Logic classes - are they necessary? I'm thinking not...

[titianmom]

Hi all,

 

Grab a cup of Joe, pull up a chair and sit with me a spell.

 

I have some serious questions I'd like to discuss with you all about WTM, logic, et al.

 

My girl is reaching the age when, according to The Book..er, I mean, WTM, says we should start training our youngin's in logic.

 

So, Auntie Kim obediently went out and sought material for this coming fall.

 

I browsed through workbooks and picked up the ever-popular Fallacy Detective and bought FD. Last night, I read through several of the lessons. Here's my conclusion on the entire thing:

 

The title should be "Book of Common Sense".

 

I'm really wondering what all the hype is about with this and other logic books.

 

Personally, I successfully made it through school in computer and info systems making about $100K a year (before I stayed home with the dd) without one logic course, and my husband went state on the debate team and finished his degree in Economics without one logic course, his brother is an exec with Deloitte and Touche and never studied logic, and my other college-level peers never studied logic --and we all did just fine in life without it.

 

Because we all shared one thing in common. We had enough common sense to figure out the system, world, et al, and got through.

 

Common sense is taught in the home. We teach our kids how to be responsible, caring, how to use their heads, etc.

 

The Bible calls it wisdom. You ask God for wisdom; you re-inforce it in your children.

 

So, do we really need classes in logic? I say, "no". Will logic classes give kids who have no common sense, er, common sense? Probably not.

 

Anyone care to discuss this with me? Give me a really valid reason that studying formal logic is absolutely nec?

 

Keep in mind that, "Reality" says we really only need a very strong foundation in communication (LA, public speech, etc) and math. The rest is frosting, IMHO. (PS: I love History, but Reality says I could probably survived quite well without it, for ex. But I study History because I love History, not because without it I won't be able to make it in this world.)

 

I'm all for studying anything your heart desires because you WANT to, but to say you have to have something and it's nec is another matter.

 

Thanks for listening,

 

Auntie K.

[camibami]

I think learning formal logic and the argument styles, etc *is* valuable. But, FD stinks. So until mine reach hich school age and we can do "real" logic, we're doing Mind Benders and thats about all.

 

I am trying to justify spending $$$ on philosophy though- this looks way better than FD, and is sort of the same idea- ie training your brain how to think. We're already at a 10 hour day is I do everything I want to though- so...dunno if we'll get to philosophy!

 

Check it out- I've been drooling: http://www.academybookstore.org/AngelicumStore/Detail.bok?no=943

 

(This is the 2nd grade book)

 

IMO, similar but more meaty than logic for early grades (pre high school).

[HollyDay]

You put that rather well. I too have wondered about a separate class for logic in the pre-high school years.

 

Math teaches a great deal of logic - how to problem solve in a logical manner. Science teaches how to track a hypothesis to conclusion. WRiting teaches organized thinking.

 

I have used "logic" books like MindBenders, LogicLinks, GridPerplexors because they are fun. Youngest would work with them rather than TV or video games. Oldest enjoys them too. We play chess, Blockus, and other logical thinking games.

 

Wisdom is a whole 'nother story. I think there is a difference between wisdom and logic and the approach is different to learning each.

 

Fallacy Detective is cute and all. BJU teaches many of the concepts in their english and reading program (bandwagon, snob appeal, etc). Dh actually likes FD, he thinks it is funny.

 

I plan to look at logic this coming weekend at our closest homeschool conference. Not sure if I plan on teaching anything other than what we are already using, but I want to see what is available for high school.

 

Remember WTM is a great guide - it is not THE guide. No one send flames my way please.

[lvbeingmom]

I would have to agree that logic classes are not necessary but they are fun. This part of school my dd loves! I will not do away with it because of how much fun she has.

 

My ds 18 loves it too. He would sit for hours till he figured something out. He went to a Catholic College Prep High School and did logic in all kinds of his classes and loved it. He is a math guy though so maybe that has something to do with it.

 

So for us, logic stays. Its fun.

 

Tami

[Sunshine State Sue]

FD stinks.

Could you elaborate?

 

Thanks.

[titianmom]

We're already at a 10 hour day is I do everything I want to though- so...dunno if we'll get to philosophy!

 

Check it out- I've been drooling: http://www.academybookstore.org/AngelicumStore/Detail.bok?no=943

 

(This is the 2nd grade book)

 

IMO, similar but more meaty than logic for early grades (pre high school).

 

Thanks, and I feel your pain. Do I want to spend the money on things that aren't really all that nec? I'm not against studying Logic; I never meant to imply that and I hope I haven't done that.

 

It's just that, other than learning terminology and technique, can you learn to think logically without using a class on logic? Probably IMHO.

 

But that's me. :)

 

Forgot to add:

 

Read through the website you ref'd, liked this:

 

"In Philosophy for Children, students begin by reading texts in the form of stories. These stories are about fictional children who discover how to reason more effectively, and how to apply their reasoning to life situations. These stories are then discussed by the children in the classroom. Many problematic issues are encountered and examined. The students deliberate among themselves, and this process of deliberation is then internalized by the individual students: they become more reflective and begin to think for themselves. These deliberations evoke thinking that is skillful and deliberate, thinking that employs relevant criteria, is self-correcting, and is sensitive to context. It is not just any kind of thinking: it is critical thinking."

 

We do this when we talk/narrate stories, etc. Many novels present opportunities to discuss worldviews/world philosophy vs God's view on things. As a believer, I think it's important to understand why you believe what you believe, and not think a certain way because some man or woman in the position of authority says something is or isn't, you know?

