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

[Spy Car]

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.

 

But they are not "using" logic to get at truth, or trying to "prove" or "dis-prove" a premise, rather Wilson/Nance make you "accept" their premise on face value. No proof, no justification, no argumentation. This is not "debate" this is the WORD from "on high" (or at least in the author's interpretation). Not acceptable in a program that claims to be teaching Logic.

 

Bill

[mmjkjashipley]

There is a difference between philosophy/reason and logic. You want proof and you can't and won't get that from a logic curriculum. Like I said, logic is a method of thinking. You can use logic on any premise. Now how you get the premise, that's philosophy/reason.

[Spy Car]

There is a difference between philosophy/reason and logic. You want proof and you can't and won't get that from a logic curriculum. Like I said, logic is a method of thinking. You can use logic on any premise. Now how you get the premise, that's philosophy/reason.

 

I don't want "proof", don't want unprovable premises being presented as truth. Big difference.

 

Bill

[titianmom]

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

 

Ah, I think that's it. It's the logical examples that people may have a problem with; that's the "flavor" I'm refering to.

 

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.

 

Ah! You teach it in a class setting. I can imagine that neutral material would be better, prob.

 

Thanks for such a great discussion!

Holly

 

Oh, I'm always opening buckets of little worms. My hubby says I over analyze everything. He's prob right.

 

Kim

[mmjkjashipley]

Bill, I don't want to this to turn into an ugly discussion. But, at the risk of further inflaming you, Christians do believe it is Truth. That is our premise. Getting irate b/c a Christian publisher uses Christian premises is like getting mad at a Muslim for believing in the pillars of Islam or at a Christian for believing in Jesus. Aside all that, my point is logic is a method of thinking, regardless of the premise. This debate on Christian logic curriculum being fake logic books is off-base. That said, Bill, I wish you the best luck on finding a logic programs that meets the needs of you and your family.

[titianmom]

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.

 

That's my concern with taking logic courses. How much will our kids actually retain?

 

Sometimes the children just need to know what time it is, not how to build the watch, if you know what I mean.

 

If you like that sort of thing and have a good mind as far as remembering all the Latin and formulas, etc. then go for it. But I can see how a lot of kids would simply flush it all about a week after school was over.

 

You know what's really scary? We retained about 20% of what we learned in school. I think that's the statistic.

 

(I've got a button that says "43% of all statistics are worthless". I love this button. I hope you get the joke. If you don't, pm me. )

 

I quizzed my dd on viscosity the other day and she just stared back at me. We covered it a couple of years ago in Science while studying volcanoes. She's a bright kid about 2 years ahead of her peers--not Einstein, but just the average bright kiddo out there.

 

We studied Astronomy around the same time and we really got into it and bought some binos, and to this day we still go star gazing. She remembers practically all of her Astronomy and still reads over her books. She liked it and uses the knowledge.

 

We remember the stuff we use on a regular basis. How much of us remember our HS Algebra? (Before you went through it with your kids?) I'm honest enough to say I can spell Algebra and maybe work some of the entry-level problems, but for the most part I've forgotten it.

 

Sigh.

 

Kim

[Spy Car]

Bill, I don't want to this to turn into an ugly discussion. But, at the risk of further inflaming you, Christians do believe it is Truth. That is our premise. Getting irate b/c a Christian publisher uses Christian premises is like getting mad at a Muslim for believing in the pillars of Islam or at a Christian for believing in Jesus. Aside all that, my point is logic is a method of thinking, regardless of the premise. This debate on Christian logic curriculum being fake logic books is off-base. That said, Bill, I wish you the best luck on finding a logic programs that meets the needs of you and your family.

 

Let's agree that we have a fundamental disagreement about what is appropriate in a Logic course.

 

I understand Christians believe in their theological TRUTHs just as Muslims, Jews, and even Atheists have their theological TRUTHs. It is just not with in the scope of introductory Logic to attempt to prove (or dis-prove) any of these theological beliefs. They have zero to do with the rules of Logic.

 

And have no fear you are not "further inflaming" me as I am not, and never have been inflamed. Nor am I "irate". Nice try.

 

Bill

[titianmom]

Well, all I can give you is my testimony.

 

I personally believe in God because I have a relationship with Him. So, to me, their statement is similar to saying that my husband exists.

 

I have never seen God, but I've experienced the reality of God. Many in my family have.

 

My grandfather was on his deathbed with stomach cancer. He was bloated out with tumors and the rest of him was skin and bone, doped up on morphine. The doctor told his wife to make funeral arrangements.

 

Many from the church stopped by to pray for him one evening, and when he awoke the next morning, his stomach was flat and he felt fine. Not even a drug reaction. He got up, dressed, and started out of the hospital.

 

The nurse stopped him in the hall; she couldn't believe what she saw. Made him stay long enough to do tests. They didn't even find so much as scar tissue. He was in his 50s and he lived until he was 96. He said that he'd never die of cancer. He passed away from a stroke.

 

Personally, I have a daughter, now, because God gave her to me. I was told I couldn't have children.

