Logic that won't bore us to tears?

[Parrothead]

We started Martin Cothra's Traditional Logic 1 last week. I'm not sure what the big deal is with this book. It is dry and boring and really quite mind-numbing.

 

What are the alternatives for an about to turn 12-year old new 7th grader?

[samba]

Well, we haven't started yet...but I'm planning to go through Art of Argument with my dd11 (also a new 7th grader who won't be 12 til later this fall). I already have the books but I'm thinking about adding in the new dvds they put out. Maybe it will help us with the discussion aspect if she sees other kids talking about the ideas.

 

Carolyn

[TechWife]

I highly recommend The Art of Argument and The Argument Builder from Classical Academic Press.

[Parrothead]

Thanks.

 

 

Did this get moved to the high school forum or did I accidentally put it here?

[southcarolinamom]

We LOVE the two books written by the Bluedorn brothers, "The Fallacy Detective" and "The Thinking Toolbox." Together, using one lesson a day, the books would make up about a semester's worth of introductory logic. Your son is at the perfect age for these books. :001_smile:

 

Here's a link: http://www.fallacydetective.com/products/item/the-fallacy-detective/

[elegantlion]

Traditional Logic is formal logic. Discovery of Deduction would a good alternative, also by Classical Academic Press. Art of Argument and the Bluedorn books are informal logic. Argument Builder is more of an intro to rhetoric. So if you're looking to stay with formal logic, I'd look at DoD. If you haven't done informal logic I'd probably do that first, using either of the books others suggested, as an intro. We started DoD this year and found our previous study in AoA to be helpful.

[Tullia]

We started Martin Cothra's Traditional Logic 1 last week. I'm not sure what the big deal is with this book. It is dry and boring and really quite mind-numbing.

 

What are the alternatives for an about to turn 12-year old new 7th grader?

 

Formal logic works best when it's taught in context, but that's not always an easy thing to pull off. I think one reason people choose TL is that does a good job of teaching the basics in manageable chunks that are easy to schedule. IMO, supplementing with informal logic or Peter Kreeft books helps a lot, and we also thought Book II was a lot more interesting. The problem is that you have to get through the first to enjoy the second. TL doesn't work for everyone. The Classical Academic Press books might be a better fit.

[wapiti]

There's also mathematical logic, which is my plan, though I'm not sure which grade we'll start it - there may have been a couple of posters who did this around 7th/8th. I haven't looked at the other books (Art of Argument, etc.) but my gut feeling is I'd rather poke my eyes out with a stick (and I used to argue for a living). I haven't looked at Traditional Logic yet.

Edited September 6, 2011 by wapiti

[Teachin'Mine]

We LOVE the two books written by the Bluedorn brothers, "The Fallacy Detective" and "The Thinking Toolbox." Together, using one lesson a day, the books would make up about a semester's worth of introductory logic. Your son is at the perfect age for these books. :001_smile:

 

Here's a link: http://www.fallacydetective.com/products/item/the-fallacy-detective/

 

 

:iagree:

[Sunshine State Sue]

Did this get moved to the high school forum or did I accidentally put it here?

You must have accidentally put it here. :001_huh:

 

We used Anita Harnadek's Critical Thinking. Here is a thread about it:

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

See the tags at the bottom for more threads.

 

We also attempted Art of Argument. Here is a thread about it:

LFC Art of Argument - who's used it?

See the tags at the bottom for more threads. They have updated the book since we've used it, but I'm not convinced that I would like the new version much better.

 

I investigated the Bluedorn books, and while they get high praise for being amusing and entertaining, I realized that they were not appropriate for this secular hs'er.

[jibaker103]

Formal logic works best when it's taught in context, but that's not always an easy thing to pull off. I think one reason people choose TL is that does a good job of teaching the basics in manageable chunks that are easy to schedule. IMO, supplementing with informal logic or Peter Kreeft books helps a lot, and we also thought Book II was a lot more interesting. The problem is that you have to get through the first to enjoy the second. TL doesn't work for everyone. The Classical Academic Press books might be a better fit.

Has anyone taken a look at Logic Based Writing from IEW? This might do the trick as far as logic in context. I'm wondering if it will be too much to combine this with TLII.

[Tullia]

Has anyone taken a look at Logic Based Writing from IEW? This might do the trick as far as logic in context. I'm wondering if it will be too much to combine this with TLII.

 

Thanks for the link. My son's opinion is that there's no such thing as "too much logic" :D. That said, the sample material looks interesting; there seems to be quite a bit of overlap in topics between LBW and TL, and LBW combines formal logic with common fallacies. There's not enough information in the sample for me to get a feel for how LBW integrates into into the composition lessons, but from what I've seen, this looks like an excellent possibility--especially for people who are usingor intend to use IEW.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Martha in NM
omitted a word

[jibaker103]

Thanks for the link. My son's opinion is that there's no such thing as "too much logic" :D. That said, the sample material looks interesting; there seems to be quite a bit of overlap in topics between LBW and TL, and LBW combines formal logic with common fallacies. There's not enough information in the sample for me to get a feel for how LBW integrates into into the composition lessons, but from what I've seen, this looks like an excellent possibility--especially for people who are or intend to use IEW.

