Jump to content

Menu

Logic options (Nance, Memoria Press, CAP)


Recommended Posts

I have a rising 9th grader next year and am somewhat unsure what to use for logic. I am torn between Introductory Logic by Cannon Press, Traditional Logic by Memoria Press, and Discovery of Deduction by CAP. They all have good features. My rising 9th grader is an aspiring engineer so I am not sure if that will (or should)  impact which option to choose. Has anyone compared these? What did you choose and why? I like that CAP is worth a full credit vs a half credit, but that's not a deal breaker for me. Any input is welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dd did the Memoria Press sequence in their online academy as part of their diploma program. She enjoyed all four semesters (Traditional Logic I & II, Material Logic and Rhetoric). If you want just one credit, you could stop with Traditional Logic I and II.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My young man loved The Art of Argument (1-semester credit) for informal logic, though not as much of a fan of the Argument Builder (1-semester credit) for continued informal logic. For the most part, he enjoyed Discovery of Deduction (1-year credit) for formal logic, but there were some lessons that were repetitive and dry. Overall, I'd still say that CAP seemed more engaging than MP or Canon Press, which is why we chose that route.

Edited by Mom21
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After looking at all the options to do formal logic at home, my rising 11th graders will be starting CAP’s Discovery of Deduction this summer.

Edited by mlktwins
Poor typing on my iPad :-)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, chiguirre said:

Dd did the Memoria Press sequence in their online academy as part of their diploma program. She enjoyed all four semesters (Traditional Logic I & II, Material Logic and Rhetoric). If you want just one credit, you could stop with Traditional Logic I and II.

Did you call it Logic on your transcript or something else? Trying to decide if it should be Intro then Intermediate or Logic 1 Logic 2 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mom21 said:

My young man loved The Art of Argument (1-semester credit) for informal logic, though not as much of a fan of the Argument Builder (1-semester credit) for continued informal logic. For the most part, he enjoyed Discovery of Deduction (1-year credit) for formal logic, but there were some lessons that were repetitive and dry. Overall, I'd still say that CAP seemed more engaging than MP or Canon Press, which is why we chose that route.

Thank you! I really like the look of the sample!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mlktwins said:

After looking at all the options to do formal logic at home, my rising 11th graders will be starting CAP’s Discovery lf Deduction this summer.

Great to know! If you get a chance, would you let me know your thoughts after using it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TamaraG said:

Did you call it Logic on your transcript or something else? Trying to decide if it should be Intro then Intermediate or Logic 1 Logic 2 as well.

My dd did their diploma program, but when I've generated a transcript I've just copied their course names: Traditional Logic I, Traditional Logic II, Material Logic and Rhetoric.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son is currently doing Canon Press (Nance's) Introductory Logic with the dvds from Compass Classroom.  The teacher is Brian Kohl, who my son is enjoying.  This curriculum has been a good choice for my picky kid, so I would definitely recommend it to others. 

Edited by RubyPenn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kids have done logic through Schole Academy. My older dd took Art of Argument and Discovery of Deduction. My ds is currently taking Art of Argument and is signed up for Discovery of Deduction for next school year. They have been excellent and engaging classes. Both took/will have taken Discovery of Deduction in 9th grade so I list it as Formal Logic on the transcript. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ByGrace3 said:

My kids have done logic through Schole Academy. My older dd took Art of Argument and Discovery of Deduction. My ds is currently taking Art of Argument and is signed up for Discovery of Deduction for next school year. They have been excellent and engaging classes. Both took/will have taken Discovery of Deduction in 9th grade so I list it as Formal Logic on the transcript. 

Discovery of Deduction as .5 credit, correct?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bokons said:

Ds15 will be taking Informal Logic at True North Homeschool Academy for grade 10. They use Art of Argument and Argument Builder for a full year course. 

We did the same at home—a full year course of Informal Logic using CAP’s AoA and AB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am posting here copies of my correspondence with Martin at MP, plus a forum discussion on MP comparing Traditional Logic to CAP's logic and comparing TL to Nance's program.

Amy,

 

You asked several questions, so let me take those in turn.

 

First, in regard to Classical Academic Press's program, the relevant specific comparison is between my Traditional Logic I and II program and CAP's The Discovery of Deducation, since TL I & II are focused on formal logic and DoD is  mostly focused on formal logic.

 

I think the differences (and I think CAP would agree with these) would be:

 

· My book covers more of the traditional system that CAP's. Whereas my book covers both simple categorical and simple hypothetical reasoning, as well as complex forms of both kinds, DoD covers only simple categorical reasoning. So I think mine is more comprehensive

· I treat formal logic separately from material logic, so TL I and II are purely formal logic and my Material Logic is purely material logic. DoD is mostly formal but has a section covering some basic topics in material logic. There are long traditions that do it both ways, I just find it clearer to treat them separately.