 

My dad should have died in a fire that he was in. 3rd degree burns over 80% of his body. My mother was told he would never live.

 

God stopped my grandfather while he was out driving and told him to pray for his son. He pulled over and was praying on the side of the road and the cops pulled over and asked him what he was doing. When my granpa explained that he had to get to the hospital and something had happened to his son, the police escorted him to the hospital.

 

Dad not only lived, but worked again and fathered 3 kids.

 

Is this proof enough? :) Jesus said "Believe, and you'll see the glory of God." I personally hope that some day you'll be able to read those logic statements and say, "True".

 

Take care,

 

Kim

 

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

[Peela]

 

My grandfather was on his deathbed with stomach cancer. He was bloated out with tumors and the rest of him was skin and bone, doped up on morphine. The doctor told his wife to make funeral arrangements.

 

Many from the church stopped by to pray for him one evening, and when he awoke the next morning, his stomach was flat and he felt fine. Not even a drug reaction. He got up, dressed, and started out of the hospital.

 

The nurse stopped him in the hall; she couldn't believe what she saw. Made him stay long enough to do tests. They didn't even find so much as scar tissue. He was in his 50s and he lived until he was 96. He said that he'd never die of cancer. He passed away from a stroke.

 

Personally, I have a daughter, now, because God gave her to me. I was told I couldn't have children.

 

My dad should have died in a fire that he was in. 3rd degree burns over 80% of his body. My mother was told he would never live.

 

God stopped my grandfather while he was out driving and told him to pray for his son. He pulled over and was praying on the side of the road and the cops pulled over and asked him what he was doing. When my granpa explained that he had to get to the hospital and something had happened to his son, the police escorted him to the hospital.

 

Dad not only lived, but worked again and fathered 3 kids.

 

Is this proof enough? :) Jesus said "Believe, and you'll see the glory of God." I personally hope that some day you'll be able to read those logic statements and say, "True".

 

Take care,

 

Kim

 

I wish that Christians could see that when they make statements like this, which I understand are sincere and from their heart, they are however not convincing or proving anything to non-Christians.

 

As someone who doesn't swallow Christian theology, but who believes Jesus was a pretty amazing guy by the sounds of it- but I don't really know 'cause I wasnt there- I could have any one of a thousand different explanations for the facts of what happened in your above amazing stories (and I totally believe you that they happened). A Muslim or an atheist or a Buddhist might similarly have apparent miracles happen in their lives, even to the point of hearing a voice telling them to pull over and pray- and they would still not jump to the conclusion that it was a Christian God who did these things. These 'miracles' happen to people of all faiths and no faiths, not just to Christians. Prayer has a real energy, I use it myself, it is not confined to Christians either.

 

So to me there is a break in the Logic (and that is my point, this being a thread that has partially turned into a thread about Christian versus non Christian logic) when you try to say these miracles happened therefore a Christian God exists. I think you will find most non Christians don't quite see how that jump occurs in a Logical context- although Logic is not needed to believe anything, obviously- this is about Logic. These things happened- that is obviously true and indisputable- the next jump doesn't seem to have anything to do with Logic to me.

 

I don't know if I have made sense. If I knew more Logic I might be able to articulate myself better! I am not having a go at anyone's religion, just gently pointing out that what seems like a logical conclusion to a Christian, is not, to a non Christian, and therefore a Christian Logic text that makes Christian assumptions is not the same as a Logic text that doesn't make those same assumptions, even if there are parallels.

[titianmom]

You know, Jesus raised a dead man (Lazarus) and half the crowd nearby believed that He was the Son of God, and the other half decided, "We've got to kill this guy because he's leading everyone astray."

 

Your reasoning is nothing new; it has been around for a couple of thousand years.

 

Think about this:

 

If I am wrong and you are right, and Jesus isn't God, then we will both live our lives happily. I will go on believing Jesus is God and die some day, and we both end up worm meat in the end. I've lost absolutely nothing.

 

If I am right and you are wrong, and Jesus Christ is God and everything He said while on earth was true, we will both live our lives happily and eventually die. I go to be with God. You end up in Hell. Eternity is a very long time to spend thinking about a really grave error in judgement that you made while alive.

 

Either senario, I come out fine. But what about you? What about your family? The above senario is quite real and valid.

 

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No One can come to the Father but by me."

 

Either He was a liar or He was telling the truth. You have to decide which. You can't afford, "I don't know." Because the risk is too great.

 

What you need to do is pray and ask God, Himself, if He's real or not. Read the entire book of John in the New Testament. Be sincere. If you really want to know, He'll show you in His own way.

 

You don't have to take my word for anything.

 

Take care,

Kim

[Lydia]

 

If I am right and you are wrong, and Jesus Christ is God and everything He said while on earth was true, we will both live our lives happily and eventually die. I go to be with God. You end up in Hell. Eternity is a very long time to spend thinking about a really grave error in judgement that you made while alive.

 

Either senario, I come out fine. But what about you? What about your family? The above senario is quite real and valid.