 

The only difficulty I would have with a philosophy course is that teaching a child to think for themselves without a Higher Standard to gauge their thinking by is dangerous. I mean, Hitler's Mein Kamf is full of philosophy, but I certainly don't buy into what he believed. His gauge was himself. That isn't nec good to gauge your conclusions solely on your own perspective, etc. Seeking counsel from others, etc is important IMHO.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Kim

[titianmom]

We learn to think logically through so many other ways--in academics, life, trial and error, etc--that to me, a formal class is just overkill.

 

I like the puzzle books, also and think that they're great to get the juices moving in the morning before starting classwork, for ex.

 

(That and coffee helps, LOL. The child doesn't drink coffee but wishes she could in the morning.)

 

Now, the wisdom and logic thingie could generate an entirely new thread, LOL. I understand your point, but I think the older I get, the more I see how the two go hand-in-hand. You really can't have wisdom without logic, and logic produces wisdom. See my point?

 

Kim

 

You put that rather well. I too have wondered about a separate class for logic in the pre-high school years.

 

Math teaches a great deal of logic - how to problem solve in a logical manner. Science teaches how to track a hypothesis to conclusion. WRiting teaches organized thinking.

 

I have used "logic" books like MindBenders, LogicLinks, GridPerplexors because they are fun. Youngest would work with them rather than TV or video games. Oldest enjoys them too. We play chess, Blockus, and other logical thinking games.

 

Wisdom is a whole 'nother story. I think there is a difference between wisdom and logic and the approach is different to learning each.

 

Fallacy Detective is cute and all. BJU teaches many of the concepts in their english and reading program (bandwagon, snob appeal, etc). Dh actually likes FD, he thinks it is funny.

 

I plan to look at logic this coming weekend at our closest homeschool conference. Not sure if I plan on teaching anything other than what we are already using, but I want to see what is available for high school.

 

Remember WTM is a great guide - it is not THE guide. No one send flames my way please.

[titianmom]

Time will tell if my child actually longs for logic courses. That's fine with me, if nothing else they can be electives in High School, right?

 

I am having the dh take a look at Fallacy Detective for his 2 cents. If he and the daughter like it I'll prob go for it. Personally I'd stick to the workbooks because I think they're more useful. Again, not that FD isn't useful at all, it's just common sense dressed up, IMHO.

 

Thanks,

Kim

 

I would have to agree that logic classes are not necessary but they are fun. This part of school my dd loves! I will not do away with it because of how much fun she has.

 

My ds 18 loves it too. He would sit for hours till he figured something out. He went to a Catholic College Prep High School and did logic in all kinds of his classes and loved it. He is a math guy though so maybe that has something to do with it.

 

So for us, logic stays. Its fun.

 

Tami

[titianmom]

I can't speak for this poster, I can only say that reading through some of it made me feel like it was a lot of "Duh?" obvious, if you know what I mean.

 

Some of it was confusing (exercises) and at first didn't seem to relate to the lesson all that much, but then I realized that they expect you to sit with the entire family and use these to generate discussion. But don't try to get toooo deep with the answers. The surface response is usually what they're looking for.

 

Again, not terrible but we have these kinds of discussions without FD, :D

A.Kim

 

Could you elaborate?

 

Thanks.

[Another Lynn]

I will probably just show my own ignorance in this response - y'all don't mind, right? :D

 

I have not sought out or explored logic curriculum yet - so I really don't know anything about it yet. BUT, I'm honestly looking forward to learning logic myself. (Does this mean I"m lacking in common sense and wisdom? probably, LOL!) I would like to be better equipped to discern the holes in other points of view and better equipped to defend my own points of view, etc. Many times after a discussion of ideas I'm left feeling like I know *what* I believe, but either do not know why - or do not know how to apply the *why* to their arguements. (Not sure that made sense, LOL).

 

So, when we get to logic, I'm hoping it WILL be worthwhile. I'm hoping it will be an aid to faith, to apologetics, and to discernment. Am I off-base?

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Put us firmly in the "we do it because it's fun" camp. We're doing Art of Argument now, which is informal logic (I'm guessing similar to FD). It's cool to be able to not only spot a bad argument, but have a name for it. For us, it's not as much logic as "BS Detection Practice".

 

It's hard to see a "need" for it if you have kids with common sense (which I expect most of us do). But if you spend some time with the general population of average kids, a lot of them have NO IDEA how they are targeted. Being taught how the "other half" thinks can be the difference between making good choices (politically, financially, morally, for example) and bad ones.

 

So, I certainly see the need for informal logic to be taught, but I do think it can be taught informally:tongue_smilie:

[Karenciavo]

Fallacies are one portion of one branch on the logic tree so to speak. If your husband was on a debate team they must to have covered logic is some sense if the team was given any direction at all, even if they didn't call it logic. When you debate you need to be on the lookout for fallacies committed, and hopefully, not want to commit them yourself.

 

My older two sons have used The Art of Argument. When we watch the news or listen to Presidential candidate speeches my guys are able to quickly spot and point out the many fallacies committed on a daily basis, on both sides lest anyone get perturbed. I don't think this is something that comes naturally to everyone and even if it does come as common sense to some, I think naming the bad argument is a good thing, basically it's the same as giving a reason why it's a bad argument.

[Colleen in NS]

Will logic classes give kids who have no common sense, er, common sense? Probably not.

 

I was told one time when I was almost 30 (in regards to my postpartum confusion about how to care for my newborn first baby) that l just needed to use my common sense. I cried because I didn't even know what the person was talking about.

 

I've never seen the books you mentioned, but I bought the logic books rec'd in WTM. I did all the Mind Benders puzzles in level A, and to me, they are not dispensing common sense, they are about teaching your brain to think in orderly patterns. I started looking over the Critical Thinking books and the Intro/Inter. Logic books, and I found the same thing - training your brain to think in patterns - to follow a train of thought to a conclusion.

