it through ILL here in Canada, though I don't think they are as popular here as in the States.

[amyco]

A syllogism is the three step argument, consisting of two premises and a conclusion. A classic example of a categorical syllogism (a deductive argument) is

 

If all humans are mortal,

And all Greeks are human,

Then all Greeks are mortal.

 

 

This is what you call traditional Aristotelian logic, the sort covered in the Memoria Press course. There are also other ways to do deductive reasoning beside the classic syllogism--they have different names (e.g. modus ponens).

 

Symbolic logic is a different branch of logic--to me it always looks more like math, and this is the one used by computer programmers. In college I studied it after formal logic, as formal logic was a prereq for upper-level symbolic logic. I really struggled in symbolic logic. I don't know that studying much symbolic logic is necessary for logic stage children; I think the focus for them is more on learning to reason well, and construct an argument and support it with evidence.

 

Hope that helps. :)

[MIch elle]

So, for the Teaching Company Argumentation lectures - should I get the videos, or are the CDs okay? The library has both.

 

 

 

DVD's have some on screen diagrams and other things that I found helpful but are included in the booklet if you listen to the CD. He does tell those listening to look in your book for the diagrams (but NOT if you're driving ;)) .

 

I watched the first 6 or so lectures before I had to return it to the library. I learned what I needed for now from the first 4 lectures.

[lovemykids]

A syllogism is the three step argument, consisting of two premises and a conclusion. A classic example of a categorical syllogism (a deductive argument) is

 

If all humans are mortal,

And all Greeks are human,

Then all Greeks are mortal.

 

 

This is what you call traditional Aristotelian logic, the sort covered in the Memoria Press course. There are also other ways to do deductive reasoning beside the classic syllogism--they have different names (e.g. modus ponens).

 

Symbolic logic is a different branch of logic--to me it always looks more like math, and this is the one used by computer programmers. In college I studied it after formal logic, as formal logic was a prereq for upper-level symbolic logic. I really struggled in symbolic logic. I don't know that studying much symbolic logic is necessary for logic stage children; I think the focus for them is more on learning to reason well, and construct an argument and support it with evidence.

 

Hope that helps. :)

 

I took a symbolic logic course in college, and even though I received an A, I would not want to attempt to teach it to my children. It does remind me of math. (I think I had a wonderful professor....;))

[Melora in NC]

I talked to the Critical Thinking rep before I bought Critical Thinking 1 at the NC convention last spring, to find out if he thought the book would work well for teaching logic to the older kids in our hs group, who are 10-12 yrs old. He thought it would be fine for them Except that he suggested we skip Chapter 2. So far they've done fine with it, but after looking at Chapter 2 I was more than happy to skip it!

[Colleen in NS]

I think the focus for them is more on learning to reason well, and construct an argument and support it with evidence.

 

Aha, so I did understand correctly somewhere in my reading, about formal logic being a good prep for symbolic logic. And, thank you for confirming my other very shaky understanding about the goal for this age.

 

I don't think, even after reading the MP article, that there is necessarily a correct sequence--they are just so different.

 

Some of my fog is being lifted; thank you!

 

The first four lectures would help with understanding formal vs. informal logic and why informal logic is widely used and studied.

 

I quickly skimmed the description of these lectures - it seemed to me that it was all about many of the propaganda/arguing techniques that I am coming across in CT. Have you seen CT? What do you think - do these two things overlap?

 

He thought it would be fine for them Except that he suggested we skip Chapter 2.

 

:svengo: Oh, thank you so much for piping up here!!

 

amyco71 (or anyone), do you think we are talking about three different things here: formal logic with syllogisms, symbolic logic, and informal logic with propaganda/argumentation techniques? And trying to figure out which is more important and when and why? (I'm trying to piece together a bigger picture in my mind, so I know what in the world I am doing this year and next)

[amyco]

amyco71 (or anyone), do you think we are talking about three different things here: formal logic with syllogisms, symbolic logic, and informal logic with propaganda/argumentation techniques? And trying to figure out which is more important and when and why? (I'm trying to piece together a bigger picture in my mind, so I know what in the world I am doing this year and next)

 

 

Colleen--I think that's it exactly--they are three different things, with some overlap. The million dollar question is which to teach first and why. Hmmmm...maybe we should ask on the High school board?