 

Take care,

Kim

 

Oh, wow, Kim. I thought Peela made a lot of sense. I am always completely taken aback by statements like yours above. I know that many people believe this, but it just amazes me. I am not sure this kind of comment is really appropriate for a forum where other people's opinions and beliefs are to be respected. Kind of hard to sound respectful when you are telling people that not sharing your beliefs means they and their families are going to hell.

 

Perhaps this thread should be redirected to a less personal level.

 

JMHO.

 

Lydia

[camibami]

:001_huh:

 

And that, folks, is why I didn't elaborate on why I don't care for fallacy Detective. I wasn't in the mood for the "if I'm right, you burn" pep talk many times mistaken for a way to make converts.

[HollyinNNV]

If I am wrong and you are right, and Jesus isn't God, then we will both live our lives happily. I will go on believing Jesus is God and die some day, and we both end up worm meat in the end. I've lost absolutely nothing.

 

If I am right and you are wrong, and Jesus Christ is God and everything He said while on earth was true, we will both live our lives happily and eventually die. I go to be with God. You end up in Hell. Eternity is a very long time to spend thinking about a really grave error in judgement that you made while alive.

 

Either senario, I come out fine. But what about you? What about your family? The above senario is quite real and valid.

 

 

 

 

 

Kim,

I'd like to share one of the material fallacies with you. It is a procedural fallacy. It is when "the argument may be formally valid, but they are used, or treated, wrongly." I believe that your argument is the procedural fallacy of "answering another argument than the one given."

 

The question was, is logic an important class to teach separately and (I suppose) comprehensively.

 

Then the question naturally became, for those who were interested in teaching the class, what should we use to prepare and then teach logic.

 

You seem to be answering the question of whether one should choose to be a Christian. That is one big question! There is another fallacy, the fallacy of diversion. Within this fallacy is "Ad verecundiam" the appeal to reverence. It is basically an appeal to authority or illegitimate authority. As Kreeft says, "Appeal to authority is not in itself fallacious." Most of us have figures of authority that we trust. However, Kim, most of us don't even know you:001_smile:. You are someone out there in cyberspace. I bet you are a great person. But, we really don't know you. So, you are both a uncritical source ("there is no good reason why this authority should be trusted) and you are also giving out a "dogmatic" appeal "closed rather than open, claiming certainty rather than probability."

 

Holly

[Beth in SW WA]

Holly,

Another great reason for me to purchase Kreeft's Socratic Logic -- and soon!

 

I'll order from Amazon this week :)

 

This "conversation" has taken a few rabbit trails. I, for one, have truly enjoyed it. Its what makes this such a wonderful place to live. Free speech, gotta love it!

 

Onward and upward....

[Colleen in NS]

If I am right and you are wrong, and Jesus Christ is God and everything He said while on earth was true, we will both live our lives happily and eventually die. I go to be with God. You end up in Hell. Eternity is a very long time to spend thinking about a really grave error in judgement that you made while alive.

 

What you need to do is pray and ask God, Himself, if He's real or not. Read the entire book of John in the New Testament. Be sincere. If you really want to know, He'll show you in His own way.

 

Like Peela, if I had studied logic, I would be able to articulate a response better than what I'm about to.

 

You started this thread asking about whether studying logic was necessary. Several of us said we thought it was and gave reasons why. I think your response above has gone astray of your original questions - now it appears that you are pushing your beliefs personally onto people who have taken the time to respond to your questions about the necessity of studying logic.

 

I am a Christian like you, so I understand where your beliefs are coming from. But the more I read your responses, the more I'm convinced of the necessity of learning to use the tools of logic (and any other "thinking skills" subject out there, like rhetoric). I want to know for SURE what my premises are and how to defend them logically, without attacking other people's beliefs. But, statements about where someone will go after they die don't have anything to do with your *original topic,* and are too personal for this thread, IMO.

 

I can totally understand the following quote by Peela: "I wish that Christians could see that when they make statements like this, which I understand are sincere and from their heart, they are however not convincing or proving anything to non-Christians." I think some Christians (including myself) need some solid training in thinking skills before we go out and talk with others about our beliefs. I wish I'd had it years ago.

 

EDIT: and wow, Holly's explanation makes so much sense to me! I can't wait to study logic so I can write my thoughts that clearly and concisely!

[titianmom]

You are right in that I've gotten completely off topic. I apologize for that.

 

But I will never apologize for sharing God's truth with people. It's our mandate from Jesus Himself, no matter how it is received. He told the truth, and it got Him killed. There were many people who hated Him for the message He brought.

 

We need to quit tip-toeing around unbelievers and tell them what they're facing instead of worrying about hurting feelings. According to Scripture, it really is a matter of life and death. I did it because I care about them, not because I'm trying to terrorize people.

 

Do you believe in Hell? I do. I don't want anyone to go there. It was prepared for Satan and his angels, not for us. Heaven was prepared for us. But it's a choice we all have to make.

 

I will continue, unapologically, to try to pull as many out of the fire as I can until I can't pull anymore.

