What's the point of studying logic?

[woolybear]

Probably I can find this answer if I read a book (WTM, perhaps?) I just really don't understand it. Mind explaining it to me?

 

tia

[Colleen in NS]

Probably I can find this answer if I read a book (WTM, perhaps?) I just really don't understand it. Mind explaining it to me?

 

tia

 

We are studying it so we can acquire a mental structure and tools for reasoning through arguments. It'll help us to construct arguments in order, and I expect it'll help us to analyze others' arguments so we can understand what they are saying/writing, and respond properly. This is something I have never learned before, and I consider it essential, esp. the deeper I go into it.

[Sunshine State Sue]

I don't know that I can be very eloquent about it, but here is one example.

 

We worked through Critical Thinking 1 by Anita Harnadek last year and finished 1/2 of Art of Argument before than. Both have examples like this:

Hurry! Hurry! This $5,900 diamond ring is on sale today only for $3,200. Get yours now! This type of a sales job is a combination of emergency and bargain. They are not really giving you a good reason to buy the ring - it could be a piece of crap. They are jerking with your emotions wanting you to feel good about yourself because you are getting a bargain and wanting you to feel the dire need to buy today.

 

So, studying logic helps you to see what a good/poor argument consists of and how to be persuaded or not or how to persuade someone else to your point of view.

 

Think of having to market yourself for a job. If you learn how to present yourself sensibly and persuasively, won't that be a benefit to you?

 

HTH!

[woolybear]

We are studying it so we can acquire a mental structure and tools for reasoning through arguments. It'll help us to construct arguments in order, and I expect it'll help us to analyze others' arguments so we can understand what they are saying/writing, and respond properly. This is something I have never learned before, and I consider it essential, esp. the deeper I go into it.

 

I'm not sure I want ds to be able to argue better.:D

 

Thanks for explaining. Waiting to hear more.:bigear:

[elegantlion]

I'm not sure I want ds to be able to argue better.:D

 

Thanks for explaining. Waiting to hear more.:bigear:

 

I agree with Sue. Informal logic has helped my son see the absurdity in 95% of advertising. That alone could save him lots of money in the future, a good investment.

 

But logic has also forced us to examine our beliefs. I see my son thinking through things instead of having a knee jerk reaction. Logic has been a part of that.

 

My son was born negotiating everything! His favorite word is "why?" I don't think that curiosity and dogged determination to get his way will end when he leaves our household. I want to make sure he has the tools to reason have thought his desires and his arguments to make informed choices.

 

Another reason we are studying logic (moving into formal logic next year) is because I want to move into studies in philosophy in the years to come. Logic will be a good foundation for that.

 

The one caveat is that when you teach your child logic they will use it on you, so you should make sure you're arguments are sound, otherwise you could lose. :tongue_smilie:

[Colleen in NS]

I'm not sure I want ds to be able to argue better.:D

 

:lol::lol::lol: It'll force him to make valid arguments, though! Which, I'm finding, does take effort. Perhaps that effort will tire him out and make him pick his battles about what to argue about? :D

 

Speaking of valid...last night I was going back through our Traditional Logic book, to try and make more sense of what we've been learning. Here is something I didn't catch the first time around:

 

Formal logic is about the form - making a "valid" argument.

Material logic is about the content - distinguishing between true and false.

 

It's fascinating to me.

[elegantlion]

As I stated earlier one reason to study logic, at least the informal part, is that it will make your children more informed consumers.

 

Here's an article I ran across this morning about Total's Blueberry Pomegranate cereal, it contains no real blueberries or pomegranates!!!!! :001_huh::001_huh::001_huh: Talk about a fallacy!!!

 

Imagine how many people will yank that box off the shelf in their rush through the store then imagine that they are eating something healthy!!! Not only do I want my son to be able to critically analyze his purchases, but I also want him to have enough critical thinking skills to NOT be the nincompoop who produces or markets a product like that. I'm sure someone at General Mills thought this was a bad idea, but I'll bet they don't have the argumentation skills to go up against the person who thought this was a great idea. Teach your children logic, it could save the world! :tongue_smilie:

[Colleen in NS]

As I stated earlier one reason to study logic, at least the informal part, is that it will make your children more informed consumers.

 

Here's an article I ran across this morning about Total's Blueberry Pomegranate cereal, it contains no real blueberries or pomegranates!!!!! :001_huh::001_huh::001_huh: Talk about a fallacy!!!

 

Imagine how many people will yank that box off the shelf in their rush through the store then imagine that they are eating something healthy!!! Not only do I want my son to be able to critically analyze his purchases, but I also want him to have enough critical thinking skills to NOT be the nincompoop who produces or markets a product like that. I'm sure someone at General Mills thought this was a bad idea, but I'll bet they don't have the argumentation skills to go up against the person who thought this was a great idea. Teach your children logic, it could save the world! :tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree: and :lol: We loosely went through Critical Thinking (which I think is more on the informal/fallacy side of logic study?) last year, and it was an eye-opener!

[Mom22ns]

I think there are two reasons that we choose to study logic. The first is practical and consumer side. I want my children to be able to recognize when they are being scammed with poor logic. The second reason is so that they can make competent arguments. I think it is important for them to be able to state their case for why they think something, want something or whatever. This is especially important in their writing. Supporting a theory with flawed logic in a writing assignment does not go over well with most professors - or me.

 

I will admit the downside is that they recognize when I am avoiding questions and using other forms of poor logic and are more likely to call me on it.:huh:

[redsquirrel]

And don't forget rhetoric is coming up. That is persusive writing. If your argument isn't sound then you can't write a decent paper. Most college writing is persuasive in nature. If you don't know what the point of your question is, then how do you know if it is answered? Worse yet, what if you don't know your paper should have an argument?

[regentrude]

 

Here's an article I ran across this morning about Total's Blueberry Pomegranate cereal, it contains no real blueberries or pomegranates!!!!! :001_huh::001_huh::001_huh: Talk about a fallacy!!!