 

Also, I admit that I'm fairly convinced by Martin Cothran's point about learning traditional logic before the informal logic. I also have D'Angelo's rhetoric book on the way from my library, and I am going to give that a look to see how much overlap there is between rhetoric and the Critical Thinking course. I tend to think that most critical thinking skills (of the informal logic variety) are really rhetorical skills and might be best kept til the rhetoric stage. That's my latest idea, but I could be way off. Or at least they go hand in hand somehow. I mean, if in high school they are writing persuasive papers, seems like a good idea at that point to know which arguments to avoid. But when is that best learned? 8th grade, right before rhetoric, and after traditional logic? I'm leaning toward that sequence.

[Sunshine State Sue]

A syllogism is the three step argument, consisting of two premises and a conclusion. A classic example of a categorical syllogism (a deductive argument) is

 

If all humans are mortal,

And all Greeks are human,

Then all Greeks are mortal.

 

 

This is what you call traditional Aristotelian logic, the sort covered in the Memoria Press course. There are also other ways to do deductive reasoning beside the classic syllogism--they have different names (e.g. modus ponens).

 

Symbolic logic is a different branch of logic--to me it always looks more like math, and this is the one used by computer programmers. In college I studied it after formal logic, as formal logic was a prereq for upper-level symbolic logic. I really struggled in symbolic logic. I don't know that studying much symbolic logic is necessary for logic stage children; I think the focus for them is more on learning to reason well, and construct an argument and support it with evidence.

 

Hope that helps. :)

Thank you for the explanation. Being a programmer, I deal with both types, I just not so familiar with the names.

[MIch elle]

Have you seen CT? What do you think - do these two things overlap?

 

 

 

I haven't seen CT; that's why I was reading this thread to see if it's something we want to do. So I can't help you compare.

 

I bought MP TL a few years ago, and I saw no point of formal logic at that time. I sold it.

[lovemykids]

Colleen--I think that's it exactly--they are three different things, with some overlap. The million dollar question is which to teach first and why. Hmmmm...maybe we should ask on the High school board?

 

Also, I admit that I'm fairly convinced by Martin Cothran's point about learning traditional logic before the informal logic. I also have D'Angelo's rhetoric book on the way from my library, and I am going to give that a look to see how much overlap there is between rhetoric and the Critical Thinking course. I tend to think that most critical thinking skills (of the informal logic variety) are really rhetorical skills and might be best kept til the rhetoric stage. That's my latest idea, but I could be way off. Or at least they go hand in hand somehow. I mean, if in high school they are writing persuasive papers, seems like a good idea at that point to know which arguments to avoid. But when is that best learned? 8th grade, right before rhetoric, and after traditional logic? I'm leaning toward that sequence.

 

I agree that there is some overlap, and despite having some logic and philosophy in my background, I am clueless when it comes to teaching my children. I don’t know what sequence to follow. :confused: Most likely, I will match programs to my kid’s personalities.

 

There are quite a few introductory, informal logic programs that interest me; Philosophy for Kids, Fallacy Detective, Critical Thinking, KOGS, The Art of Argument, etc. And I hear that LOF is coming out with a program. So far, we have used some Mind Benders and the like, but where to go next is still undecided. If I can’t find a reasonable, formal logic program for high school, I am fine with waiting until college. We will have plenty to do with writing, foreign language, math, science and the like. I will look out for a thread on the high school forum!

[Brenda in FL]

It's not just me? We got most of the way through chapter two and we gave up. We are smart people, but we just didn't "get it" towards the end and I think there may have been some mistakes in the answer key ... at least that's how I console myself.

 

If it gets better, maybe we will start again at chapter 3.

 

Oh - the rest of the book is much better!! And only a couple of times were any inverse, contrapositive, etc. etc. ever referred to again. I recommend starting up again!

[Colleen in NS]

I also have D'Angelo's rhetoric book on the way from my library, and I am going to give that a look to see how much overlap there is between rhetoric and the Critical Thinking course. I tend to think that most critical thinking skills (of the informal logic variety) are really rhetorical skills and might be best kept til the rhetoric stage. That's my latest idea, but I could be way off. Or at least they go hand in hand somehow. I mean, if in high school they are writing persuasive papers, seems like a good idea at that point to know which arguments to avoid. But when is that best learned? 8th grade, right before rhetoric, and after traditional logic? I'm leaning toward that sequence.

 

Huh, you bring up some interesting thoughts. I have the D'Angelo book - if I remember later, I will go have a closer look. I'd be very interested to hear back from you after you compare, too.

 

I will look out for a thread on the high school forum!

 

I think I'm going over there to try to drive some traffic to this thread.

[Brenda in FL]

Came back to read what's been posted so far - very interesting! I'll be back to participate later after dinner!!

[lovemykids]

Colleen--I think that's it exactly--they are three different things, with some overlap. The million dollar question is which to teach first and why. Hmmmm...maybe we should ask on the High school board?