 

Peace,

 

Kim

 

But the more I read your responses, the more I'm convinced of the necessity of learning to use the tools of logic (and any other "thinking skills" subject out there, like rhetoric). I want to know for SURE what my premises are and how to defend them logically, without attacking other people's beliefs. But, statements about where someone will go after they die don't have anything to do with your *original topic,* and are too personal for this thread, IMO.

 

I can totally understand the following quote by Peela: "I wish that Christians could see that when they make statements like this, which I understand are sincere and from their heart, they are however not convincing or proving anything to non-Christians." I think some Christians (including myself) need some solid training in thinking skills before we go out and talk with others about our beliefs. I wish I'd had it years ago.

 

EDIT: and wow, Holly's explanation makes so much sense to me! I can't wait to study logic so I can write my thoughts that clearly and concisely!

[Jami]

Kim,

 

The Board owners/moderators have asked us not to use this particular platform to proselytize. While I appreciate your earnestness in sharing your faith, the board rules require that we use humility and not make assumptions about the faith of others while we're posting here. And these sorts of conversations are always better in the context of true relationship, not impersonal online interactions. Otherwise one might give offense because of the presentation, at the expense of the gospel itself.

 

Jami

[Renee in NC]

Kim,

 

The Board owners/moderators have asked us not to use this particular platform to proselytize. While I appreciate your earnestness in sharing your faith, the board rules require that we use humility and not make assumptions about the faith of others while we're posting here. And these sorts of conversations are always better in the context of true relationship, not impersonal online interactions. Otherwise one might give offense because of the presentation, at the expense of the gospel itself.

 

Jami

 

I totally agree.

 

(And, yes, I am a Christian.)

[Colleen in NS]

You are right in that I've gotten completely off topic. I apologize for that.

 

But I will never apologize for sharing God's truth with people. It's our mandate from Jesus Himself, no matter how it is received. He told the truth, and it got Him killed. There were many people who hated Him for the message He brought.

 

We need to quit tip-toeing around unbelievers and tell them what they're facing instead of worrying about hurting feelings. According to Scripture, it really is a matter of life and death. I did it because I care about them, not because I'm trying to terrorize people.

 

Do you believe in Hell? I do. I don't want anyone to go there. It was prepared for Satan and his angels, not for us. Heaven was prepared for us. But it's a choice we all have to make.

 

I will continue, unapologically, to try to pull as many out of the fire as I can until I can't pull anymore.

 

Peace,

 

Kim

 

Feel free to pm me to ask about my beliefs if you like. Any further participation I have in this thread will be about your original topic - "Is it necessary to study logic?" It was an interesting topic to me, that's why I joined in.

[jamnkats]

I don't think I ever would have considered logic as a subject to discuss with my kids - whenever we read I am always commenting or questioning (and the kids say, "It's a MOVIE mom!!! It isn't REAL LIFE!" :)

 

But Holly, you've convinced me. If nothing else than for myself.

[HollyinNNV]

I don't think I ever would have considered logic as a subject to discuss with my kids - whenever we read I am always commenting or questioning (and the kids say, "It's a MOVIE mom!!! It isn't REAL LIFE!" :)

 

But Holly, you've convinced me. If nothing else than for myself.

 

How fun! Well, I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.:D

Holly

[Rhondabee]

Oh, my parents aren't in the least materialistic. They are too practical for that - LOL!

 

I'm *really* sorry - I didn't mean to imply you are a snob, nor did I mean to intimate that we're close to living on the public dole - LOL! (And, I have two college degrees - and am the type of person who would really *LOVE* to go back and get another.)

 

=)

Rhonda

[keptwoman]

Another thanks to Holly, I'm going to go order that book now. It sounds like just what I'm looking for and I must embarrasingly admit to having a HUGE stack of Critical Thinking Press books that I don't even know where to start with *blush*

I think I'll sell 'em.

[kellycbr]

This thread has been fascinating. It made me realize that its time for DS(7.5) to study logic, and time for his Mum, too. Darn, I thought I'd finished buying everything for this year!

 

Seriously, though, I'll never forget taking a Critical Thinking course, Logic 101 at my university, and barely making a C+. It was embaressing - I just didn't get it. My husband affectionately calls it my "Fuzzy Logic." ;) Time to learn the basics, so I can explain my high-level thinking!:D

[HollyinNNV]

Another thanks to Holly, I'm going to go order that book now. It sounds like just what I'm looking for and I must embarrasingly admit to having a HUGE stack of Critical Thinking Press books that I don't even know where to start with *blush*

I think I'll sell 'em.

 

I hope you enjoy it. The fallacy section is a lot of fun!

Holly

[Rhondabee]

This thread has been fascinating. It made me realize that its time for DS(7.5) to study logic, and time for his Mum, too. Darn, I thought I'd finished buying everything for this year!