 

I've done "fine" by my standards in 40 years of living, but now that I've been introduced to the concept of "logic," I can look back and see many areas where it would have made my life a lot easier! If I had been taught *how* to think for myself via formal logic, I'd have been less of a follower who blindly trusted people, and I'd have been more comfortable to ask all those questions that used to burn in my brain but weren't allowed to be asked. I think I would have been a lot more confident in many activities/decisions, instead of just blindly hoping I'd made a good decision. It's something I'm having to learn now at age 40.

 

The whole package of: studying logic, learning writing skills, learning math skills, grammar skills, reading, spelling, Latin grammar, chronological history, one science per year.....all of it makes me feel MUCH more secure - sure, these things interest me for themselves, but getting equipped with the skills make me feel like the world makes more sense and has some order to it. I think logic skills (and the other skills) help make "real life" and clear thinking about every day life decisions a lot easier.

 

I, too, believe God gives us wisdom - and for me, it's a lot easier to see that wisdom in the context of order. I guess I see logic and the other skills as foundations from which one can gain common sense and wisdom.

[Spy Car]

I browsed through workbooks and picked up the ever-popular Fallacy Detective and bought FD.

 

Hi Auntie K,

 

I happen to believe both informal and formal Logic are important courses of study.

 

I would, however, caution that many (if not *most*) of the so-called Logic programs aimed at the "home-school" market are quite deceptive at presenting their materials as "Logic" when they are in fact "Christian Apologetics" (of an "extremist" nature) and often violate the very rules of "Logic" to make hot-button political and theological points. Its one thing to espouse a "particularist" version of ones faith or to champion ones political position, its another thing entirely to misrepresent it as "Logic".

 

The Bluedorn books, and those by Douglas Wilson and James Nance are particularly noxious in perverting the rules of Logic to serve their ideological ends. So beware, many of the so-called Logic programs are intellectual bankrupt and dishonest in their intent.

 

HTH

 

Bill (who would be very open to hearing from anyone who knows of a solid non-ideological program for children, as I've struggled to find one)

[Jami]

Bill I would direct you to Martin Cothran's Traditional and Material Logic programs. Mr. Cothran differs somewhat from Nance/Wilson though in that he approaches logic as a verbal art (as it was in the trivium) rather than the mathematical/symbolic math it's become commonly studied as, which has its purposes (for computer programming, say), but isn't really dialectic.

 

 

To the OP, I wouldn't necessarily say that a formal logic course is the goal, though I think it's important personally. But that dialectic, as one of the trivium arts (rather than a developmental stage) is critical to master. It's the foundational art. If one does not learn the art of reasoning/thinking well, how can one go on to do rhetoric well, or any later subjects? It's more than common sense, I would say. Dialectic is about learning how to ask questions in a meaningful way that leads toward knowledge and understanding. You might look into things like Aristotle's common topics or Bloom's taxonomy to see how these questions can be used to develop analytical and sythetical (is that the word for the ability to synthesize) skills...crucial to other disciplines. And I think dialectic can be done with Kindergarteners...no reason to wait for magic age 12 or whatever.

 

 

Jami

 

 

Hi Auntie K,

 

I happen to believe both informal and formal Logic are important courses of study.

 

I would, however, caution that many (if not *most*) of the so-called Logic programs aimed at the "home-school" market are quite deceptive at presenting their materials as "Logic" when they are in fact "Christian Apologetics" (of an "extremist" nature) and often violate the very rules of "Logic" to make hot-button political and theological points. Its one thing to espouse a "particularist" version of ones faith or to champion ones political position, its another thing entirely to misrepresent it as "Logic".

 

The Bluedorn books, and those by Douglas Wilson and James Nance are particularly noxious in perverting the rules of Logic to serve their ideological ends. So beware, many of the so-called Logic programs are intellectual bankrupt and dishonest in their intent.

 

HTH

 

Bill (who would be very open to hearing from anyone who knows of a solid non-ideological program for children, as I've struggled to find one)

[Beth in SW WA]

The Bluedorn books, and those by Douglas Wilson and James Nance are particularly noxious in perverting the rules of Logic to serve their ideological ends. So beware, many of the so-called Logic programs are intellectual bankrupt and dishonest in their intent.

 

 

Bill,

WOW! That is quite a statement. Can you please document your specific "issues" you have w/ those particular texts w/ page numbers so I can look them up.

 

We love the Bluedorn books and both my kiddos will take Nance's Logic program (per SWB's suggestion in TWTM).

 

Thanks!!

[Spy Car]

Bill,

WOW! That is quite a statement. Can you please document your specific "issues" you have w/ those particular texts w/ page numbers so I can look them up.

 

We love the Bluedorn books and both my kiddos will take Nance's Logic program (per SWB's suggestion in TWTM).

 

Thanks!!

 

Sure, read the first chapter in Wilson/Nance. A student is forced from the opening to affirm the statement "the Bible is the word of God" is a true premise. Failing to do so results in getting the "wrong answer".

 

Teaching "the Bible is the word of God" is fine in a "theology" course, but what place does it have in a Logic program? And to what end? We end up with Muslim Logic, Catholic Logic, Atheist Logic?

 

It doesn't make sense. There is no reason a Logic course shouldn't be "universal" in its appeal, and usefulness. With Wilson/Nance you either share in their TRUTH (based on their theology) or the material is valueless.

 

Can you image a Logic book who's first question asked a student to affirm (or deny) the truth of the premise "the Qur'an is the word of God"?

 

Wilson/Nance have a Christian Apologetics agenda, that is what this program is. What is dishonest about it is that they don't advertise it at such, and instead try to pass it off a Logic, when it is not.