Imagine how many people will yank that box off the shelf in their rush through the store then imagine that they are eating something healthy!!! Not only do I want my son to be able to critically analyze his purchases, but I also want him to have enough critical thinking skills to NOT be the nincompoop who produces or markets a product like that.

 

I do not think it is necessary to actually study logic for this.

Common sense and critical thinking are not the same as formal logic.

[regentrude]

So, studying logic helps you to see what a good/poor argument consists of and how to be persuaded or not or how to persuade someone else to your point of view.

 

Wouldn't that be rather rhetoric???

 

Often a logical argument does nothing to persuade somebody.

[elegantlion]

I do not think it is necessary to actually study logic for this.

Common sense and critical thinking are not the same as formal logic.

 

I was thinking more of informal logic with that post.

[siloam]

Probably I can find this answer if I read a book (WTM, perhaps?) I just really don't understand it. Mind explaining it to me?

 

tia

 

So you can tell yourself you are just being over emotional and get over it. :D

 

This is only half in jest. I have family I would like to require to take a formal logic course because they make all decisions based on emotion. You just never know what you are going to get when you are around them, how they will take you (they often hear the opposite of what I say) or what they might do. I avoid them because of it, even through I love 'em.

 

I can at least admit when I am being emotional, and that I need to deal with it later when my thinking makes sense.

 

There is a time and a place for emotions, they are valid. But dealing with people who only live in the emotional is crazy making. Specifically it makes me crazy trying to figure out what to say and how to say it so they don't take it wrong....becuase it never works and they always do take it wrong. :001_huh:

 

Heather

[Sevilla]

The reason I consider it important to study logic is to that you can participate in debate and discussion in a thoughtful, relevant, and coherent manner. Have you ever read through what passes for 'political discussion' these days? It is full of hyperbole and hysteria and very VERY little thoughtful discourse.

 

I want my children to be able to thoughtfully examine the beliefs of others and their own beliefs so that they are not easily persuadeded by pure charisma or forceful personalities.

[Corraleno]

I do not think it is necessary to actually study logic for this.

Common sense and critical thinking are not the same as formal logic.

:iagree:

We don't do formal logic. We tried critical thinking workbooks, but the kids found them boring, so we dropped it. Both kids play, and study, chess quite seriously, so they get to exercise their thinking muscles in a way that's (for them) more fun and less "schoolish." Plus we talk about politics and advertising and things like that all the time.

 

I plan to cover logic & rhetoric in HS, with books like:

A Rulebook for Arguments

Thank You for Arguing

Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language

 

I feel that exposing my kids to "critical thinking" in daily life from early childhood, plus a year of "applied logic" and rhetoric in HS, will give them the tools they need to be critical thinkers and effective writers.

 

Jackie

Edited January 22, 2011 by Corraleno

[Poke Salad Annie]

What book would be recommended for an upcoming 5th grader who falls for the silly advertising on TV? I'm constantly explaining that things aren't what they are advertised, and that there is a reason for the way it is done on TV. It just isn't getting across, so I'd like to find something that points out holes in those kinds of things. Is this what the Fallacy Detective is for?

[shanvan]

:iagree:

We don't do formal logic. We tried critical thinking workbooks, but the kids found them boring, so we dropped it. Both kids play, and study, chess quite seriously, so they get to exercise their thinking muscles in a way that's (for them) more fun and less "schoolish." Plus we talk about politics and advertising and things like that all the time.

 

I plan to cover logic & rhetoric in HS, with books like:

A Rulebook for Arguments

Thank You for Arguing

Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language

 

I feel that exposing my kids to "critical thinking" in daily life from early childhood, plus a year of "applied logic" and rhetoric in HS, will give them to tools they need to be critical thinkers and effective writers.

 

Jackie

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

This post is a breath of fresh air for me! This is what I'm leaning toward after facing the reality that I just cannot fit in time for logic curriculum at this stage. I'm too busy shoring up writing, grammar, math and study skills in preparation for high school. Add in the extra time we are taking for Latin and a bunch of extracurriculars that often involve extra practice and study and we just have no time for another course.

 

I also found that my children picked up a lot of critical thinking just from my natural teaching through ordinary life experiences. They see it as quite a game to pick out all the misleading, illogical comments and thinking on television and in print (and real life conversations too!). We are quite a critical family! My in laws can't stand to hear us picking apart something on TV. They say we are ruining it for them. Many of our friends don't like it either. They want us to be less critical.

 

I noticed long ago that while many people talk about how important thinking critically is, they often don't want to be around anyone who actually thinks critically. Then again, knowing when to keep your thinking to yourself is a whole different skill:tongue_smilie: -- it's the one I work on more with my kids than actual logic and critical thinking exercises! This has been a very helpful discussion. Thanks!

 

 

Shannon

[Colleen in NS]

What book would be recommended for an upcoming 5th grader who falls for the silly advertising on TV? I'm constantly explaining that things aren't what they are advertised, and that there is a reason for the way it is done on TV. It just isn't getting across, so I'd like to find something that points out holes in those kinds of things. Is this what the Fallacy Detective is for?

 

I've never seen Fallacy Detective. We used Critical Thinking 1 and 2 last year, and these two books seem to have more of the "informal logic" that you are talking about here. Then again, I'm not sure I'd use it for a 10 year old - it might be a bit difficult.

[Colleen in NS]

I do not think it is necessary to actually study logic for this.

Common sense and critical thinking are not the same as formal logic.

 

But could formal logic help with informal logic/critical thinking?

[Colleen in NS]

So you can tell yourself you are just being over emotional and get over it. :D

 

 

Oh, I like this reason! :lol:

[regentrude]

But could formal logic help with informal logic/critical thinking?

 

Probably, and it certainly can't harm - but I don't think it is a necessary prerequisite.

I never studied logic- but extensive studies of mathematics, theoretical physics and computer programming helped me develop my logical thinking.