 

Seriously, though, I'll never forget taking a Critical Thinking course, Logic 101 at my university, and barely making a C+. It was embaressing - I just didn't get it. My husband affectionately calls it my "Fuzzy Logic." ;) Time to learn the basics, so I can explain my high-level thinking!:D

 

I know every child develops on his/her own time table, but my own sons (now 13 and 10yo) very much followed Piaget's order of develop and were/are quite firmly entrenched in concrete thinking until puberty calmed down a bit.

 

If your ds in only 7.5 years old, I would recommend sticking with learning about the patterns in the tangible world - not the sneaky, conniving ways people try to trick each other into changing their beliefs/habits/attitudes or the very abstract world of debating over ideas and semantics.

 

At 7th grade, go for it.

 

Of course, ymmv and all that ;)

Rhonda

[Plaid Dad]

Someone may already have said this - I skimmed through the pages of this thread fairly quickly - but it seems like a bit of information has been missing here. That's the distinction between formal logic and material logic.

 

As the names indicate, formal logic deals exclusively with the form of arguments - their validity as arguments. It does not get into the truth claims of particular premises. You can quite literally use nonsensical premises ("All blorgs are snorgs") to show the various ways that arguments can be valid or invalid. Formal logic is what Cothran's Traditional Logic course focuses on.

 

Material logic deals with the "matter" or content of the premises and therefore the truth claims of particular arguments. This is where you can begin to ask larger questions the impinge on the theological realm and have them be meaningful.

 

Remember that in the Middle Ages, theologians were required to complete a full course in philosophy - with a focus on logic - before they ever began to do theology. Theology uses the tools of philosophy, but philosophy is an independent discipline with its own rules, its own "grammar," if you want to use Dorothy Sayers' terminology. The rules of formal logic make up that grammar. And you can't do good theology without a grasp of logic.

 

So when people object to theological assumptions being put into a course on formal logic, it is not simply a matter of wanting to ignore the importance of theological questions, worldview, or anything else of that sort. It's because when you assume the truth claims of any religion without having previously proved them according to the rules of logic, you're not doing or teaching philosophy, but theology. That's why we call it "the faith"; certain premises are givens (de fide, taken on faith) in the realm of theology, but not in philosophy as a discipline.

 

The ancient philosophers did attempt to prove the existence of God (and some of us think they did a pretty impressive job), but they did so solely on the basis of natural reason. That's philosophy. When you add revelation into the mix, you're doing theology. Both are valid realms of inquiry, and religious believers will necessarily consider theology the higher and more noble. (That's why we call philosophy "the handmaid of theology.") But the content of the two should not be confused.

 

Hope that helps some!

[Colleen in NS]

Hope that helps some!

 

So....can you tell me if I have this straight in my head.....theology builds on the study of philosophy, which builds on and uses the tools of formal logic? And does material logic fit in with philosophy? I know that's simple, but this is all new for me.

 

And I find your explanation very helpful.

[HollyinNNV]

Someone may already have said this - I skimmed through the pages of this thread fairly quickly - but it seems like a bit of information has been missing here. That's the distinction between formal logic and material logic.

 

 

 

Drew,

Thanks for the definition clarification. It is always helpful to define what you are talking about! The other "logic" that folks were talking about is the general definition of logic-correct reasoning. This is more of the mundane/usual definition of logic.

Holly

[Michelle in MO]

conversation, and I haven't read everything that's been stated, so please forgive me if I'm saying something redundant to what's already been said.

 

A while back, Tina in Ouray posted some excellent thoughts on the h.s. boards, I believe, about the study of logic in the pre-high school years:

 

I have a very budget-friendly approach. I've taught Traditional Logic for a number of years now. The best preparation I've found for traditional logic is a strong grounding in grammar (English and Latin) and mathematics. You really don't need all the other "pre-logic" workbooks and such, and, in some cases, you're better off without them.

 

Your kids may even be ready for Traditional Logic in 7th or 8th grade. Most of my own kids complete Traditional Logic in 7th grade. If they aren't, I wait and press on with . . . Latin and math.

 

These other workbooks and curriculum are really just buying you time. And there are times when our time (as teachers or as students) is better spent elsewhere. If a brain isn't ready for Traditional Logic, I say take time to walk and talk, or go play chess.

 

Just an alternative . . .

 

Tina in Ouray, CO

 

I thought these statements were very interesting. It may lean more towards that multum non multa approach; in other words, instead of getting really busy during the earlier years with lots of logic workbooks, etc., focus on the critical and essential things.

 

Now, our family did do Mind Benders and Building Thinking Skills and books like that, but I'm not sure they really helped the girls with Traditional Logic I and II. (Of these two, though, both they and I preferred the Mind Benders books over BTS.)

 

Looking back, I wish now that I had simplified the grammar years with all three of them with less busywork, and more reading, writing, Latin, and math. I don't think they would have suffered any with moving from those into TL I and TL II.

 

Hope this helps! Wish I could claim Tina's thoughts for my own, but she really seems to have an excellent understanding of logic and rhetoric. I think someone once referred to her as "The Professor". Tina, if you're here---thank you!

[Spy Car]

Hope that helps some!