 

It's been some time since I've looked at the Bluedorn materials, but I recall wildly inappropriate topics for young children (such as abortion) being the focus, and with the Bluedorn's world-view at center-stage.

 

My interest is in finding material that teaches Logic, and I'm supremely unimpressed with programs that "hijack" Logic to push their own agendas. To not be guilty of "hijacking" this thread i'll retreat at this juncture, with apologies to the OP.

 

Bill

[titianmom]

(Does this mean I"m lacking in common sense and wisdom? probably, LOL!)

 

So, when we get to logic, I'm hoping it WILL be worthwhile. I'm hoping it will be an aid to faith, to apologetics, and to discernment. Am I off-base?

 

Nope on both counts :D

 

Best wishes. I wanted to study it too, for fun (at least the formal logic) but i'm wondering if it's kinda dry for a high schooler...although, I hear some of the kids like learning the technical side of logic.

 

Kim

[titianmom]

That's what I thought. I asked him and he just rolled his eyes and said, "no". But I asked specifically about logic classes. I'm sure they were taught to present winning arguments. They were judged by a panel and I'm sure the panel was looking for certain logical techniques, etc.

 

You have a point about the debates. It would be interesting to look for holes, but I do that, anyway. I just might not have a technical term for them... :)

 

:)

 

Kim

Fallacies are one portion of one branch on the logic tree so to speak. If your husband was on a debate team they must to have covered logic is some sense if the team was given any direction at all, even if they didn't call it logic. When you debate you need to be on the lookout for fallacies committed, and hopefully, not want to commit them yourself.

 

My older two sons have used The Art of Argument. When we watch the news or listen to Presidential candidate speeches my guys are able to quickly spot and point out the many fallacies committed on a daily basis, on both sides lest anyone get perturbed. I don't think this is something that comes naturally to everyone and even if it does come as common sense to some, I think naming the bad argument is a good thing, basically it's the same as giving a reason why it's a bad argument.

[titianmom]

I was told one time when I was almost 30 (in regards to taking care of my newborn baby) that l just needed to use my common sense. I cried because I didn't even know what the person was talking about.

 

I, too, believe God gives us wisdom - and for me, it's a lot easier to see that wisdom in the context of order. I guess I see logic and the other skills as foundations from which one can gain common sense and wisdom.

 

I remember the newborn months. It's called exhaustion. :lol: When the girl was three months old I was soooo tired I didn't know what planet I was on, let alone could figure out what common sense was. I hadn't slept in 6 months for Pete's sake.

 

Later,

Kim

[camibami]

Sorry it took me so long ot get back here- been gone at church and a friends all day.

 

 

Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn present the book from a Christian perspective. The introductory chapter explains the importance of logic for Christians, and examples throughout the book use issues, such as abortion, conservation, and politics, that concern conservative families.

____________________________________________________

 

This is why I wrote "FD stinks". I didn't really want to elaborate, and hijack the thread, but since someone already "went there", and you asked...

 

I am not interested in Logic For Christians. Just logic.

 

 

[HollyinNNV]

My interest is in finding material that teaches Logic, and I'm supremely unimpressed with programs that "hijack" Logic to push their own agendas. To not be guilty of "hijacking" this thread i'll retreat at this juncture, with apologies to the OP.

 

Bill

 

 

Bill,

My favorite logic "text" is Socratic Logic by Kreeft. It is often mentioned on the high school board. I wish I had used it instead of Traditional Logic I & II. Those were good courses, but I like Kreeft better. I have a similar problem (as you) with the Wilson/Nance course. I settled on Cothran. Although his world view is similar, he is more balanced and neutral within the books he wrote.

 

To the OP

I do think Logic is an important subject. It affects our everyday life from advertising to personal relationships to writing. I think reading a book like Kreeft will really explain it better than I, but IMHO to be a more educated consumer and citizen, logic is required. Some of us can gain many logical skills by osmosis I suppose. Some of it is common sense. But after teaching Trad Log I & II and reading Kreeft I am thoroughly convinced that logic should be taught comprehensively. I have looked at the pre-logic stuff and many of it is fun and games-which I think is fine. It is not really what I am talking about. I am talking about analytical, critical thinking that takes place once students reach the rhetoric stage.

 

Just my humble opinion,

Holly

[Lydia]

But after teaching Trad Log I & II and reading Kreeft I am thoroughly convinced that logic should be taught comprehensively. I have looked at the pre-logic stuff and many of it is fun and games-which I think is fine. It is not really what I am talking about. I am talking about analytical, critical thinking that takes place once students reach the rhetoric stage.

 

Just my humble opinion,

Holly

 

Holly,

 

Do you think Traditional Logic (or Kreeft - I'll have to check that one out) should wait until high school, or is appropriate for 7th and 8th following Mind Binders and Critical Thinking in 5th and 6th?

 

May I ask what in particular you liked better about Kreeft vs Traditional Logic?

 

Thanks!

Lydia

[Geek]

In my opinion logic seems like 'common sense' only to those whose brains naturally handle information in an orderly fashion. The world is full of people who have other gifts, however, and orderly thinking isn't their forté. I think that the study of logic is beneficial to both groups.

 

For the first group, studying logic sharpens the saw, exposes students to logical fallacies that aren't usually picked up in daily life, and shows students practical applications of logical thinking.

 

For the second group, studying logic is like a traveler studying the local foreign language; it's not necessary, but it is very useful. Those who learn to think logically (and more important, those who learn to speak and write logically) have an easier 'go' of things in life. Math is easier, sifting through information of all sorts is easier, standing up for your beliefs is easier.