[Corraleno]

I never studied formal logic either, but DH calls me "Spock." :tongue_smilie:

 

Jackie

[swimmermom3]

Probably, and it certainly can't harm - but I don't think it is a necessary prerequisite.

I never studied logic- but extensive studies of mathematics, theoretical physics and computer programming helped me develop my logical thinking.

 

I never studied formal logic either, but DH calls me "Spock." :tongue_smilie:

 

Jackie

 

This makes my evening.:D For the few months we studied logic formally, I resented every moment we did it because I felt like we could be better using the time. Nan in Mass has written a couple of posts about how she uses one subject to teach "thinking." This has been a freeing and effective method for our family.

[Colleen in NS]

Probably I can find this answer if I read a book (WTM, perhaps?) I just really don't understand it. Mind explaining it to me?

 

tia

 

I'm going to add to my answer. woolybear, what type of logic are you asking about? Do you mean formal logic or informal logic (which I think is also translated as "critical thinking" or "fallacy study" by people)? Here is why I ask.

 

I've never studied any type of logic before the past year or so. Last year, ds and I went through a set of books called Critical Thinking, because it was recommended in WTM, and I tend to follow the principles in there. My impression of CT was that it was about how to detect certain techniques, such as the various ways of scamming in advertising. There were terms in it - so many that I can't remember them all - that indicated when a certain piece of writing or speech was trying to "deceive" you. So, we went through and learned about all these different terms/techniques. It was interesting. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these techniques are called fallacies, and I think that CT is about fallacies, or "informal logic/critical thinking (duh to me on the 2nd part :lol:)", and how to find them so that you can protect yourself by seeing what the person/advertisement/whatever is trying to do to your thinking.

 

This year, we are going through Traditional Logic (again, I'm using a WTM rec.), which I think is a course in "formal logic." It's a whole different ball game to me. In formal logic, you learn about the structure of an argument - how to construct one properly, and how to "fix" propositions/premises/statements so that they mean exactly the same thing but can be used in a proper argument and used to come to a valid conclusion.

 

Ds and I got through to ch. 10 by this past week. I was big time "winging it" in previous chapters (ds gets things more easily than I do, and faster), but not really understanding some things. This week, I hit a snag, and decided "That's it - I need to go back through, highlight main points, and understand how these concepts all fit together into a bigger picture." So, I worked on that yesterday and started making a big outlinish-sort-of-chart (it makes sense to me), fitting previously learned things together. Suddenly, it all started to make sense. The whole book is about building an argument properly, and includes how the mind works when it is "arguing." I found, as I outline-charted or put the puzzle pieces together, that my mind started absorbing the big structure of formal logic. I think now that this structure will be useful in sorting through all the other fallacies of informal logic.

 

I'm more convinced now of what I read in the beginning of the book: "this book studies formal....logic. ......absence of discussion of informal fallacies......Because informal logic lacks a systematic structure, some of the benefits of rigorous logic instruction...are absent from its study. Like a house, a logical mind is best built upon a solid structure. A beginning study of formal logic provides this."

 

So, while I found studying formal logic these past few months tough because I couldn't put two and two together most of the time (which I think is a problem more for adults than for capable and absorbent 12-18 year olds), now that I mostly see the bigger picture of what we're studying, I think formal logic is simpler than trying to learn about all those different fallacies we read about in CT. Those fallacies were scattered, scattered, scattered. And numerous. But if I acquire a "mental filter" via the structure of formal logic in my mind, I will have a filter to sort out any fallacies that come my way, too, as well as the mental tools to construct arguments coherently. At least I'm pretty sure that is what's going to happen.

 

So, woolybear, I guess you first have to understand the differences between formal and informal logic, and then decide if you want to go either route. :D Oh, and like I said previously, there is something called material logic (which we might study later). I'll summarize:

 

informal logic: learning how to detect fallacies

formal logic (concerned with form): learning how to structure an argument to make it valid, or how to analyze an argument to see if it's valid

material logic (concerned with content): learning how to tell whether an argument is true or false.

 

BTW, after thinking about it, I do agree with regentrude in that studying formal logic is not necessary for learning informal logic/fallacies/critical thinking. But for me, I'm pretty sure now that studying formal logic will make detecting fallacies and doing critical thinking a whole lot easier. In a way, I wish we'd saved the CT books for after TL - but, they *were* interesting to read through and talk about - we just didn't retain very much from them, and I'm pretty sure it's because there was no mental structure in our minds, on which they could rest. I liken it to this: memorizing addition facts = having an easier time learning to add double digit numbers.

[swimmermom3]

What book would be recommended for an upcoming 5th grader who falls for the silly advertising on TV? I'm constantly explaining that things aren't what they are advertised, and that there is a reason for the way it is done on TV. It just isn't getting across, so I'd like to find something that points out holes in those kinds of things. Is this what the Fallacy Detective is for?

 

Because I worked in advertising, my kids have grown up deconstructing ads. I don't remember the early years as being particularly successful but the need wasn't as great because they didn't watch television. For me, it became a pressing issue when my dd began to notice fashion magazines. If you have a basic understanding of how advertising works, you can teach that to your kid without a book. It requires primarily that you engage in conversation. Let me know if you need an example. My kids are of the age that our favorites tend to run along the lines of that Mastercard (?) campaign on "Priceless." You know the ones-if you take that trip to Ireland with your mother before she dies, you will be discovering your roots and cementing your bond. You cannot put a price on this emotional experience but we can and will at 30% interest.:D

 

I should add that we don't treat advertising necessarily as an evil, but more of a persuasive art form.

[Colleen in NS]

my kids have grown up deconstructing ads.

