Formal Logic Failure. What now?

[Finnella]

My 8th grader has been slogging through Discovery of Deduction this year. In addition to being bored, I don't think he's getting much out of it. We do weekly discussions and review most of the exercises together; I'm not trying to get him to do this independently. He really enjoyed Art of Argument last year and learned a great deal. Logic's taking a lot of time this year with depressingly small results. I'm not sure if it's worth it to keep going. I don't know if I should wait another year, try another curriculum, suffer through regardless.

 

I only have the one DS at home, so I could use advice and ideas on how to proceed. If I try another curriculum, I can't saddle him with lots of writing. We're doing most of the exercises orally, except for definitions and a few exercises. (He's a slow writer, and we started IEW this year. Plus he doesn't learn better if he writes things down.)

[TC5]

This sounds like our experience, except that my son is in 7th grade this year. He loved The Art of Argument, but we're getting nowhere with The Discovery of Deduction. Last week, we decided to shelve it until next year. I'm not sure it will be any better then, though, so I hope someone will give you some other ideas.

[fluffybunny]

I agree; Discovery of Deduction is very wordy and too theoretical. We have done a few chapters but then changed to Introductory Logic by Nance. It's much drier, but it only gives small pieces of information before the exercises, most of which can be done verbally, or on a whiteboard - and it takes it one small step at a time. My son has had no trouble with this book so far. The other one went straight over his head. We have the Intro logic DVDs coming any day soon.

 

The one part i love about DoD is the chapter at the end on Inductive Logic. I judged the whole book from that chapter. It's definitely worth reading just for your own education.

[Finnella]

I agree; Discovery of Deduction is very wordy and too theoretical. We have done a few chapters but then changed to Introductory Logic by Nance. It's much drier, but it only gives small pieces of information before the exercises, most of which can be done verbally, or on a whiteboard - and it takes it one small step at a time. My son has had no trouble with this book so far. The other one went straight over his head. We have the Intro logic DVDs coming any day soon.

 

The one part i love about DoD is the chapter at the end on Inductive Logic. I judged the whole book from that chapter. It's definitely worth reading just for your own education.

 

Thanks for the suggestion. I'd love to hear how the DVDs work out.

 

We're going to take a break from logic, but I'm thinking about trying Nance when we return to the subject. My son might be willing to settle for dry if it gets the job done and he's not spending so much time wading through confusing verbiage.

[elegantlion]

I went through the DoD book on my own the summer before ds did. I thought he'd have a hard time grasping, but he didn't. He kind of thinks oddly, weirdly, quirky though. I looked at the other logic books and it didn't explain enough for me. Dod is wordy, but it makes sense if you read it carefully.

 

Because his writing wasn't up to speed, we did a lot of the book orally. We didn't do the writing assignments and a lot of the longer assignments. We've been weaving them this year. I consider it a highlight of our year last year. We're going deeper into other philosophy topics, so I felt the foundation in formal logic was necessary.

 

I also think this is a subject that needs to be discussed. Ds does better working problems out by talking about them. I was really glad I had gone through the book once before we started.

 

As far as level, we did it in 8th and I don't think I'd try it much before that. Ds thinks in a philosophical way, otherwise the subject itself would probably have been in 9th or above.

[regentrude]

If formal logic turns out to be time consuming with small results, I'd ditch the subject completely.

It is perfectly possible to develop logical thinking through math, physics, and computer programming.

[Finnella]

As far as level, we did it in 8th and I don't think I'd try it much before that. Ds thinks in a philosophical way, otherwise the subject itself would probably have been in 9th or above.

 

It may be partially a developmental issue. Tiger's in 8th grade, but he's an Aspie. It usually isn't an issue with curriculum, but some areas can lag 2 -3 years behind in development. I would've posted on the SN board if I thought he wasn't ready for it, but now you've got me re-thinking that.

 

 

If formal logic turns out to be time consuming with small results, I'd ditch the subject completely. It is perfectly possible to develop logical thinking through math, physics, and computer programming.

 

I agree that other coursework can teach logic. My son's least favorite subject is math, so I'm not sure he'll pick logic up there. I wish he were more interested in computer programming; I have a family member who's eager to help teach him. I got lots of my instruction from a great deal of Latin, but foreign language terrifies my DS. (Yes, we are doing math, Latin, and science anyway.) It's more to think about, and I appreciate that.