 

In and of itself logic doesn't seem to have practical import; it's not as though we go around pointing out fallacies in our friends' thinking every day! However, as others have already pointed out, logic trains the mind to think in a certain way. The more you drive a certain path, the deeper the ruts in the road.

[HollyinNNV]

Holly,

 

Do you think Traditional Logic (or Kreeft - I'll have to check that one out) should wait until high school, or is appropriate for 7th and 8th following Mind Binders and Critical Thinking in 5th and 6th?

 

That is totally dependent upon the student. Obviously, the younger the student is-the more aid they will need from you. TLII is really, really tricky at points. I thought I understood, but then found out I was wrong.:D We did it in co-op and thank goodness there was always someone that "got it." But, it wasn't always me, the teacher.

 

May I ask what in particular you liked better about Kreeft vs Traditional Logic?

 

Thanks!

Lydia

 

What do I like about Kreeft (I'll call it SL for Socratic Logic)?

It is practical. I like the humor that is injected occasionally. It is more flexible than TL. SL's chapters allow for some skipping around or cutting. TL's chapters consistently build upon each other. I would not change the order in TL! SL includes material fallacies. Kids love that! They can find them in real life and it makes logic come alive. SL includes material on logic and philosophy. It also mentions mathematical logic. My favorite chapter is "Some Practical Applications of Logic."

 

The subtopics in this chapter are-

1. How to write a logical essay

2. How to write a Socratic dialogue

3. How to have a Socratic debate

4. How to use Socratic method on difficult people

5. How to read a book Socratically

 

I think that SL gives you a broader picture of logic without losing so many of the important details. I think the book is more interesting and lively than TL.

 

Oh yeah-for those who are thinking about this in a classroom situation, there are questions for the students to work through.

 

HTH,

Holly

[Jami]

Titianmom,

 

I'm not sure if this will be of help to you. But here's a defense for teaching logic/dialectic from a classical, Christian school in Memphis. Now you may have different goals, and that's fine, but I thought this might be a helpful defense to share. :001_smile:

 

http://wamemphis.com/academics.aspx?pid=41

[Spy Car]

Bill,

My favorite logic "text" is Socratic Logic by Kreeft. It is often mentioned on the high school board. I wish I had used it instead of Traditional Logic I & II. Those were good courses, but I like Kreeft better. I have a similar problem (as you) with the Wilson/Nance course. I settled on Cothran. Although his world view is similar, he is more balanced and neutral within the books he wrote.

 

 

Thank you Holly. After reading you review and gleaning what I could "online" this looks like it could be a very valuable Logic text. I greatly appreciate your mentioning Socratic Logic by Kreeft, as looking at "Logic" materials has become a less-than-fun experience for me, and it is something I want to cover (in time) with my son.

 

Is there anything equally worthy for younger children?

 

Bill

[Colleen in NS]

I remember the newborn months. It's called exhaustion. :lol: When the girl was three months old I was soooo tired I didn't know what planet I was on, let alone could figure out what common sense was. I hadn't slept in 6 months for Pete's sake.

 

Later,

Kim

 

Well, yes, of course I was exhausted, :lol:!

 

But my reference to the incident of me being told to use common sense, was just ONE example of many incidents in my life where I could not think my way through a situation, exhausted or not. I had never been taught how to think for myself.

 

But now I see that there are actual mental tools that I can learn, and use, to think clearly. Believe me, this is a HUGE revelation for me. I need the tools, and I will teach them to my kids. I want them to be able to name AND use the labels/mental tools that karenciavo mentioned. To me, it makes clear thinking far easier than "winging it." Which is what I used to do, which is why I've never felt secure in thinking about politics, religion, big decisions, and little decisions, and hundreds of other things.

[Rhondabee]

In my opinion logic seems like 'common sense' only to those whose brains naturally handle information in an orderly fashion. The world is full of people who have other gifts, however, and orderly thinking isn't their forté. I think that the study of logic is beneficial to both groups.

 

 

 

 

As the bohemian daughter of uber-practical parents, I can tell the OP and my parents would *so* get along - LOL!

 

I also think that very pragmatic people (probably like OP) tend to equate financial security with success and *that* is "logical" to them. And, no, logic and philosophy (and other humanity-related arts) simply aren't necessary to make money. Heck, even college isn't a prerequisite to extraordinary wealth!

 

But, I have some innate longing that is not satisfied with that rather common-place, common-sensical scenario. (This is where my mother rolls her eyes!)

 

Unfortunately this "longing" is accompanied by an idealistic view of the world and other people that is often at odds with reality. (Yes, Colleen, I *So* relate to your post!) I see this with my kids, too. It has been painful to watch their disillusionment that the world really *isn't* the way Barney portrays it.

 

I hope that by proactively studying and explicitly teaching them logic and rhetoric they will be spared some of the heartache I have endured to get to where I am. (And, maybe they'll become really good public speakers in the process as well!)

 

:001_smile:

Rhonda

[Rhondabee]

Holly,

 

Do you think Traditional Logic (or Kreeft - I'll have to check that one out) should wait until high school, or is appropriate for 7th and 8th following Mind Binders and Critical Thinking in 5th and 6th?

 

May I ask what in particular you liked better about Kreeft vs Traditional Logic?

 

Thanks!

Lydia

 

 

SWB is dropping the rec for the Intro/Interm Logic courses now that Memoria Press has a DVD class available for Traditional Logic. (But, I'm still going to do the other.)

 

hth,

Rhonda

[Beth in SW WA]

 

Wilson/Nance have a Christian Apologetics agenda, that is what this program is. What is dishonest about it is that they don't advertise it at such, and instead try to pass it off a Logic, when it is not.

 

 

Yes, they do advertise it as such.

 

Bill, In my original question to you, I should have asked you specifically why you think the aforementioned logic materials are "intellectual bankrupt and dishonest in their intent".