 

This reminds me of when my kids were in the baby/toddler/preschool stage. I did NOT want them to be influenced by the weekly flyers and other kids' talking about the latest toys or latest packaged snacks. So, when the weekly flyers came, I started analyzing what was so attractive about them - it was the use of primary colours, esp. red and yellow (but you probably already know that)! I realized the same thing was prominent at the grocery store - vivid yellows and reds everywhere, esp. at eye level. So, I'd point it out to my toddlers and start influencing them my way, lol! It was fun.

[Sweet Home Alabama]

I'm going to add to my answer. woolybear, what type of logic are you asking about? Do you mean formal logic or informal logic (which I think is also translated as "critical thinking" or "fallacy study" by people)? Here is why I ask.

 

I've never studied any type of logic before the past year or so. Last year, ds and I went through a set of books called Critical Thinking, because it was recommended in WTM, and I tend to follow the principles in there. My impression of CT was that it was about how to detect certain techniques, such as the various ways of scamming in advertising. There were terms in it - so many that I can't remember them all - that indicated when a certain piece of writing or speech was trying to "deceive" you. So, we went through and learned about all these different terms/techniques. It was interesting. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these techniques are called fallacies, and I think that CT is about fallacies, or "informal logic/critical thinking (duh to me on the 2nd part :lol:)", and how to find them so that you can protect yourself by seeing what the person/advertisement/whatever is trying to do to your thinking.

 

This year, we are going through Traditional Logic (again, I'm using a WTM rec.), which I think is a course in "formal logic." It's a whole different ball game to me. In formal logic, you learn about the structure of an argument - how to construct one properly, and how to "fix" propositions/premises/statements so that they mean exactly the same thing but can be used in a proper argument and used to come to a valid conclusion.

 

Ds and I got through to ch. 10 by this past week. I was big time "winging it" in previous chapters (ds gets things more easily than I do, and faster), but not really understanding some things. This week, I hit a snag, and decided "That's it - I need to go back through, highlight main points, and understand how these concepts all fit together into a bigger picture." So, I worked on that yesterday and started making a big outlinish-sort-of-chart (it makes sense to me), fitting previously learned things together. Suddenly, it all started to make sense. The whole book is about building an argument properly, and includes how the mind works when it is "arguing." I found, as I outline-charted or put the puzzle pieces together, that my mind started absorbing the big structure of formal logic. I think now that this structure will be useful in sorting through all the other fallacies of informal logic.

 

I'm more convinced now of what I read in the beginning of the book: "this book studies formal....logic. ......absence of discussion of informal fallacies......Because informal logic lacks a systematic structure, some of the benefits of rigorous logic instruction...are absent from its study. Like a house, a logical mind is best built upon a solid structure. A beginning study of formal logic provides this."

 

So, while I found studying formal logic these past few months tough because I couldn't put two and two together most of the time (which I think is a problem more for adults than for capable and absorbent 12-18 year olds), now that I mostly see the bigger picture of what we're studying, I think formal logic is simpler than trying to learn about all those different fallacies we read about in CT. Those fallacies were scattered, scattered, scattered. And numerous. But if I acquire a "mental filter" via the structure of formal logic in my mind, I will have a filter to sort out any fallacies that come my way, too, as well as the mental tools to construct arguments coherently. At least I'm pretty sure that is what's going to happen.

 

So, woolybear, I guess you first have to understand the differences between formal and informal logic, and then decide if you want to go either route. :D Oh, and like I said previously, there is something called material logic (which we might study later). I'll summarize:

 

informal logic: learning how to detect fallacies

formal logic (concerned with form): learning how to structure an argument to make it valid, or how to analyze an argument to see if it's valid

material logic (concerned with content): learning how to tell whether an argument is true or false.

 

BTW, after thinking about it, I do agree with regentrude in that studying formal logic is not necessary for learning informal logic/fallacies/critical thinking. But for me, I'm pretty sure now that studying formal logic will make detecting fallacies and doing critical thinking a whole lot easier. In a way, I wish we'd saved the CT books for after TL - but, they *were* interesting to read through and talk about - we just didn't retain very much from them, and I'm pretty sure it's because there was no mental structure in our minds, on which they could rest. I liken it to this: memorizing addition facts = having an easier time learning to add double digit numbers.

 

 

Colleen, I've been trying to make decisions about logic in 8th grade. I've posted before that we've never studied any logic. Traditional Logic is widely used by people on this board, but when I look at it, it looks very overwhelming to me.

 

I'm curious how much time you spend per day/week on TL. I'm pretty convinced that with the classes my dd will have in 8th, there just won't be time or energy to try TL...... maybe Fallacy Detective and Thinking Toolbox, but that's only because they take about 15 minutes to do (or so I've read....)

 

I think I'm understanding (just barely:D) the differences between informal and formal logic. I'm just curious..... many people use Fallacy Detective and Thinking Toolbox before they start formal logic, but those books represent INFORMAL logic....

 

I'd be interested to know if there is a FORMAL logic book that would precede Traditional Logic as a warm-up. For us, TL is waaayyyy too big of a step.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Sweet Home Alabama

[Poke Salad Annie]

Because I worked in advertising, my kids have grown up deconstructing ads. I don't remember the early years as being particularly successful but the need wasn't as great because they didn't watch television. For me, it became a pressing issue when my dd began to notice fashion magazines. If you have a basic understanding of how advertising works, you can teach that to your kid without a book. It requires primarily that you engage in conversation. Let me know if you need an example. My kids are of the age that our favorites tend to run along the lines of that Mastercard (?) campaign on "Priceless." You know the ones-if you take that trip to Ireland with your mother before she dies, you will be discovering your roots and cementing your bond. You cannot put a price on this emotional experience but we can and will at 30% interest.:D

 

I should add that we don't treat advertising necessarily as an evil, but more of a persuasive art form.