I forgot to mention their is a webinar with Andrew Pudewa and the author of LBW (he also wrote the rhetoric curriculum RBL as well. I am off to the IEW board to see if I can get a table of contents and scope & sequence for this curriculum. I'll let you know what I find out!

[Aquinas Academy]

Traditional Logic is formal logic. Discovery of Deduction would a good alternative, also by Classical Academic Press. Art of Argument and the Bluedorn books are informal logic. Argument Builder is more of an intro to rhetoric. So if you're looking to stay with formal logic, I'd look at DoD. If you haven't done informal logic I'd probably do that first, using either of the books others suggested, as an intro. We started DoD this year and found our previous study in AoA to be helpful.

:iagree:

We couldn't get into Traditional Logic either, but really enjoyed DoD.

[Susan C.]

We LOVE the two books written by the Bluedorn brothers, "The Fallacy Detective" and "The Thinking Toolbox." Together, using one lesson a day, the books would make up about a semester's worth of introductory logic. Your son is at the perfect age for these books. :001_smile:

 

Here's a link: http://www.fallacydetective.com/products/item/the-fallacy-detective/

 

Hi Chucki!

Good to see you here! Dd did TL in 10th grade, it was dry. A few months after she did it, she didn't remember much of it..... My conclusion at the time was that the two books above would have been much more memorable!

[FlockOfSillies]

So far my 12yo is enjoying Art of Argument. She likes the Socrates dialogues.

[Parrothead]

Thanks everyone. I"ll look at Art of an Argument and Discovery of Deduction. I already have Thinking Toolbox for use on Fridays.

 

If I go with one of the above (AoaA or DoD) what would the next 5 years look like for logic/rhetoric?

[Chez J]

I am using Art of Argument this year. I offered to post on the logic subforum the outside homework assignments I create for my dd. Will post them as I create them over the coming year. Keep an eye out for those. Not a lot of them, but a few. Things like compare these political ads and choose the one that matches xyz fallacy. Write a short one-page paper explaining your position.

[elegantlion]

Thanks everyone. I"ll look at Art of an Argument and Discovery of Deduction. I already have Thinking Toolbox for use on Fridays.

 

If I go with one of the above (AoaA or DoD) what would the next 5 years look like for logic/rhetoric?

 

It depends on where you want to go with logic. After DoD we will probably break off into philosophy and rhetoric. I don't plan on doing anymore formal logic curriculum, like Material Logic. We are also using Rulebook for Arguments this year, which ties in nicely with DoD. We'll mix the rhetoric into our English credit, moving at ds's pace (which is slow for now). We'll add in some philosophy as he is more interested in that. We'll be reading through part of The Story of Philosophy this year as well.

[southcarolinamom]

Time for an applicable story: My dd is working on The Thinking Toolbox this week, lesson #2, which discusses the difference between a: discussion, disagreement, argument, and a fight.

 

Today she overheard my husband and I talking about a household issue. I was trying to get him to focus on what I was saying, while DH was staring blankly at the computer screen, with news headlines from Charter flashing before his eyes.

 

DD walked into the room and said, "Um, Dad, actually you aren't having a discussion with Mom. You are arguing with her." And then she went on to define what a discussion and an argument were.... he looked rather sheepish, and then light-heartedly fist-bumped his daughter. :D

[Tullia]

...DD walked into the room and said, "Um, Dad, actually you aren't having a discussion with Mom. You are arguing with her." And then she went on to define what a discussion and an argument were.... he looked rather sheepish, and then light-heartedly fist-bumped his daughter. :D

 

:lol:

[Aquinas Academy]

Thanks everyone. I"ll look at Art of an Argument and Discovery of Deduction. I already have Thinking Toolbox for use on Fridays.

 

If I go with one of the above (AoaA or DoD) what would the next 5 years look like for logic/rhetoric?

Whatever you want it to look like. :)

FWIW here's the logic sequence I'm doing with my kids:

5th: Thinking Toolbox (reasoning)

6th: Art of Argument (informal logic)

7th: Argument Builder (rhetoric)

8th: Discovery of Deduction (formal logic)

9th: first half of Introduction to Logic by Gensler (informal, inductive, and symbolic logic)

10th: second half of Introduction to Logic by Gensler (symbolic logic, history of logic, metalogic)

11th: Philosophy (not sure what resources)

12th Ethics (not sure what resources)

 

We also use Classical Writing, A Rulebook for Arguments, and Rhetoric in the Classical Tradition throughout this time.

 

Fee free to use and regect as much of this as you want. :)

[Hope in God]

Has anyone taken a look at Logic Based Writing from IEW? This might do the trick as far as logic in context. I'm wondering if it will be too much to combine this with TLII.

 

I read a review that said that the parent has to have Teaching Writing: Structure and Style by IEW to be able to teach this book. Has anyone used this book before?