[fluffybunny]

If formal logic turns out to be time consuming with small results, I'd ditch the subject completely.

It is perfectly possible to develop logical thinking through math, physics, and computer programming.

 

I would have to respectfully disagree that logic isn't necessary. Having studied logic myself late in life (having read through, and done the exercises of, no less than 13 books on logic!) , I wish so much I had learnt this stuff during my teen years. Logical fallacies are everywhere in the media and social life, attempting to manipulate our thoughts and skew our thinking. Formal logic is great for working out what is wrong with a claim that sounds dubious, ie cirularity. It also helps you formulate and effectively express your own ideas so that you don't leave out a premise or a conclusion, something that is very common both in essays and in speech (and which often hides a logical fallacy).

 

In fact, in one of my logic books it states 5 reasons why logic is life enhancing, which includes the ability to argue without becoming emotional, and even 'enhancing relationships'.

 

It's also an awful lot of fun! :thumbup:

[regentrude]

I would have to respectfully disagree that logic isn't necessary.

 

 

I did not say logic is not necessary. I said a study of formal logic is not necessary to do the things you describe below

 

Logical fallacies are everywhere in the media and social life, attempting to manipulate our thoughts and skew our thinking. Formal logic is great for working out what is wrong with a claim that sounds dubious, ie cirularity. It also helps you formulate and effectively express your own ideas so that you don't leave out a premise or a conclusion,...

In fact, in one of my logic books it states 5 reasons why logic is life enhancing, which includes the ability to argue without becoming emotional,

 

 

because it is quite possible to become astute at picking up logical fallacies and being precise about premises and conclusions if the person's logic sense has been honed through other fields, such as math or programming.

I have noticed an excellent sense of logic among my fellow theoretical physicists, even those without formal logic studies.

 

I do not doubt that logic studies can be highly interesting and fun - but apparently this did not seem to be the case for the OP. I was merely pointing out that formal logic is not the only avenue to reach the goals you describe.

[Deniseibase]

If you just want to try a different curriculum, you might look at The Snake and the Fox by Mary Haight. It's a little more entertaining than your standard logic text, and is meant to be an intro course for high school students. It's not super in-depth, and more plain English than loads of symbols and notation, but for an 8th grader that's probably more doable than a notation-heavy text.

[Finnella]

I did not say logic is not necessary. I said a study of formal logic is not necessary to do the things you describe below because it is quite possible to become astute at picking up logical fallacies and being precise about premises and conclusions if the person's logic sense has been honed through other fields, such as math or programming.

 

I think your original post was clear. I'm only still looking at formal logic because my DS's least favorite courses are in the math and science area. Though I am keeping it as a backup plan if I find formal logic doesn't work out. There's too much sloppy thinking out in the world already; I need to do what I can to help my son do better than that.

 

As for all the advertising and other widespread deceptive deceits, I think Art of Argument is wonderful because it teaches informal logic using ads. I'd been trying to point out problems with advertising since my son was much younger. AoA is what finally got through to him. So at least I've got that covered; my DS enjoys making fun of ads now.

 

 

If you just want to try a different curriculum, you might look at The Snake and the Fox by Mary Haight. It's a little more entertaining than your standard logic text, and is meant to be an intro course for high school students. It's not super in-depth, and more plain English than loads of symbols and notation, but for an 8th grader that's probably more doable than a notation-heavy text.

 

I appreciate the tip; used copies are very affordable. After we take a break, I do want to give formal logic another try, and I am looking at other options. While elegantlion had great success with DoD, I have serious doubts about it. So I'm holding on to it and looking at the alternatives that posters have suggested.

 

I appreciate all the help y'all have given me. I needed some new ideas to think about in this area.

[elegantlion]

I know Traditional Logic has DVDs available, I know nothing about them however. http://www.memoriapress.com/descriptions/logic/logicvideo.html

[fluffybunny]

I did not say logic is not necessary. I said a study of formal logic is not necessary to do the things you describe below because it is quite possible to become astute at picking up logical fallacies and being precise about premises and conclusions if the person's logic sense has been honed through other fields, such as math or programming.

 

 

Actually I was referring to formal logic. :thumbup1: Martin Cothran has written an article saying that formal logic should be studied before informal logic, because it is important to know how to recognise and formulate a 'good argument' before a bad one http://www.classical...ex.php?page=163

Further, informal logic can be better understood when syllogisms are applied.