 

Also, I admit that I'm fairly convinced by Martin Cothran's point about learning traditional logic before the informal logic. I also have D'Angelo's rhetoric book on the way from my library, and I am going to give that a look to see how much overlap there is between rhetoric and the Critical Thinking course. I tend to think that most critical thinking skills (of the informal logic variety) are really rhetorical skills and might be best kept til the rhetoric stage. That's my latest idea, but I could be way off. Or at least they go hand in hand somehow. I mean, if in high school they are writing persuasive papers, seems like a good idea at that point to know which arguments to avoid. But when is that best learned? 8th grade, right before rhetoric, and after traditional logic? I'm leaning toward that sequence.

 

You know, I was just coming back here to mention this. Classical writing programs and even Writing Strands, have some critical thinking skills wrapped up into them. So, after introductory logic, my using The Lost Tools of Writing in high school (or before) and then Susan’s recommendations for rhetoric should cover it all nicely. I need to read that portion of WTM again.

 

:lurk5:

[Colleen in NS]

Classical writing programs and even Writing Strands, have some critical thinking skills wrapped up into them.

 

 

Well then maybe CT *is* meant to be just a light introduction, not something to be "mastered" before moving on. Maybe I've been worrying for nothing. I will try to remember to have a look at my rhetoric books and compare with CT.

 

:lurk5:

[Poke Salad Annie]

I was just reading in WTM last night, and remembered reading that Writing Strands did include some logic. I just now looked it up, and it does say Book 5 deals with logical development of arguments.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Poke Salad Annie

[amyco]

I just looked over D'Angelo's Composition in the Classical Tradition which is the rhetoric book WTM recommends for 9th grade. It blew me over how similar it was to Classical Writing! Seriously...the sequence and topics are nearly identical, only he covers in one chapter what CW covers in a year. Whoa.

 

So there goes my theory about rhetoric and informal logic...am now considering The Rulebook for Arguments by Weston. It appears that is how to construct an argument as well, not recognize faulty reasoning as taught in CT or Art of Argument.

 

So there you go...my unofficial survey of these resources reveals that CT and Art of Argument are really the only texts recommended by WTM that teach these things (i.e. faulty reasoning/informal fallacies). Which does not answer the remaining question: when is it best to teach which? But, does it matter? That's what I really want to know--oh where's my crystal ball when I need it?

 

Of course, our children are not going to be scarred for life if we get it "wrong." ;) Maybe it just comes down to what a parent is more comfortable with, what they think their child is ready for, what they prefer--which can be said for any subject!!

[lovemykids]

I just looked over D'Angelo's Composition in the Classical Tradition which is the rhetoric book WTM recommends for 9th grade. It blew me over how similar it was to Classical Writing! Seriously...the sequence and topics are nearly identical, only he covers in one chapter what CW covers in a year. Whoa.

 

So there goes my theory about rhetoric and informal logic...am now considering The Rulebook for Arguments by Weston. It appears that is how to construct an argument as well, not recognize faulty reasoning as taught in CT or Art of Argument.

 

So there you go...my unofficial survey of these resources reveals that CT and Art of Argument are really the only texts recommended by WTM that teach these things (i.e. faulty reasoning/informal fallacies). Which does not answer the remaining question: when is it best to teach which? But, does it matter? That's what I really want to know--oh where's my crystal ball when I need it?

 

Of course, our children are not going to be scarred for life if we get it "wrong." ;) Maybe it just comes down to what a parent is more comfortable with, what they think their child is ready for, what they prefer--which can be said for any subject!!

 

 

I want to get my hands on that book!! And as for your statement that I bolded- amen. LOL.

[Colleen in NS]

CT and Art of Argument are really the only texts recommended by WTM that teach these things (i.e. faulty reasoning/informal fallacies). Which does not answer the remaining question: when is it best to teach which? But, does it matter?

 

Sigh....I don't know.....WTM presents a pretty convincing argument in favour of studying critical thinking first, then formal logic. P. 240 of the 2004 WTM says, "Before he begins a logic course, he should be accustomed to reasoning his way through problems....We recommend during the fifth and sixth grade years....doing logic puzzles and then moving on to study critical thinking directly." Further down the page, where CT 1 and 2 are called an introduction to logic: "These books introduce basic logical categories and apply the logic to newspapers.....The logic itself focuses on fallacies, rather than on a systematic explanation of logical structures. However, working through these texts in sixth grade will prepare the student to begin formal logic in seventh grade."

