Informal Logic 7th Grade

[Sarahtar]

I'm looking to start DS into Logic next school year. I'm going to get Memoria Press's Traditional Logic, but not sure we'll start off with it right away. I thought we might start with informal logic, and was looking at Art of Argument and/or Fallacy Detective. I don't know a lot about either book...

 

Are these meant to be used together, or one after the other? Or are they completely separate? Do you need both? If not, which one would you recommend? I emailed Veritas with some questions and they basically just said "Our standard program is Logic I and if your student is bad at math, then consider our other course."  Um... thanks.

[edeemarie]

We are currently using Fallacy Detective with my ds12 and he really enjoys it! I would highly recommend it. From what I understand, the Thinking Toolbox is the follow-up to the Fallacy Detective.

[RootAnn]

I've done Fallacy Detective with two kids & am working on Art of Argument with my 2nd. You don't need any sort of informal logic before you take a formal logic course. Memoria Press specifically recommends starting with Formal Logic, in fact.

 

Totally discarding that advice, we start out with FD. It is easy to fit into the schedule (2-3 weekly sessions of 15-20 minutes means it takes a little over one semester to cover the whole book), light-hearted, and fun. Keep in mind that it is really conservative in its outlook.

 

The following year, we do Art of Argument with a small group of her peers in a once-per-week format. We go at a pretty quick pace, covering the book in a semester. It takes us 12-14 class times. It is very light-hearted in tone, leans conservative, and is a bit meatier than the FD book. You don't have to do FD first. It assumes you don't know anything about fallacies when you start.

 

I tried MP's Traditional Logic with dd#1 at home. It flopped here - a very tough slog. She only got to Lesson 6 or 7 before I let her drop it. In retrospect, I probably should have either continued with CAP's program (Discovery of Deduction?) or used a more mathematical/symbolic logic program for that child.

[SilverMoon]

I tried Traditional Logic from MP with my oldest. It's a slog. Very dry. Read this. Fill in the blanks. The videos put us to sleep.

 

My second and following kids all started with Art of Argument in 6th or 7th. We chase that with Argument Builder the following year, and then Discovery of Deduction if they want to go further. I see CAP just came out with a fourth one this year too. Good stuff.

[RootAnn]

I tried MP's Traditional Logic with dd#1 at home. It flopped here - a very tough slog.

 

I tried Traditional Logic from MP with my oldest. It's a slog. Very dry.

 

Had to laugh.  :lol:  See a trend?  :coolgleamA:

[PineFarmMom]

Had to laugh. :lol: See a trend? :coolgleamA:

I bought it probably 11-12 years ago when my oldest was not ready for it yet. I thought I would do it first. I didn't have the videos so maybe that was part of it, but I hated it and shelved it. We wound up using FD/TTB. This time around I plan to use that combo in 7th then AoA in 8th and so on.

[Kathleen.]

Are any of these books very religious?

[Sarahtar]

Is VP's Logic I similarly dry? Do you feel VP's "other" track (the art of argument/discovery of deduction/etc series) is adequate?

[SilverMoon]

.

Edited September 8 by SilverMoon

[Sarahtar]

>>(published by CAP, though I know VP uses it)<<  Oh, duh. Thanks.

[RootAnn]

Are any of these books very religious?

 

I can't remember much actual religion in AoA. One of the kids in the group I'm teaching it to now is an atheist. He hasn't commented on anything. There might be a 'belief in God' reference in some of the fallacies.

 

The FD/TT stuff, I think, is more religious. It is definitely very conservative.

[Kathleen.]

I can't remember much actual religion in AoA. One of the kids in the group I'm teaching it to now is an atheist. He hasn't commented on anything. There might be a 'belief in God' reference in some of the fallacies.

 

The FD/TT stuff, I think, is more religious. It is definitely very conservative.

I was mostly concerned about controversial issues that might be too much for sensitive children.

[purduemeche]

We researched a bit and have decided on Art of Argument with CAP.

[KrissiK]

We're going with Fallacy Detective with my next year's 7th grader. It just seems to me a little more gentle introduction to Logic and while I love Memoria Press, their logic programs to seem a little dry. We may go for it in high school.

[HS Mom in NC]

We used Cothran's Traditional Logic from MP. It's definitely high school level material.  It's fairly dry, but it's rigorous and thorough. Did my kids like doing it?  No, not at the time. The mathy kid tolerated it and the non-mathy kid grumbled, whined and complained all the way through but they thanked me for it later during their first semester in college. There are obvious conservative leanings but nothing that can't be easily addressed.  I think the thoroughness and rigor outweigh the dryness and conservative leanings.  It dovetails beautifully with Euclid's Elements for Geometry.  Each of my older kids (one mathy, one not at all mathy) mentioned separately that they were glad we used logic and geometry together because they reinforced the same kind of thinking, one verbally, one mathematically.

Be aware that many people don't consider Fallacy Detective or Thinking Tool Box to be logic at all, so you may want people to weigh in on that from that perspective before you decide so you can be fully informed.  I can't give a detailed review because what I read in the first couple of chapters of Fallacy Detective made me choose not waste my time on it, so I haven't cracked open Thinking Tool Box.

[RootAnn]

I was mostly concerned about controversial issues that might be too much for sensitive children.

 

I don't remember anything too controversial in FD. AoA does have some mentions of abortion & war (in general?) in some of the examples. YMMV.