 

Deniseibase, The Snake and the Fox looks great! Formal logic can be really funny, and so far most workbooks I've been through, ie Intro to Logic and Traditional Logic make the subject way too serious. This book looks a lot 'lighter'.

[mazakaal]

I have very little experience teaching formal logic and no experience with AoA or DoD, so take this advice with a grain of salt.

 

I got Traditional Logic to do with ds in 8th grade but decided that I'd rather focus on teaching study skills in 8th grade and pushed TL off till this year, 9th grade. He's doing very well with the course. It clearly explains everything in a step-by-step fashion. I pre-read each chapter and then we spend a day where I give him an overview of what the chapter will cover. The instructions for each chapter is that the student is supposed to first read through the whole chapter for an overview, then re-read each section and answer questions. I treat our time together as his first reading. Then he spends four days doing the reading and exercises assigned for each day independently. So far he seems to be grasping all the concepts well. So if DoD isn't going well for you, maybe try TL.

 

FWIW when I was researching TL, I found several threads in which other posters said that the dvds for the course were not good, so I didn't buy them. You may want to do your own search of past threads before buying the dvds.

[fluffybunny]

I'd love to hear how the DVDs work out.

 

 

Finella, we have watched a few units of the DVDs to Introductory Logic by James Nance (note: this is not the book/DVDs of Cothran's Traditional Logic), and I glad I got them. OK, they're dry and there are no special effects or fun video clips; just a teacher and a whiteboard, but they save my vocal chords and give ds another point of view, as I intend to do each section slowly and thoroughly. So, we will 1. watch the dvd, 2. read the unit, 3. do the exercises verbally and with a personal whiteboard (as ds is writing-phobic).

[Finnella]

. . . We have done a few chapters but then changed to Introductory Logic by Nance. It's much drier, but it only gives small pieces of information before the exercises, most of which can be done verbally, or on a whiteboard - and it takes it one small step at a time. My son has had no trouble with this book so far. The other one went straight over his head. We have the Intro logic DVDs coming any day soon. The one part i love about DoD is the chapter at the end on Inductive Logic. I judged the whole book from that chapter. It's definitely worth reading just for your own education.

 

I'm going to make sure I read that chapter before parting with DoD. And I have Nance's book on my list of alternatives.

 

Finella, we have watched a few units of the DVDs to Introductory Logic by James Nance (note: this is not the book/DVDs of Cothran's Traditional Logic), and I glad I got them. OK, they're dry and there are no special effects or fun video clips; just a teacher and a whiteboard, but they save my vocal chords and give ds another point of view, as I intend to do each section slowly and thoroughly. So, we will 1. watch the dvd, 2. read the unit, 3. do the exercises verbally and with a personal whiteboard (as ds is writing-phobic).

 

I appreciate the information about the DVDs. I believe I was thinking of the ones that MeganP mentioned that regularly receive negative reviews. It's also a bonus to me when I don't have to be the main speaker. I think it's also more interesting for Tiger when he gets to listen to someone else (not me) talk, even if it's a DVD.

 

 

If you just want to try a different curriculum, you might look at The Snake and the Fox by Mary Haight. It's a little more entertaining than your standard logic text, and is meant to be an intro course for high school students. It's not super in-depth, and more plain English than loads of symbols and notation, but for an 8th grader that's probably more doable than a notation-heavy text.

 

My used copy arrived today. Yay! I'm going to be read it through first. Elegantlion's point about reading the text first was spot on. I had started doing that in DoD, but I didn't start over the summer and was barely ahead of my son. I'm going to take this chance to regroup and be better prepared for the next try. I may not return to logic until the fall as we have lots of math to cover this year. If I forget to post something additional about The Snake and the Fox, anyone interested can PM me. Since I won't be using it soon, I could easily forget to post an update.

 

 

. . . I got Traditional Logic to do with ds in 8th grade but decided that I'd rather focus on teaching study skills in 8th grade and pushed TL off till this year, 9th grade. He's doing very well with the course. It clearly explains everything in a step-by-step fashion. . . .

 

I'm glad someone weighed in on Traditional Logic; I've heard of it but never seen a copy. I have heard the DVDs aren't good. Nevertheless, I'm going to keep it on my list of possibilities. I'll need to take a closer look at TL and Nance's IL if The Snake doesn't work out.

 

My thanks to everyone for giving me so many good ideas.