 

Love this! It's exactly what I'm getting at, too. I do allow about thirty minutes of tv a day, so those neat-o ads are definitely out there during that time. And what I get on the return usually goes like this--"Hey! Did you know they have this new thing that does such-and such and comes in all kinds of colors, and for just the next few minutes---you've just got to hurry up and call right now!---we can get this for $$$!" This goes on the same way, day after day after day. No matter what I say in response to all that wonderama of goodies they're selling, it's not sinking in. Maybe I've got a budding lawyer, 'cause he's very good at pleading his case. :D What I need is something that will give him pause. (Yep, this stuff is persuasive all right--to the tune of "When can we go to Walmart?".)

 

Editing to add...

 

What I had in mind was something to get us ready for Critical Thinking Book One, as he's too young for that yet.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Poke Salad Annie

[Colleen in NS]

Colleen, I've been trying to make decisions about logic in 8th grade. I've posted before that we've never studied any logic. Traditional Logic is widely used by people on this board, but when I look at it, it looks very overwhelming to me.

 

I'm curious how much time you spend per day/week on TL. I'm pretty convinced that with the classes my dd will have in 8th, there just won't be time or energy to try TL...... maybe Fallacy Detective and Thinking Toolbox, but that's only because they take about 15 minutes to do (or so I've read....)

 

I think I'm understanding (just barely:D) the differences between informal and formal logic. I'm just curious..... many people use Fallacy Detective and Thinking Toolbox before they start formal logic, but those books represent INFORMAL logic....

 

I'd be interested to know if there is a FORMAL logic book that would precede Traditional Logic as a warm-up. For us, TL is waaayyyy too big of a step.

 

I don't know if there is a formal logic book that would warm-up to TL. I just know that WTM rec'd. Mind Benders (puzzles to get you thinking) and CT (informal with fallacies) as warmups to TL. I'm thinking that MB and CT could even be left out altogether and not affect being able to learn from TL. But they *were* fun. I think they are meant to "mark time" with some fun-but-thoughtful exercises, until you get around to formal logic with TL. I guess my point is, maybe the "mark time" books are not really necessary? Not sure, though.

 

Anyway, I scheduled TL 1 to last for a year. Apparently high schoolers are meant to do it in a semester, but since WTM rec'd. a year for middle schoolers, I go with that, and so far, so good. Then I read that TL 2 can take longer (and I figured that meant longer than a semester for high schoolers, so possibly longer than a year for middle schoolers). So, I figured I'd try 1-2 weeks per chapter of TL 1 (there are 15 chapters if you count the introduction), and maybe start TL 2 towards the end of this school year. So far it's been about 1 chapter per week (and that's me, pushing the limit) - but now that we are at ch. 10 (11th chapter out of 15 chapters) and getting into syllogisms, I think we are going to slow down again. I still think we'll be able to start TL 2 by year end.

 

There are four days of exercises for each chapter. So ds will read over the chapter first on Monday, then we go back over the section that is being taught on day 1 of the exercises. We go through the questions together, orally. I'd say for each day, maybe 15-30 minutes? If we spread it out to 2 weeks per chapter, it could be less time - you could do half a day's exercises each day. Or spreading it out to 1 ch./2 weeks in the later chapters could be helpful, because you can spend that 15-30 minutes cementing your understanding better through half the day's exercises each day.

 

I hope that makes sense. My point is, it doesn't have to take an hour a day. And I think TL 1 can be finished in a year or less, with spending just 15-30 minutes per day.

 

And I only came to this conclusion yesterday, after going through and making that outline/chart thingy that gave me the bigger picture! :D There *is* a big, finite, acquirable-in-short-bites picture that has an ENDING, sooner than I thought, which gave me courage. :D

 

So, if you have a 36 week school year, and did 1 ch./2 weeks, with 15 min./day for four days/week, you'd still have 6 weeks to extend further into, or to start TL 2.

 

Poke Salad Annie: I liked Mind Benders as a precursor to CT. It got us thinking in more exact terms, because we had to reason out exact reasons, or the puzzle couldn't be solved.

[Poke Salad Annie]

 

Poke Salad Annie: I liked Mind Benders as a precursor to CT. It got us thinking in more exact terms, because we had to reason out exact reasons, or the puzzle couldn't be solved.

 

Thank you. :)

[Sweet Home Alabama]

I don't know if there is a formal logic book that would warm-up to TL. I just know that WTM rec'd. Mind Benders (puzzles to get you thinking) and CT (informal with fallacies) as warmups to TL. I'm thinking that MB and CT could even be left out altogether and not affect being able to learn from TL. But they *were* fun. I think they are meant to "mark time" with some fun-but-thoughtful exercises, until you get around to formal logic with TL. I guess my point is, maybe the "mark time" books are not really necessary? Not sure, though.

 

Anyway, I scheduled TL 1 to last for a year. Apparently high schoolers are meant to do it in a semester, but since WTM rec'd. a year for middle schoolers, I go with that, and so far, so good. Then I read that TL 2 can take longer (and I figured that meant longer than a semester for high schoolers, so possibly longer than a year for middle schoolers). So, I figured I'd try 1-2 weeks per chapter of TL 1 (there are 15 chapters if you count the introduction), and maybe start TL 2 towards the end of this school year. So far it's been about 1 chapter per week (and that's me, pushing the limit) - but now that we are at ch. 10 (11th chapter out of 15 chapters) and getting into syllogisms, I think we are going to slow down again. I still think we'll be able to start TL 2 by year end.

 

There are four days of exercises for each chapter. So ds will read over the chapter first on Monday, then we go back over the section that is being taught on day 1 of the exercises. We go through the questions together, orally. I'd say for each day, maybe 15-30 minutes? If we spread it out to 2 weeks per chapter, it could be less time - you could do half a day's exercises each day. Or spreading it out to 1 ch./2 weeks in the later chapters could be helpful, because you can spend that 15-30 minutes cementing your understanding better through half the day's exercises each day.

 

I hope that makes sense. My point is, it doesn't have to take an hour a day. And I think TL 1 can be finished in a year or less, with spending just 15-30 minutes per day.