 

It seems to be opposite advice to Cothran's article linked earlier. I can see why one would consider doing CT after formal logic - get the systematic teaching first, then look for informal fallacies. Yet, WTM's argument makes sense to me, too - get kids accustomed to reasoning through simpler problems before doing formal logic. Another thought has come to me while going through CT - starting to recognize those fallacies in CT can act as a protection of our 11-13 year olds, who are SO bombarded with advertising. It's a good thing at this age to learn to question anything that is trying to convince them of something.

 

So I think you are right - it could be either or. We'll just have to make our decisions, know WHY we made them, and stick with them. Yeah, where is that crystal ball anyway???:D

 

Back to square one for me, I think! Only I think I'd better pay closer attention to those various techniques in CT (but still skipping those symbolic chapters and hoping I won't regret that).

[mcconnellboys]

They are three different things. After doing logic with my older son, I decided that informal logic would make a good intro and that I would do it first with my younger son. We are doing that this year (he did logic puzzles last year).

 

Next year, we will be doing Nance's Intro Logic, followed by his Intermediate (if I can stand it). It is more symbolic logic, I believe, but I will try to find and link at the end of this something Cothran wrote about his program vs. Nance's program.

 

I am doing Nance first because my older son had a much simpler time with it when he was in seventh grade than he did with Cothran's course beginning in eighth grade. I plan on holding off on Cothran until high school. Perhaps my older son found his course so confusing because he has processing issues....? I just don't know.

 

And I don't know a thing about logic, really, LOL, so you'll have to take everything I say about it with a big 'ol grain of salt.....

 

From doing it with my older son, it just seemed to me that the more logical progression, in terms of simplest to most complex course, was informal, symbolic, formal. He returned to a private high school as a sophomore, so I never did do rhetoric with him.

 

I never used the Critical Thinking I and II books. I did use Critical Thinking in U.S. history during seventh and eighth grades, and I really liked those. I plan on using them again, beginning next year.

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1312

Edited March 4, 2010 by mcconnellboys

[Brenda in FL]

What a great discussion!

 

Colleen - I thought you had it figured out for me to go on to TL next year - you're going to change your mind now??

 

Overall, I'm kinda glads to see that we all seem to have a similar experience with CT - makes me feel a little more secure about all those times I had to rely on the answer key or just admit that I had no idea about the answer to my child!!

 

I am glad that we are doing the books now. This is my oldest child and I've really enjoyed talking to him about some of the subjects mentioned as we just hadn't had reason to mention many of them yet. So not only has he been learning about thinking critically, but he's also learning more about the world we live in.

 

As for group discussion vs. parent/child discussion - I too have been pleasantly surprised with how well it has gone without a whole classroom. However, often I tried to have dh involved and even my 4th grader has enjoyed participating at times.

 

We even attempted the debate in Ch. 8! I let ds pick a different topic and he debated against Dad on the question: "Is Goofy a dog?" We all enjoyed it - and although it wasn't perfect - it was a great exercise!

 

To answer the question of how much time we spend: Ideally - I wanted to spend about 1 1/2 hours a week - over two days - but I couldn't keep up with that. Therefore - we are a little behind in starting book 2 which I had hoped to finish by the end of this school year. We'll see how that goes. But after looking at TL - it seems that if we don't cover everything in CT2 - it won't hinder progress going through TL (If that's what Colleen concludes is the best course of action!!)

 

Thanks for all the participation - Now I'm going to post a latin question!

[FloridaLisa]

Well, we are doing an informal logic sandwich here. :001_smile:

 

My dc use Thinking Toolbox and Fallacy Detective in 6th and 7th grades, respectively. I'm working through FD with my current 7th grader and find that he is very capable of identifying the fallacies and weaknesses of the arguments. I appreciate Cothran's arguments for starting formal logic first, but this will not be ds' only pass through informal logic.

 

I'm also working through TL I and II with my high schoolers. We'll finish TL II this semester and, Lord willing, move into Material Logic this summer. Material Logic will bring us back to informal logic, but at a much deeper level. The book is much more challenging than FD. Having worked through a Rhetoric text this year, I'm hoping Material Logic will extend what they learned regarding definition and classification. And hoping Cothran publishes the second volume in the near future!

 

Lisa

[Colleen in NS]

Colleen - I thought you had it figured out for me to go on to TL next year - you're going to change your mind now??