 

I believe you are coming at it from the angle that all true logic materials must be secular in nature in order to be a pure logic program. OK, I respect that.

 

I am actually in the market for that specific Christian content for 7th/8th grades and I can tell from the website and text covers that it is marketed to "Christian and Home Schools". There is no false advertising. They are up-front w/ what the content is.

 

Traditional Logic (Memoria Press) comes from a Christian worldview, and is marketed as such (no surprises). Kreeft is Catholic and many of his materials reflect his Christian worldview. I have only read Kreef's Making Choices and listened to numerous podcasts from his website.

 

My kiddos will hit Traditional Logic for 9th/10th. For now Nance is a perfect fit.

[HollyinNNV]

Is there anything equally worthy for younger children?

 

Bill

 

 

We did not do much before middle school. But, my dd is a avid reader and I think that helped! I think much of the preparation is just being a good parent. You are watching Cops with your kid and the "bad boy" says, "Please don't give me a ticket, my dog died, my mother is in the hospital and my friend left this mary jane in the glove compartment. It's not mine!" This is a great example of the fallacy of diversion: ad ignominiam, the appeal to shame. It diverts the officer from facts, the "bad boy" deserves a ticket.

 

Even young kids can understand the appeal to shame.

 

There are many fallacies that can be understood. We, as parents, just have to be aware of them to point them out.

 

I think that there are other activities that really prepare a student for logic. It is very helpful to categorize things, create graphs to organize things and this leads to the ability to make categorical tools like a dichotomous key. I have found that the AIMS company makes great pre-logic curriculums. Here's a link to one my ds will be working through this year:

 

http://wwws.aimsedu.org/aims_store/VA-3rd-Grade-Scientific-Investigation-Reasoning-and-Logic-Teacher-Module-p-4567.html

 

This series is also very good. I'm linking to the K-1 book. There are a couple others for older students.

http://wwws.aimsedu.org/aims_store/Solve-It-K-1-Problem-Solving-Strategies-p-1775.html

 

I'm not sure what age we are talking about. But, I've always been extremely pleased with AIMS. Both of the links include a preview feature so you can see a bit of what you are going to get.

 

Hope this has been somewhat helpful!

Holly

[Sunshine State Sue]

Bill/Holly or anyone else,

 

Opinions on Art of Argument?

[HollyinNNV]

Kreeft is Catholic and many of his materials reflect his Christian worldview. I have only read Kreef's Making Choices and listened to numerous podcasts from his website.

 

 

 

While many of Kreeft's materials may reflect his worldview, IMHO, I do not believe that SL is in that category. I am glad that you brought up his background. I had forgotten it. The subtitle of Kreeft's book is

 

"A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions and Aristotelian Principles." I, personally, think he sticks to this.

 

Holly

[Colleen in NS]

My kiddos will hit Traditional Logic for 9th/10th. For now Nance is a perfect fit.

 

Beth, would you mind saying why you will have your kids do both sets of logic books?

 

I recently bought the Nance/Wilson books, but now I'm starting to doubt my decision.....pretty common occurrence on these boards, eh? LOL

[Colleen in NS]

SWB is dropping the rec for the Intro/Interm Logic courses now that Memoria Press has a DVD class available for Traditional Logic. (But, I'm still going to do the other.)

 

hth,

Rhonda

 

So, I'm assuming she prefers the TL course over the Intro/Inter. course for some reason besides the DVD (and I assume she likes the DVD because it makes it easier for 7th and 8th graders??) - did she say any other reason why, besides the DVD?

[titianmom]

Not just in your post but in all of this, it reminded me of a conclusion that I came to long ago, that Logic is in the mind of the beholder, just as beauty is.

 

The reality is our point of reference. Bill is having problems with Christian logic, because Christian logic comes from the premise that God is in the center of all things and He is our reference point for how we view logic.

 

Acts 17:28 - For in Him we live and move and have our being.

 

Aristotle's reference was himself, or man's view.

 

What Bill wants is man's view/perspective of reason and logic. Bill may still run into the problem that the author's conclusions may not line up with his own, however. He could, in theory, come up with a statement that Bill doesn't nec agree with.

 

Of course, there are rules to logic that folks have decided upon down through the ages and everyone technically supports. Still, each person who writes a lesson plan on logic is going to give his flavor on the subject.

 

I do think Logic is an important subject. It affects our everyday life from advertising to personal relationships to writing. I think reading a book like Kreeft will really explain it better than I, but IMHO to be a more educated consumer and citizen, logic is required. Some of us can gain many logical skills by osmosis I suppose. Some of it is common sense. But after teaching Trad Log I & II and reading Kreeft I am thoroughly convinced that logic should be taught comprehensively. I have looked at the pre-logic stuff and many of it is fun and games-which I think is fine. It is not really what I am talking about. I am talking about analytical, critical thinking that takes place once students reach the rhetoric stage.

 

Just my humble opinion,

Holly

[Rhondabee]

I *think* it's because her kids find the Intro/Interm DVD's boring. (There's even a slight reference to this in one of her blog entries.)

 

And, I do not mean to imply that she said the TL DVD's were riveting - LOL - she didn't say one way or the other.

 

In my plans, we're only watching 5-15 minutes of video at a time - and only every other day. So, I think some popcorn will get us through! And, that is doing both Intro and Interm in one year - if you spread each one out over a *whole* year, that would be even less video time. And, I appreciate that Intro Logic has bright, crisp pages and lots of white space. My ds will look at the book and see it as a continuation of the "Logic is a quick/easy/fun class" we've had the last two years. The TL simply *looked* difficult.