 

Beautiful explanation Drew!!!

 

Bill

[Plaid Dad]

So....can you tell me if I have this straight in my head.....theology builds on the study of philosophy, which builds on and uses the tools of formal logic? And does material logic fit in with philosophy?

 

There's a good, short description of the different parts of the logic curriculum here. (Scroll down to "division of logic.") This is from a Catholic Encyclopedia article, but the division described is not religious; it comes from Aristotle. Formal logic comes first, then material logic, which covers the ways we use our minds to categorize and describe the attributes of different things. After that you can move into different major areas of philosophy: Practical (Ethics, Economics, Politics) and Speculative (Physics, Metaphysics, Mathematics). These headings don't always match up with what we understand by these disciplines today. For example, ethics covers individual human action; economics, the household; and politics, the city/state. Physics deals with change and motion, but as philosophical ideas, not like the empirical or theoretical sciences we call by that name. These are the divisions of philosophy that held through the Middle Ages; modern philosophy has gone in other directions and uses some different terminology and different types of logic - which I admit I know nothing about! ;)

 

The things that are covered in formal and material logic as its taught in Martin Cothran's program or in the Kreeft text derive ultimately from various works of Aristotle on logic, collectively known as the Organon. The individual books are the Categories, the Prior Analytics, De Interpretatione, the Posterior Analytics, Sophistical Refutations, and the Topics.

 

If you want to get a glimpse of the kind of material that's covered in Aristotelian logic, you can check out the blog of a philosophy instructor that I took a course with this summer. He's posting a series of readings in logic drawn from Aristotle and other authors. Look for the "Logic 1" posts.

 

HTH!

[Jami]

There's a good, short description of the different parts of the logic curriculum here. (Scroll down to "division of logic.") This is from a Catholic Encyclopedia article, but the division described is not religious; it comes from Aristotle. Formal logic comes first, then material logic, which covers the ways we use our minds to categorize and describe the attributes of different things. After that you can move into different major areas of philosophy: Practical (Ethics, Economics, Politics) and Speculative (Physics, Metaphysics, Mathematics). These headings don't always match up with what we understand by these disciplines today.

 

And what I was sort of trying to articulate earlier in this thread is that it's never too early to teach children some of these categories and attributes through Socratic dialogue and use of the common topics. We're looking at the world and reading wonderful literature with our children these are great opportunities for discussions which begin to show them how to think logically. Ask questions like, "What is this? What do you mean by...?" (Category of definition) and "How is that thing like X?" (Similarity) "How is it different?" (Difference) and so on. This is helping a child to learn to be precise with language and look for how things in the universe are related. Later they can learn the formal terms for this dialectical process, but it's still dialectic and in the grammar stage no less! ;)

[Plaid Dad]

Ask questions like, "What is this? What do you mean by...?" (Category of definition) and "How is that thing like X?" (Similarity) "How is it different?" (Difference) and so on. This is helping a child to learn to be precise with language and look for how things in the universe are related. Later they can learn the formal terms for this dialectical process, but it's still dialectic and in the grammar stage no less! ;)

 

:) You're speaking my language, Jami! As soon as a child can understand that one word can have two entirely different meanings (e.g., we write with one kind of pen; we put pigs in another kind of pen - to borrow an example from the blog I linked to), they are beginning to understand equivocal terms - the very first thing covered in the Organon. You don't need to call them that at that stage, but the concept is there. Aristotle's M.O. is to build from what is known to what is unknown, so pointing this out as a "known," even very simply, does far more good, imo, than a passel of critical thinking workbooks. There's nothing inherently wrong with those - I loved logic puzzles as a kid and I still do - but logic as a subject in the trivium is much more than just common sense, pattern recognition, or observation skills.

[anissarobert]

Hello Everyone,

 

I'm so glad I decided to scroll through this post. What a lively discussion.

 

A few years ago I taught a co-op class using the Wilson/Nance books. The children in the room came from different religious backrounds, so I did find myself substituting my own examples from time to time. However I was able to modify them. I have also been unable to find any other upper-elemtary logic texts. I am planning to do Traditional Logic with my 14YO this year, but now thanks to the wonderful suggestion, I'm going to have to buy Socratic Logic!

 

I also am not that fond of the Critical Thinking Press books, although I have several on my shelf.

 

I wanted to make the point about the difference between traditional/material logic, but Plaid Dad described it much better than I ever could. (And I have a degree in Philosophy!) Thank you for explaining so well.

 

The biggest problem I had when I was teaching the Wilson books to 6th/7th graders, was similar to what has happened on this thread. When studying formal logic it is necesssary to assume a statement is true, even if in fact it may not be. When you tell a logic stage 11-12 YO to assume the statement "The sky is green" as logically true, you get the predictable response. I do believe that formal logic requires a bit of maturity and ability to think abstractly.

[Testimony]

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.

