Going from Critical Thinking bks 1 & 2 to Introductory Logic

[masterpiece]

Hi,

 

My 6th grade son and I are going through Critical Thinking Book 2 right now, after having done Book 1 earlier this year. I'm not too strict about him thoroughly mastering each subject, but he does understand an awful lot. However, I don't think we'll finish Book 2 before the school year ends. We've finished chapter 5 and probably have time to make it through chapter 6 and maybe begin 7 before I'm planning on being done. We're planning on going on to Introductory Logic (Nance and Wilson) next year.

 

For those of you who have done this, do you think it very important to finish all of Book 2 before beginning IL? Is there something that we should be sure to hit rather than continuing straight through? Or should I just call it quits wherever we end up and be glad for what we've learned?

 

Thanks for your suggestions!

L

[masterpiece]

Anybody?? :)

[Blossom'sGirl]

I hope someone answers. My 7th grader will be finishing Critical Thinking 1 soon, and I really would like to switch to something like Traditional Logic. I never had logic training so I don't know if we should do Book 2 first or not.

[Guest spiland]

Blossom's Girl,

 

I teach Traditional Logic and have a good background in logic and philosophy at both the undergraduate and graduate level. Most of my courses were either a mixture of several different systems of logic, or purely modern symbolic logic.

 

I would definitely consider taking the Traditional Logic route rather than a program that contains a smattering of traditional logic (usually minimized), symbolic logic, truth tables, and informal fallacies. Such courses usually give breadth, but not much depth. If a student focuses and does well with traditional logic, he/she will find that they have a good grasp of the most basic, yet at times very sophisticated, kinds of arguments that people use. This last bit is, of course, somewhat of a pragmatic consideration, but it is true nonetheless. After this, a student can move on to other more complex logical systems.

 

From a human perspective, at least in my opinion, an in-depth study of the categorical syllogism makes the most sense for someone beginning formal logic, precisely because the traditional approach to logic is language-based (human language, that is). I don't think I could even attempt to quantify the increase in my student's ability to structure and formulate arguments, simply because we've focused on categorical syllogisms, enthymemes, and dilemmas. Studying Traditional Logic was the key to this, for sure.

 

That's my two cents at least. Hope it all works out for you.

 

Mr. Scott Piland

Instructor, The Highlands Latin School

[Blossom'sGirl]

Thank you, Mr. Piland. I hope I can add it in next year.