 

I thought about asking SWB, "Should I sell my Intro Logic?" But I decided that was a no-brainer. In the second edition of WTM, she always included schedules for people who were using what had been recommended in the first edition so that they didn't feel they had to change curriculum just because the current rec had changed.

 

I think it's all good!

Rhonda

[HollyinNNV]

Bill/Holly or anyone else,

 

Opinions on Art of Argument?

 

My answer won't be too helpful. I have only seen the online samples. Since then, I've read posts stating that it is a little confusing to teach. So, maybe this is a problem that will be corrected with a second edition? Hopefully, someone who has seen the whole program and taught it can answer.

 

Holly

[titianmom]

I think that's kinda my problem. I've always scored reeeeaaallly high on the logic portion on tests. My profession was Analyst.

 

So, I'm always pointing out ads, billboards, commercials, etc and laughing aloud and say, "Yeah, right..." and my daughter listens to it and now she's picking up on it. She's getting the picture that we live in a very commercialistic world, with the bottom line of profit.

 

I love the newer billboards I'm seeing these days. "Because you deserve it..." written across the bottom, etc. I may not know the tech term for this kind of bad thinking, but I can tell bad thinking when I see it - and see the advertiser's hand reaching for my wallet.

 

The amount of debt in our society tells us that you're right that people are buying into this stuff.

 

But as a Christian I see it as advertisers appealing to the flesh to sell their products, plain and simple.

 

Auntie Kim

 

Put us firmly in the "we do it because it's fun" camp. We're doing Art of Argument now, which is informal logic (I'm guessing similar to FD). It's cool to be able to not only spot a bad argument, but have a name for it. For us, it's not as much logic as "BS Detection Practice".

 

It's hard to see a "need" for it if you have kids with common sense (which I expect most of us do). But if you spend some time with the general population of average kids, a lot of them have NO IDEA how they are targeted. Being taught how the "other half" thinks can be the difference between making good choices (politically, financially, morally, for example) and bad ones.

 

So, I certainly see the need for informal logic to be taught, but I do think it can be taught informally:tongue_smilie:

[Beth in SW WA]

Beth, would you mind saying why you will have your kids do both sets of logic books?

 

I recently bought the Nance/Wilson books, but now I'm starting to doubt my decision.....pretty common occurrence on these boards, eh? LOL

 

Colleen,

 

My kiddos aren't ready for formal logic yet. I want them both through Alg 1 before we tackle that. I think the Nance materials are a great entry-level program. We'll do it open-book and keep it fun (if possible). I was originally signed up for Jim Nance's online class through the Logos School but our schedule changed and I withdrew my son's name from the roster.

 

Our tentative plan goes like this:

 

5th: Fallacy Detective

6th: Thinking Toolbox

7th: Intro To Logic

8th: Intermediate Logic

9th: Traditional Logic

10: Traditional Logic or Material Logic (not sure)

11: Rhetoric

[titianmom]

I'll check it out ;0)

 

Again, I'm open to anything. I may love formal logic but think the informal stuff really isn't nec, for ex.

 

Later,

Kim

 

Titianmom,

 

I'm not sure if this will be of help to you. But here's a defense for teaching logic/dialectic from a classical, Christian school in Memphis. Now you may have different goals, and that's fine, but I thought this might be a helpful defense to share. :001_smile:

 

http://wamemphis.com/academics.aspx?pid=41

[titianmom]

I also think that very pragmatic people (probably like OP) tend to equate financial security with success and *that* is "logical" to them.

 

..Unfortunately this "longing" is accompanied by an idealistic view of the world and other people that is often at odds with reality. (Yes, Colleen, I *So* relate to your post!) I see this with my kids, too. It has been painful to watch their disillusionment that the world really *isn't* the way Barney portrays it.

 

I hope that by proactively studying and explicitly teaching them logic and rhetoric they will be spared some of the heartache I have endured to get to where I am. (And, maybe they'll become really good public speakers in the process as well!)

 

:001_smile:

Rhonda

 

I don't nec equate the salary with common sense. But folks with a lot of common sense usually aren't on welfare, for ex.

 

I work with some folks who are in trouble a lot with life in general and it is usually a long history of very bad decision making.

 

Making lots of money was never my goal, just doing what the right thing, personally. Kinda "In order to support myself, I need an education. Then I need a job. Then I need to work in order to keep said job, etc. etc."

 

You'd be amazed at the number of people who complain because so-and-so has a nice house and car and then look at me sheepishly when I mention that so-and-so got his/her education and now have a steady job.

 

Of course, getting an ed isn't nec any guarantee of anything. But it does help.

 

I just didn't want to sponge off the parents for the rest of my life ;).

 

 

FYI, my B-In-Law wishes he picked another career because the stress is killing him in his current one.

 

Also, I think you'd get along with my husband quite well. :001_smile:

 

Kim

[HollyinNNV]

The reality is our point of reference. Bill is having problems with Christian logic, because Christian logic comes from the premise that God is in the center of all things and He is our reference point for how we view logic.

 

I'm probably not quite understanding what you mean.:001_smile: Here's what Traditional Logic teaches:

"The text presents the four kinds of logical statements, the four ways propositions can be opposed, the three ways in which they can be equivalent, and the seven rules for the validity of syllogisms." I'm not sure where God comes into the picture here.

 

All I see as a difference between religious and secular logic is who and what is used in the logical examples. Other than that, the subject matter itself is not, IMHO theological. Maybe we agree, but are just stating it differently.:D

 

 

What Bill wants is man's view/perspective of reason and logic.

 

I was going to state what I thought Bill wanted. Maybe, he should do that instead. :D I know that in my curriculum choice, I wanted a clear presentation. I did not mind some use of religious examples, however I wished these examples to be as "non-denominational" as possible because I had many different faiths represented in my class. I never found TL to be too controversial. There may have been a few case studies I skipped in TLII. And, I think a strict atheist would not like TL.