 

I don't know. All I know is that when I was in college, I failed my logic, reason, and persuasion class. I could not figure out those truth tables. I messed up those if-then patterns. I found that that was the first time I was ever exposed to that stuff. I wanted my children to be prepared. I went to a liberal arts school and philosophy was one of those core subjects you had to take. I sort of teach my children base upon my experience in college. The core subjects that I had to take, I am teaching them. It may not get them $100k job, but if it will help bring up their GPA in college, hey, why not?

 

Everyone is different and can choose to teach however you want. You don't need logic. It is inherently in the subjects of Latin, Science, Math, Language Arts. I just wanted my sons to know how to do those logic classes in college.

:huh:

 

Blessings in your homeschooling journey!

 

Sincerely,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[In The Great White North]

So, if we could pursue one more rabbit trail, which logic program (between Traditional Logic and the Kreeft book) is easier to teach? (Just talking about the books here, not the DVDs)

 

And are there really any prerequisites?

 

And where does The Art of Argument fit into the discussion? Is it useful or a waste of time? Does it cover formal logic (with the traditional terminology)? Is it easy to teach? Would doing The Art of Argument, then TL or Kreeft be overkill? Or would the vocabulary change?

 

And, finally, I picked up somewhere, Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic. Does anyone have any opinions about this book?

 

TIA

[SheilaZ]

Titansmom,

I think you're looking at a child's logic (critical thinking) program through the eyes of an adult who has developed a life time of common sense.

Of course *you* don't need Fallacy Detective or some Critical Thinking course. You've learned this as you've gotten older. Some adults don't. I know I have met some that haven't.

 

Is formal logic needed for every student. Probably not. They might get enough from "life" that they won't turn into some gullible person who is sending money to guy who emailed them in Nigeria.

 

but I was in a gifted program in public school which happened to get me classes for critical thnnking and formal logic. I can tell you that those classes did give me an advantage over my other classmates.

So much of an advantage that my own children will study logic. I want them to get at least the education that I got.

If only to stop the number of forwarded emails in the internets.:D

[Karenciavo]

So, if we could pursue one more rabbit trail, which logic program (between Traditional Logic and the Kreeft book) is easier to teach? (Just talking about the books here, not the DVDs)

 

And are there really any prerequisites?

 

And where does The Art of Argument fit into the discussion? Is it useful or a waste of time? Does it cover formal logic (with the traditional terminology)? Is it easy to teach? Would doing The Art of Argument, then TL or Kreeft be overkill? Or would the vocabulary change?

 

And, finally, I picked up somewhere, Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic. Does anyone have any opinions about this book?

 

TIA

 

Socratic Logic is college level, but easily handled by a high schooler at an honors level. Peter Kreeft is very engaging and entertaining I think. The Art of Argument deals strictly with fallacies. Traditional Logic is not as complete as Socratic Logic. Socratic Logic is a complete basic logic program and is sufficient on it's own. AoA and TL each provide a portion of logic. To me, if someone chose to use AoA then TL then SL it would be similar to those of us that chose to use an elementray level Latin program and then repeat a lot of the same information at a higher level with a high school or college text. If you think it's worth the time and effort to ramp up on the subject then do it, if you just want to jump in at the higher level that's fine too.

[Maverick]

I think TL is easier to teach. My ds's did TL I and most of TL II last year at in a class at co-op, so I didn't teach it all myself, but the teacher was someone who didn't have a lot of experience with logic. I helped the kids with their lessons and corrected some of thier work, and I think it would not be too difficult for mom--and you'd learn a lot! My kids were 12 and 14, 7th and 9th grade. The 7th grader absolutely loved the class and asked for more logic this year. He's going to finish TL II, then do Material Logic by Cothran, and then maybe he'll be ready for Socratic Logic if he wants to keep going. I read Socratic Logic last summer, and while I was able to follow the arguments, it wasn't an easy read. I would definitely wait for high school for that one.

 

I don't have Art of Argument but I'm planning to check it out soon. I've heard so many good things about it.

[Colleen in NS]

There's a good, short description of the different parts of the logic curriculum here. (Scroll down to "division of logic.") This is from a Catholic Encyclopedia article, but the division described is not religious; it comes from Aristotle. Formal logic comes first, then material logic, which covers the ways we use our minds to categorize and describe the attributes of different things. After that you can move into different major areas of philosophy: Practical (Ethics, Economics, Politics) and Speculative (Physics, Metaphysics, Mathematics). These headings don't always match up with what we understand by these disciplines today. For example, ethics covers individual human action; economics, the household; and politics, the city/state. Physics deals with change and motion, but as philosophical ideas, not like the empirical or theoretical sciences we call by that name. These are the divisions of philosophy that held through the Middle Ages; modern philosophy has gone in other directions and uses some different terminology and different types of logic - which I admit I know nothing about! ;)

 

The things that are covered in formal and material logic as its taught in Martin Cothran's program or in the Kreeft text derive ultimately from various works of Aristotle on logic, collectively known as the Organon. The individual books are the Categories, the Prior Analytics, De Interpretatione, the Posterior Analytics, Sophistical Refutations, and the Topics.