 

And I only came to this conclusion yesterday, after going through and making that outline/chart thingy that gave me the bigger picture! :D There *is* a big, finite, acquirable-in-short-bites picture that has an ENDING, sooner than I thought, which gave me courage. :D

 

So, if you have a 36 week school year, and did 1 ch./2 weeks, with 15 min./day for four days/week, you'd still have 6 weeks to extend further into, or to start TL 2.

 

Poke Salad Annie: I liked Mind Benders as a precursor to CT. It got us thinking in more exact terms, because we had to reason out exact reasons, or the puzzle couldn't be solved.

 

Colleen, thank you! I'll keep thinking about this. Sometimes the challenge in front of you diminishes the more you ponder it. My challenge is two-fold: time and interest. From the get-go, the content of this book would not interest either my dd or me. I'm not sure how I would convince her that it is valuable enough to do. It does make me feel better that we could break it down into smaller segments and take a year to do a semester course.

 

I have a lot more to learn..... part of me feels like one of the other posters who mentioned using the books on argument instead of formal logic. I know it wouldn't be the same, but maybe it would be a "back-door" that would teach us what we need to know about arguments so that composition would still be based on logic.

[*~Tina~*]

I do not think it is necessary to actually study logic for this.

Common sense and critical thinking are not the same as formal logic.

 

Can you (or anyone else) elaborate and differentiate between common sense, critical thinking, material logic, informal logic and formal logic?

 

And what resources are you all using for the different studies?

 

I'll summarize:

 

informal logic: learning how to detect fallacies

formal logic (concerned with form): learning how to structure an argument to make it valid, or how to analyze an argument to see if it's valid

material logic (concerned with content): learning how to tell whether an argument is true or false.

 

Still confused :001_huh:

 

What's the difference between detecting a fallacy (misleading notion) VS. analyzing an argument to see if it's valid VS. learning how to tell if an argument is true or false?

[Colleen in NS]

Colleen, thank you! I'll keep thinking about this. Sometimes the challenge in front of you diminishes the more you ponder it. My challenge is two-fold: time and interest. From the get-go, the content of this book would not interest either my dd or me. I'm not sure how I would convince her that it is valuable enough to do. It does make me feel better that we could break it down into smaller segments and take a year to do a semester course.

 

I have a lot more to learn..... part of me feels like one of the other posters who mentioned using the books on argument instead of formal logic. I know it wouldn't be the same, but maybe it would be a "back-door" that would teach us what we need to know about arguments so that composition would still be based on logic.

 

About the bolded part - oh, this is so true for me!

 

About the content not interesting you or your dd - I totally understand that, too. For me, it was like starting fresh with a new foreign language, only it didn't have a grammatical structure that I could compare to what I know about English grammar - the structure is completely different, for a different purpose. It's the structure of thinking. ???? Which I knew nothing about. I feel silly saying this, but the only thing that prompted me to get going with it was that the WTM laid out good reasons to me for doing so. I tend to keep on trying the new-to-me ideas in WTM, because I like the book as a whole, and because I want to learn skills that I didn't learn in school. So. I push myself. (But just so ya know, there *are* things in WTM I gave up on - I could *not* fit in doing a modern foreign language in middle grades, along with Latin - I had already acquired an idea of how it should be done, and since I didn't have the time to do it the justice I thought it deserved, I stopped)

 

Aren't you the poster I chatted with about logic sometime in the past week or so? We talked about A Rulebook for Arguments? If it is you, I don't think you are totally lost. Either route would be fine, I think, for your future composition needs. Also if it was you I chatted with, I hope my detailed posts don't come across as campaigning to convince you, lol! This is all new understanding for me, so it sort of helps *me* to type this all out! :D

 

Can you (or anyone else) elaborate and differentiate between common sense, critical thinking, material logic, informal logic and formal logic?

 

And what resources are you all using for the different studies?

 

Originally Posted by Colleen in NS View Post

I'll summarize:

 

informal logic: learning how to detect fallacies

formal logic (concerned with form): learning how to structure an argument to make it valid, or how to analyze an argument to see if it's valid

material logic (concerned with content): learning how to tell whether an argument is true or false.

 

Tina posted: Still confused :001_huh:

 

What's the difference between detecting a fallacy (misleading notion) VS. analyzing an argument to see if it's valid VS. learning how to tell if an argument is true or false?

 

If I could draw in this message, I would. Making a chart from what Cothran was talking about in TL really helped me.

 

informal logic: detecting fallacies/techniques - for example, what technique is a person using in an advertisement, to make you want to buy the item. And I am guessing that other posters are filing "critical thinking" and "common sense" under this category? If you question an advertisement, you are thinking critically - you are trying to figure out how the ad is swaying you. If you are using common sense, you are taking what's common ("there is snow on the ground") and applying some sense that is common to everyone who lives in snowy areas to it ("I better wear boots instead of going barefoot").

 

formal logic: is like English grammar, but not writing. You simply (ha ha) learn the formal structure of arguments, so that you can either build your own arguments for something, or analyze someone else's argument to see if it follows proper argument form. Why? I think because it's nice to have a structure on which to hang my thoughts, so I can make sure they are making sense, even if someone else reasons their way to a different conclusion. Here is an example of a formal argument:

 

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

 

material logic: I think, is like English writing, which built using the knowledge of grammar. In material logic, after you've learned how to build a formal argument (using formal logic to reason out something) is where you learn how to figure out if the premises are true or false. (the premises are the first two sentences above, that lead you to the conclusion) I mean, how do we *know* that all men are mortal? What if the argu-er is lying to me? And how do we *know* that Socrates is a man? If we don't know these premises to be true, how can we trust that the conclusion is true? The conclusion above is *valid* in that it follows proper logical *form* - but we don't always know if it's true. (well, some things are obvious, but other things aren't, and that's why there are heated debates in society)

 

There was another poster, Tina in Ouray, (I think that's how it's spelled) who used to post about this stuff - see if you can find some of her posts, if my very inexperienced explanation doesn't help.