 

Bill may still run into the problem that the author's conclusions may not line up with his own, however. He could, in theory, come up with a statement that Bill doesn't nec agree with.

But, that wouldn't be logical.:lol:

 

Of course, there are rules to logic that folks have decided upon down through the ages and everyone technically supports.

Yes, yes, we agree.

 

Thanks for such a great discussion!

Holly

[HollyinNNV]

I love the newer billboards I'm seeing these days. "Because you deserve it..." written across the bottom, etc. I may not know the tech term for this kind of bad thinking, but I can tell bad thinking when I see it - and see the advertiser's hand reaching for my wallet.

Auntie Kim

 

I'd suspect that "because you deserve it" is a "fallacy of diversion." Instead of dealing with why one should buy something, the consumer is diverted into thinking about themself. Ad hominem means an "argument addressed to the person" or the personality instead of the issue. (Kreeft)

 

Holly

[Karenciavo]

While many of Kreeft's materials may reflect his worldview, IMHO, I do not believe that SL is in that category. I am glad that you brought up his background. I had forgotten it. The subtitle of Kreeft's book is

 

"A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions and Aristotelian Principles." I, personally, think he sticks to this.

 

Holly

 

There are small sections in the book that cover logic and faith, and logic and Theology. There are exercises, examples and questions here and there that mention God, use Scripture, and quote people like Aquinas and Augustine. They are all easily skipped if someone feels the need to do that.

[Peela]

I would, however, caution that many (if not *most*) of the so-called Logic programs aimed at the "home-school" market are quite deceptive at presenting their materials as "Logic" when they are in fact "Christian Apologetics" (of an "extremist" nature) and often violate the very rules of "Logic" to make hot-button political and theological points. Its one thing to espouse a "particularist" version of ones faith or to champion ones political position, its another thing entirely to misrepresent it as "Logic".

 

The Bluedorn books, and those by Douglas Wilson and James Nance are particularly noxious in perverting the rules of Logic to serve their ideological ends. So beware, many of the so-called Logic programs are intellectual bankrupt and dishonest in their intent.

 

 

I am secular and have been quite peeved with the Christian slant of the Logic programs I have used. However, it hasn't stopped me using them, since I haven't heard of any secular versions. The Christian content is just more fuel for conversations between my children and I . They see through it, they see what is Christian belief and worldview, so I am not too concerned- there is still valid information in there.

 

I have found the Fallacy Detective etc useful in introducing terms-like fallacies, Red Herring, Ad Hominem attacks etc- which are terms that are useful to know in articulating why something is or is not logical. I am sure most of us have a gut feeling when something is not logical, and common sense is still a useful quality people seem to have in various amounts and in different areas, but articulating gut feelings and intuitive hunches is another issue altogether, and these programs provide the language for that.

 

Programs like Traditional Logic however are a whole other leap up and I am not sure if we will go there again- my dd was plodding her way through TL, getting most of it correct, and getting absolutely nothing out of it, so I let her stop. I see the value in Logic study as being to be able to articulate and argue points in real life, not in the study of Logic as its own world and language unto itself. Maybe we just didn't go far enough to find it useful. I will check out the Kreeft program too, because it sounds more integrated and useful, as well as more secular-friendly.

[Kathie in VA]

I prefer to teach logic. I was first introduced to 'logic' as a course when I was in college. It was required for a computer Science degree. This was a formal logic class and I found it very helpful. Now that I've taken my kids thru some pre-logic and some informal logic I see how we are all thinking clearer. Learning the terminology for informal logic has been a great benefit. Now some of it was/is common sense to all of us.. but some of them my kids did get tripped up on. I'm really glad we did go thru it and I didn't just assume that they knew what I thought they knew or would learn at some point. We are going to do more informal logic this year, and my oldest will do some work on debate. I will move them onto formal logic. I'd like to do that Socratic Logic text also, but I've heard it's better to do that after something like Traditional Logic. All this will lead to a formal study of Rhetoric. I can't imagine learning rhetoric without actually studying logic first. I guess it's doable but I think it will be better having had logic.

 

jm2c

 

hth

[Spy Car]

Not just in your post but in all of this, it reminded me of a conclusion that I came to long ago, that Logic is in the mind of the beholder, just as beauty is.

 

The reality is our point of reference. Bill is having problems with Christian logic, because Christian logic comes from the premise that God is in the center of all things and He is our reference point for how we view logic.

 

Acts 17:28 - For in Him we live and move and have our being.

 

Aristotle's reference was himself, or man's view.

 

What Bill wants is man's view/perspective of reason and logic. Bill may still run into the problem that the author's conclusions may not line up with his own, however. He could, in theory, come up with a statement that Bill doesn't nec agree with.

 

Of course, there are rules to logic that folks have decided upon down through the ages and everyone technically supports. Still, each person who writes a lesson plan on logic is going to give his flavor on the subject.

 

I'm sorry but this is not an accurate statement of my views.

 

Ones "world-view" should not be an issue in an introductory Logic course, just as there is no "[insert your world-view here]-version" of mathematics.

 

If someone wrote a "Logic for Atheist Children" text and the first chapter included as a true premise "God does not exist", I'd say it was as intellectually bankrupt as one that demands the converse.

 

Bill

[mmjkjashipley]

I was discussing the controversial part of this thread with my husband. He made the point that logic is a method of thinking. You can start with almost any premise. Debates use logic and when you are on a debate team, you have to logically support the premise given to you, regardless of your beliefs. So Christian logic books have not hijacked logic textbooks; they just start with a different premise than you.