 

If you want to get a glimpse of the kind of material that's covered in Aristotelian logic, you can check out the blog of a philosophy instructor that I took a course with this summer. He's posting a series of readings in logic drawn from Aristotle and other authors. Look for the "Logic 1" posts.

 

HTH!

 

Yep, this is great, thanks! This and the following posts are all making me want to stuff more subjects into high school, LOL! (I know, I can't do that - but I can at least investigate and have some more food for thought for me and my kids if they are interested)

[Mad Jenny Flint]

But they are not "using" logic to get at truth, or trying to "prove" or "dis-prove" a premise, rather Wilson/Nance make you "accept" their premise on face value.

 

 

 

This is absolutely why I stopped Cothran's Traditional Logic after the first book. My son understood the principles and did well with the first book. I allowed him to skip a handful of problems because, in order to get the "correct" answer from a logical standpoint, he had to allow for a premise with which we as a family disagree.

 

When I look for an academic program for my children, I am looking for subject matter for the course which I am teaching. For example, we use Rod and Staff Grammar for the early years. It is FULL of Mennonite perspective. However, the perspective is only used within the examples and can be read and believed/dismissed without compromising the grammar/writing assignment or the learning involved. After R&S 6, the indoctrination was ramped up and we had to set it aside for another program.

 

In a logic course, if you have to change your belief system to accept a moral/religious/philosophical statement as truth because it is the initial premise of an argument, it is hard to get to the meat of the course. Instead, your mind turns to the idea that you are being forced to accept something that runs counter to your own beliefs. I am sure that a devoutly religious person would have trouble if a particular secular worldview were presented as the initial premise for an argument, as well- especially if that worldview denied the existence or importance of their God.

 

As I flipped through the second book in the Traditional Logic series, it became apparent that I could not use it. The arguments in which my child would be asked to engage later in the book were based in religious premises that would be impossible for him to argue in one direction or the other. We come at them from a completely different vantage point, and it just wouldn't be fair to him. Moreover, he wouldn't learn the intended material- logic.

[Mrs Mungo]

(I've got a button that says "43% of all statistics are worthless". I love this button. I hope you get the joke. If you don't, pm me. )

 

I used to have a button that said 70% of statistics are made up. :lol:

[wyomom]

I used to have a button that said 70% of statistics are made up. :lol:

 

 

Oh my Thank you for a big smile today. I find that quote very funny due to my experience with running statistics in college. LOL!

 

Back to the discussion. I am trying to decide what direction to go with my 7th grade dd this year with logic. She has had mindbenders A1, 2, and 3 and I was thinking we need to do more now. Would the Traditional Logic book work for her. I was thinking the SL book that was recommended but then I read where it was more highschool. I don't want to overwhelm her, just keep things rolling here. Our schedule is getting tight.

 

Thanks, Julie

[Julie in MN]

If everyone was good at "common sense logic," then advertisers wouldn't be very successful. Yet they are amazingly successful.

 

I think that even if we have common sense, we sometimes get sucked in. Studying logic a little more formally can help us shore up our defenses.

 

Studying logic very formally in college was torture for me. It took words & made them dry. It took thinking and made it robotic. It was one of the worst classes I ever took -- for me...

 

Julie

[Maverick]

I had one ds do Fallacy Detective in 7th and the other do Traditional Logic I and (part of) II. I like Traditional Logic, and my 7th grader liked it as well, but I have since discovered Art of Argument. I think it may be a little less intimidating than TL and easier to fit into a packed schedule. I would use it instead of FD if I were doing 7th grade again.

[Lovedtodeath]

I do not want to open a can of worms, or sound strange to others but I do have a question.

 

I have been taught to be wary of Greek philosophy which lead many first century Christians astray, whether they left Christianity altogether, or divided the congregation into sects. Would Art of Argument still fit the bill? I do not want a religious logic text as I am sure I will disagree with some of their premises. Feel free to PM me with your opinion and your beliefs which led you to it.

[Beth in SW WA]

Art of Argument. I think it may be a little less intimidating than TL and easier to fit into a packed schedule.

 

Mav,

Do you think Art of Argument is worth high school credit?

[Maverick]

I don't have the book in front of me, but I have read some sample chapters online here: http://www.classicalacademicpress.com/images/samples/new_AA_sampler.pdf.

 

Beth,

 

It appears to me that it would be a good jr high course, or it could be used as part of a high school course. I don't think it would be worth a full high school credit by itself, but ymmv. It really just covers fallacies, and I like it better than FD for that purpose.

 

Carmen,

 

I'm sorry I don't know exactly what your concerns are, so I would recommend that you read the sample chapters and see if it will work for you. Unlike FD and TL, it seems like most of the examples in AoA are taken from pop culture rather than ethical or religious issues (ie abortion). Classical Academic Press, publisher of AoA, doesn't describe itself as a Christian company, but the book does quote some scripture. I don't know the individual authors' pov.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thank you. I realize that I could be wrong in my thinking as I do not know what all a logic text gets into. The sample chapters will be what I need to make a decision.