 

One more thing - I think formal logic moves into material logic. But I think formal logic stands beside informal logic, and could be used to filter informal logic. If I could draw here, it would make more sense!

[Melanie]

Colleen, I've been trying to make decisions about logic in 8th grade. I've posted before that we've never studied any logic. Traditional Logic is widely used by people on this board, but when I look at it, it looks very overwhelming to me.

 

I'm curious how much time you spend per day/week on TL. I'm pretty convinced that with the classes my dd will have in 8th, there just won't be time or energy to try TL...... maybe Fallacy Detective and Thinking Toolbox, but that's only because they take about 15 minutes to do (or so I've read....)

 

I think I'm understanding (just barely:D) the differences between informal and formal logic. I'm just curious..... many people use Fallacy Detective and Thinking Toolbox before they start formal logic, but those books represent INFORMAL logic....

 

I'd be interested to know if there is a FORMAL logic book that would precede Traditional Logic as a warm-up. For us, TL is waaayyyy too big of a step.

 

I'm not Colleen, but I can tell you how we do it. :) My kids start Traditional Logic 1 the same year they start algebra 1. They spend 20-30 minutes per day on logic, taking a whole school year to work through each book (TL 1 and 2.) We don't follow a schedule; they just stop at a good stopping place and pick up where they left off the next day. They also watch the videos. My son liked watching them after he read each chapter, and my daughter likes watching them before reading each chapter. The books are very well written, and the videos reinforce the written material; I've never had to go to another source to clarify anything for either of them. I do not study along with them; I only check over their work with the answer key. I did have to do some quick reading in TL 2 so that I could evaluate the essay assignments, but it wasn't too bad.

 

My son is now working through Material Logic. He works for an hour at a time, two or three times per week. (He alternates days with logic and English grammar.) He is nearly finished with the book, and now we're trying to decide if he should study more logic (specifically, we're looking at Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft) or just move on to classical rhetoric.

 

Neither one of them used any logic books prior to TL; I had purchased the Mind Bender books, but wasn't impressed enough by them to make them mandatory. I haven't seen anything else that could be used as a prep book for TL.

 

As to whether or not formal logic study is necessary, I really don't know. I do know that it won't hurt, it might help, and 20-30 minutes a day certainly isn't going to kill us. ;)

[Colleen in NS]

My son is now working through Material Logic. He works for an hour at a time, two or three times per week. (He alternates days with logic and English grammar.) He is nearly finished with the book, and now we're trying to decide if he should study more logic (specifically, we're looking at Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft) or just move on to classical rhetoric.

 

 

Oooooo! He's the one who helped me the other night on my post about the problem I couldn't figure out, right? I would *love* to hear more about Material Logic! How did you/he decide to study that? What is he learning? How is he applying it to life/school?

 

I am off to do a board search on ML now.....

 

Oh, and why are you thinking of the Kreeft book?

[Melanie]

Oooooo! He's the one who helped me the other night on my post about the problem I couldn't figure out, right? I would *love* to hear more about Material Logic! How did you/he decide to study that? What is he learning? How is he applying it to life/school?

 

I am off to do a board search on ML now.....

 

Oh, and why are you thinking of the Kreeft book?

 

Yes, that's my boy. :001_smile:

 

How did you/he decide to study that? Mostly we chose to study it because it was the next book in the series. :tongue_smilie: Also, studying formal logic doesn't strike me as being particularly useful unless you can apply what you've learned to something worth arguing about, so I was happy to turn from form to substance.

 

What is he learning? Right now he is reading "Idols of the Mind" by Francis Bacon (sections XXXVIII-LXVIII of The New Organon or True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature.) After he finishes reading it, he will answer questions like, "When Bacon divides the Idols of the Mind, what is the logical whole being divided?" and "What are the subjective parts in this division?" and "Fill in the following chart representing the structure of paragraph 2." It seems that he will tear each paragraph apart, looking at structure, meaning, relationship between parts, etc.

 

How is he applying it to life/school? Well, he's able to help people on message boards! That's a good skill to have, right? :lol: And he laughs more often than I do when reading/watching Shakespeare. Honestly, I'm not sure that he is consciously applying it to life or school, but he is beginning to think before speaking, and his writing is slowly but surely becoming, well, tighter. I don't know whether it's the logic or the Latin or the Great Books study, or some combination of the three; I just know I like the results.

 

Oh, and why are you thinking of the Kreeft book? We're considering Socratic Logic because he enjoys logic, and because he has big plans to be a lawyer someday. I figure a little extra logic won't hurt him. :) Also, we're in the middle of the school year, and I don't think he can finish a rhetoric program by the end of the year. (That doesn't matter at all in the long run, but carrying books into the next school year distresses me to no end, so I'd just as soon not do it.)

[Colleen in NS]

Yes, that's my boy. :001_smile:

 

How did you/he decide to study that? Mostly we chose to study it because it was the next book in the series. :tongue_smilie: Also, studying formal logic doesn't strike me as being particularly useful unless you can apply what you've learned to something worth arguing about, so I was happy to turn from form to substance.

 

What is he learning? Right now he is reading "Idols of the Mind" by Francis Bacon (sections XXXVIII-LXVIII of The New Organon or True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature.) After he finishes reading it, he will answer questions like, "When Bacon divides the Idols of the Mind, what is the logical whole being divided?" and "What are the subjective parts in this division?" and "Fill in the following chart representing the structure of paragraph 2." It seems that he will tear each paragraph apart, looking at structure, meaning, relationship between parts, etc.

 

How is he applying it to life/school? Well, he's able to help people on message boards! That's a good skill to have, right? :lol: And he laughs more often than I do when reading/watching Shakespeare. Honestly, I'm not sure that he is consciously applying it to life or school, but he is beginning to think before speaking, and his writing is slowly but surely becoming, well, tighter. I don't know whether it's the logic or the Latin or the Great Books study, or some combination of the three; I just know I like the results.