 

I think the thoroughness and rigor outweigh the dryness and conservative leanings. 

 

Be aware that many people don't consider Fallacy Detective or Thinking Tool Box to be logic at all, so you may want people to weigh in on that from that perspective before you decide so you can be fully informed. 

 

I think there are ways to cover Formal Logic as a topic without it being horribly dry like MP's TL is. I think studying formal logic is worth doing for some kids, but I won't put another one of mine through any of MP's TL. We'll try other options.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at with your second statement (quoted). FD is an introduction to informal logic (i.e., fallacies). Most people don't consider the study of fallacies to be the study of logic. It is part of one branch of logic (the informal branch). FD, while very conservative & somewhat religious in nature, definitely does introduce some fallacies. I am not at all familiar with The Thinking Toolbox product, so I cannot speak to that.

 

Edited to fix a glaring! spelling error.

Edited February 17, 2016 by RootAnn

[HS Mom in NC]

I don't remember anything too controversial in FD. AoA does have some mentions of abortion & war (in general?) in some of the examples. YMMV.

 

 

I think there are ways to cover Formal Logic as a topic without it being horribly dry like MP's TL is. I think studying formal logic is worth doing for some kids, but I won't put another one of mine through any of MP's TL. We'll try other options.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at with your second statement (quoted). FD is an introduction to informal logic (i.e., fallacies). Most people don't consider the study of fallacies to be the study of logic.

 

Some people consider Bluedorn materials neither formal or informal logic.  We consider it religious and conservative indoctrination mislabeled as informal logic.

 

Beware instruction from an author I have personally heard say in public, "It's not impossible for women to teach logic but most aren't good at it. "  I was there.  I heard him say it himself.  Anyone want to take a shot at that from either a formal or informal approach? 

It is part of one branch of logic (the informal branch). FD, while very conservative & somewhat religious in nature, definitely does introduce some fallacies. I am not at all familiar with The Thinking Toolbox product, so I cannot speak to that.

 

Edited to fix a glaring! spelling error.

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Homeschool Mom in AZ

[RootAnn]

Some people consider Bluedorn materials neither formal or informal logic.  We consider it religious and conservative indoctrination mislabeled as informal logic.

 

Beware instruction from an author I have personally heard say in public, "It's not impossible for women to teach logic but most aren't good at it. "  I was there.  I heard him say it himself.  Anyone want to take a shot at that from either a formal or informal approach?

 

Well, I'm glad I asked. I'm sure your reply will be helpful to future readers of this thread.

 

The admonition to beware something just because it came from a certain source might be a relevance fallacy, an ad fontem, probably the "ad hominem circumstantial" fallacy -- discrediting something (in this case, the logic books written & published by the Bluedorns) because of the person's background, affiliations, or self-interest in the matter at hand. (Remember, fallacies don't focus on whether something is true or not - just whether it is relevant, contain an assumption that is illegitimate, or not clear.)  [This may absolutely be a relevant fact for some people. It just isn't for me. For example, I won't buy anything BJU Press puts out because I don't want to support BJU due to their past & current anti-Catholic stance. However, that is absolutely NOT relevant for many other people. So, for them, my argument not to purchase a BJU math book just because it came from BJU would be fallacial.]

 

I thought about writing a rebuttal to this argument, but I realized I was just setting up a Straw Man Argument. Besides, I like the diversity of opinions on this board & respect that there are quite a few who will find the FD materials a bad fit and realize it because of your post.

 

The quote you include, I would say, falls under "opinion." You could make a case, I suppose, for an Appeal to Emotion fallacy, perhaps Argumentum Ad Verecundiam - Appeal to Illegitimate Authority. While the person who said it might be an 'expert' in logic (which I'm not sure you would agree with anyway), the person is probably not an expert in whether a certain gender group can legitimately teach logic. So, wrong or false expert (meaning they aren't an expert in the area of which they are speaking) or possibly biased expert (someone who is an expert in the area of which they are speaking but whom has an unreasonable bias or prejudice).

 

This is might be a good time to add in a comment about how I specifically go through the Fallacy Detective book (3rd edition). I've used it twice so far, in about 15-25 minute increments, doing everything outloud from the same book, snuggling together on a bed or a couch. It has offered up a great opportunity for discussions about a variety of topics that we don't usually touch on in schoolwork and a helpful intro to why we believe what we believe or trying to explain why other people would believe what they believe.

 

FD pokes fun at itself with examples like, "The new book, The Fallacy Detective, must be the best logic book around. It has been on the best-seller list for months." They point out that this would be an appeal to the people / mob appeal / ad populum.

 

They also point out the fallacies in statements which they probably agree with. For example, they use the following poll question as an example of a loaded question, "Are you in favor of the president's risky new health care plan that has been proven to be inefficient in Europe?" They point out that there are actually three questions in one here as there is an inherent assumption built in.

[KellyMama]

Do you think the CAP Discovery of Deduction book is more middle or high school level? We've read through FD as a family and the kids each read Thinking Toolbox on their own, but I was on the fence about formal vs informal logic from here out. My youngest is a rising 7th next year and is the most mathematically/logically inclined - he may go on to do a formal HS logic program but my girls will be 9th and 11th next year and are more humanities inclined.

 

Debating if this book could be a fun elective for the girls and a good bridge between FD/TT and something more traditional for DS? (I should add, DS has also completed all 3 books in the Logic Lift-off series.)