 

:lol: If you are wondering what I meant by "going back to square one," I meant that I'm sticking with what I had already planned - CT this year, TL 1 next year. I think in general, I trust the advice of WTM, so I mostly use it. In general, when I read articles at MP, they make sense to me, but I always come away feeling like I'm not doing enough. Not enough Latin memory, not understanding or doing logic perfectly, etc.. With WTM advice, it makes sense to me, *and* it (along with all of SWB's and JW's articles here) tells me how to adjust everything for my individual kids. It makes me *enjoy* education as well as giving me knowledge of how to teach skills. So, I may use MP products, but with the WTM twist. I suppose if I'd been trained in logic myself, I'd delve deeper into creating my own plan for my kids, but I don't have that experience. I'm hoping that an imperfect job at teaching it will be better than nothing. I'm sticking with my original plan. CT, then TL.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Colleen in NS

[Brenda in FL]

:lol: If you are wondering what I meant by "going back to square one," I meant that I'm sticking with what I had already planned - CT this year, TL 1 next year. I think in general, I trust the advice of WTM, so I mostly use it. In general, when I read articles at MP, they make sense to me, but I always come away feeling like I'm not doing enough. Not enough Latin memory, not understanding or doing logic perfectly, etc.. With WTM advice, it makes sense to me, *and* it (along with all of SWB's and JW's articles here) tells me how to adjust everything for my individual kids. It makes me *enjoy* education as well as giving me knowledge of how to teach skills. So, I may use MP products, but with the WTM twist. I suppose if I'd been trained in logic myself, I'd delve deeper into creating my own plan for my kids, but I don't have that experience. I'm hoping that an imperfect job at teaching it will be better than nothing. I'm sticking with my original plan. CT, then TL.

 

That's reassuring - I feel the same way. I read alot of your posts and I wish that we were neighbors!! It would be lovely to have someone close by for face-to-face homeschool conversations!!

[Colleen in NS]

It would be lovely to have someone close by for face-to-face homeschool conversations!!

 

Tell me about it. I've met one homeschool Mom who has the same sorts of passions for this as I do, but I hardly see her. And I've started to get to know another homeschool Mom who has been in my church for a couple of years now - I'm discovering that she and I may have a lot in common, too, as far as our passions for homeschooling and family! I hope, I hope. Thank you for the compliment.:) And let's keep in touch over the next year or two, with this logic thing. I'm so glad you brought up the CT thread, because I hardly ever see people talking about it in detail like this. It was really helpful to me, too.

[Strawberry Queen]

Thanks for this discussion. I am heading into the logic stage so I need to glean all I can about the subject. I'm a little intimidated by formal logic since I took a course in university in a bid to avoid doing actual math. Boy, I had a ton of trouble. I finally dropped the class after having a 3 average (on 9 point scale). I understood the first week and then it all went over my head.

 

I'm hoping that if it's aimed at younger children the explanations will be easier to follow and I might understand at least half of it.:D

[Colleen in NS]

I'm a little intimidated by formal logic since I took a course in university in a bid to avoid doing actual math. Boy, I had a ton of trouble.

 

I wonder if it was more symbolic logic that you did, rather than wordy logic, since it was in place of math. If so, then hopefully you will have a nice surprise coming up soon.

[Catherine]

The second time through (with second kid) we made it through CT book 1, even chapter 2, though my ds understood far more than I did...

 

But CT 2 is killingme-the chapter on evaluating the validity of arguments is where we are now and for the life of me, I cannot grasp why an argument with false premises must *always* be true. It is so counterintuitive. I guess I am having trouble understanding how this could even be useful, since it seems to be able to be used to prove ridiculous things "true".

 

Has anyone gotten beyond this point in CT 2 and forged ahead successfully? Or changed to another program?

[Colleen in NS]

The second time through (with second kid) we made it through CT book 1, even chapter 2, though my ds understood far more than I did...

 

But CT 2 is killingme-the chapter on evaluating the validity of arguments is where we are now and for the life of me, I cannot grasp why an argument with false premises must *always* be true. It is so counterintuitive. I guess I am having trouble understanding how this could even be useful, since it seems to be able to be used to prove ridiculous things "true".

 

Has anyone gotten beyond this point in CT 2 and forged ahead successfully? Or changed to another program?

 

We are at the end of ch. 5 of book 2, and I skipped ch. 2 of book 2, as well as ch. 2 of book 1. I just. don't. get. it. Don't understand why it's necessary for anything, except maybe computer programming?? Anyway, we forged on, don't know about successfully yet, but we are absorbing some concepts.

 

So, have you not gone through book 2 with your other child? I remember you posting about CT in another thread and it seemed like you got a lot out of it. But maybe you were just talking about book 1? If you did book 2, do you just not remember ch. 2? If you did book 2, how did the rest of the book go for you?