 

Oh, and why are you thinking of the Kreeft book? We're considering Socratic Logic because he enjoys logic, and because he has big plans to be a lawyer someday. I figure a little extra logic won't hurt him. :) Also, we're in the middle of the school year, and I don't think he can finish a rhetoric program by the end of the year. (That doesn't matter at all in the long run, but carrying books into the next school year distresses me to no end, so I'd just as soon not do it.)

 

Thank you! You've given me a ton more food for thought!

[Sweet Home Alabama]

About the bolded part - oh, this is so true for me!

 

About the content not interesting you or your dd - I totally understand that, too. For me, it was like starting fresh with a new foreign language, only it didn't have a grammatical structure that I could compare to what I know about English grammar - the structure is completely different, for a different purpose. It's the structure of thinking. ???? Which I knew nothing about. I feel silly saying this, but the only thing that prompted me to get going with it was that the WTM laid out good reasons to me for doing so. I tend to keep on trying the new-to-me ideas in WTM, because I like the book as a whole, and because I want to learn skills that I didn't learn in school. So. I push myself. (But just so ya know, there *are* things in WTM I gave up on - I could *not* fit in doing a modern foreign language in middle grades, along with Latin - I had already acquired an idea of how it should be done, and since I didn't have the time to do it the justice I thought it deserved, I stopped)

 

Aren't you the poster I chatted with about logic sometime in the past week or so? We talked about A Rulebook for Arguments? If it is you, I don't think you are totally lost. Either route would be fine, I think, for your future composition needs. Also if it was you I chatted with, I hope my detailed posts don't come across as campaigning to convince you, lol! This is all new understanding for me, so it sort of helps *me* to type this all out! :D

 

 

Colleen, yes, I'm the poster you are thinking of. I'm just trying to learn about logic. I know so little about it. I am so grateful for your help and help from so many others.

 

I just read another poster mention Discovery of Deduction from CAP. I'm going to take a look at that as well.

 

Formal logic blows my mind:lol:. If there were a "back-door".... another way to get to rhetoric, I would be so thrilled...:D

[woolybear]

I'm going to add to my answer. woolybear, what type of logic are you asking about? Do you mean formal logic or informal logic (which I think is also translated as "critical thinking" or "fallacy study" by people)? Here is why I ask.

 

 

So, woolybear, I guess you first have to understand the differences between formal and informal logic, and then decide if you want to go either route. :D Oh, and like I said previously, there is something called material logic (which we might study later). I'll summarize:

 

informal logic: learning how to detect fallacies

formal logic (concerned with form): learning how to structure an argument to make it valid, or how to analyze an argument to see if it's valid

material logic (concerned with content): learning how to tell whether an argument is true or false.

 

 

 

I had no idea when I posted this that this would turn into such a big discussion. Nor did I have a clue what "studying logic" could possibly mean. So, for now, I am just :bigear: and learning. You all are giving me a lot to think about.

[Sweet Home Alabama]

I just wanted to post that I have just reviewed (ever so briefly) the Classical Academic Press logic books. I was aware of the Art of Argument, but I had never looked at the Arguement Builder or the Discovery of Deduction. AoA has been revised, but I have NO idea what is different. I do know that some have not liked AoA in the past because of topics such as abortion..... which would bother me as well.

 

Please don't ask me anything about these....:lol: I'm trying to learn about logic so that I'll know how to go about teaching logic to my dc. Yet, in just skimming the sample pages, they look easier or more understandable to me than TL.

 

I am so glad there is something to compare to TL. Some may definitely choose to do TL. I just wanted to give a heads up about the CAP resources. They might fit some a little bit better.

[Colleen in NS]

 

I just read another poster mention Discovery of Deduction from CAP. I'm going to take a look at that as well.

 

Yes, I just read about that on your high school board thread, and I clicked on the link...

 

Formal logic blows my mind:lol:. If there were a "back-door".... another way to get to rhetoric, I would be so thrilled...:D

 

:lol::lol: That's how I feel most of the time, about most things we are studying - grammar is new every day, math is new every day, Latin is new every day, logic is new every day......yikes, it's hard on my 42 year old brain!!!!!

 

Discovery of Deduction.

 

Yes, I really liked looking through the sample lessons of this!!!! The material is very similar to TL, yet presented in a different way. Now if I'd known about this last year, I might have considered it along with TL. (I originally bought Introductory Logic - started going through it myself, and could NOT get it - did some board research, and found out why - IL = symbols, TL = words - I like words, and words will be used in rhetoric :D)

 

So, I hope you are feeling better about this whole logic business! You seem like, despite the time crunch and negative reaction to TL, that you really want to incorporate it somehow, someday. I hope you can get that worked out. I'm sure you will - believe me, if *I* can get somewhat of a clue about logic, anyone can.:lol:

[Sweet Home Alabama]

:lol::lol: That's how I feel most of the time, about most things we are studying - grammar is new every day, math is new every day, Latin is new every day, logic is new every day......yikes, it's hard on my 42 year old brain!!!!!

 

 

 

Yes, I really liked looking through the sample lessons of this!!!! The material is very similar to TL, yet presented in a different way. Now if I'd known about this last year, I might have considered it along with TL. (I originally bought Introductory Logic - started going through it myself, and could NOT get it - did some board research, and found out why - IL = symbols, TL = words - I like words, and words will be used in rhetoric :D)

 

So, I hope you are feeling better about this whole logic business! You seem like, despite the time crunch and negative reaction to TL, that you really want to incorporate it somehow, someday. I hope you can get that worked out. I'm sure you will - believe me, if *I* can get somewhat of a clue about logic, anyone can.:lol:

 

 

Colleen, thank you for your encouragement!!! I have no idea what we'll do with logic at this point, but I definitely feel better about this new choice. Believe me, I'll continue reading all the logic threads and asking questions....! Blessings to you for all your help and encouragement!