· Just perusing DoD, it would appear that my book has a lot more exercises to master the material. In skills subjects, we stress a lot of practice so that students habituate themselves to the procedures presented. We also try to provide all the exercises necessary for this so that teachers don't have to invent more exercises.

· My books do not include Venn Diagrams (DoD does) since they assume something called "existential import" an assumption of modern logic that is rejected by traditional logicians because of its modern assumptions. I use Euler's Diagrams, which do not contain this assumption at points where I think they are helpful.

 

Those are just the obvious things which I can say without having had occasion to go through the book carefully. It does seem to be nicely laid out and does focus on traditional logic (an advantage not shared by many other contemporary textbooks).

 

In regard to Catholic/Protestant, St. Thomas/Van Til question, I guess the first thing to say is that that would not constitute a difference between the two programs. They both study traditional logic, and traditional logic operates on Aristotelian philosophical assumptions that are shared by Catholics and most protestants.

 

There are strains of protestant thought in which nominalism (the questioning of the reality of universal ideas) is predominant, but even that does not necessarily affect one's views on logic. But nominalism figures predominantly in the development of much of the the modern logic systems studied in colleges and universities today, which is one of the reasons I do not emphasize it. 

 

The logic studied by reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon was the traditional Aristotelian logic that you will find in both these programs.

 


 

_____________________________

Q: Martin told me at a convention that his materials are based on pre-20th Century developments in philosophy and I was wondering if his is the only program in the homeschooling market that has that distinction (which I highly value). I know his program is solid beyond question but, frankly, it's a bit daunting for me even with the DVD lectures option.

 

 

A:

I am posting here a response Martin previously gave about MP's logic in contrast to Logos Press' logic. Soon I will have his response about CAP's logic which I will post when I have it. -Paul
______________
Well, let me take a stab at this question, with the obvious proviso that I authored one of the texts being compared. And let me class my answers in two parts: the first those with which I think the authors of both texts would agree, and the second those with which there might be disagreement.

1. Facts about the two books with which both authors would agree:

First, the Memoria Press Traditional Logic series emphasizes traditional, linguistic logic while Jim's series emphasizes modern mathematical logic.

Second, the Memoria Press program is "deeper" (it goes into one system of logic and spends all its time studying it, while Jim's program is "wider" in the sense that it covers several system of logic (the traditional and the modern).

Third, the Memoria Press program has more exercises than Jim's (I think he would agree with this, anyway).

2. Facts about the two books with which there may be disagreement between the authors:

First, the two systems respectively studied in the two books are entirely different, involve different assumptions about reality, and have different philosophical origins. Traditional logic is Aristotelian in origin and assumes that words or "terms" legitimately refer to universal ideas (also called "natures" or "essences") which exist in things. This is an assumption that is common to all of classical thought and to historic Christianity, and finds its greatest expression in the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. Modern logic is nominalist in nature and originates with Gottlob Frege, a 19th century German philosopher, Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead and Ludwig Wittgenstein. I think Jim would agree with me on most of these facts, although he might not agree with me as to the significance of them.

Secondly, traditional logic is what was actually used in the trivium. The trivium is language study, and traditional logic is conducted in and oriented toward real human language, while modern logic deals much more in mathematical symbols. This is a reflection of the differing assumptions about words. In traditional logic, a term is a sign signifying a nature, and cannot be replaced with any other word to yield the same meaning, since then it would refer to another nature. In modern logic, on the other hand, terms can function as essentially mathematical symbols, which can be replaced with any other term and still yield the same meaning. Traditional logic treats language qualitatively, while modern logic involves the belief that language can be quantified. Again, I think Jim would agree with most of these points, but not necessarily about their significance.

Thirdly, traditional logic uses a mastery learning approach, ensuring that the student has mastered the program at each level and is therefore prepared to proceed to the next lesson. It includes quite a lot of exercises to ensure this mastery. Jim's program would benefit from some supplementation in this regard (I think the videos that go along with the program help in this regard).

All that being said, Jim's program is a fine program and is the best thing out there to teach the system of modern logic at the high school level.

Martin

 

 

A: The difference between Memoria Press' Traditional Logic and Art of Argument

The chief difference between Memoria Press' Traditional Logic and Material Logic, on the one hand, and the Art of Argument is that they are covering different things. TL covers formal logic; AA is a course on informal fallacies. Informal fallacies are a branch of material logic, but not the part of material logic covered in the current MP text.

Right now we don't have a course covering informal fallacies.

The more relevant comparison is between TL and the The Discovery of Deduction. I think the main differences would be what is covered in the respective texts. Both TL books together cover the complete system of traditional logic, which includes 1) simple categorical arguments; 2) simple hypothetical arguments; and 3) complex forms of both categorical and hypothetical arguments. DD covers only the first. I don't know but I suspect CAP may be planning another complementary course for those.

We really stress the mnemonic verse devised by William of Sherwood in the Middle Ages for the manipulation of syllogisms so they really get to know them from all perspectives. DD doesn't have this, but, again, that may be included in a later book.

I think our logic books may be more exercise-heavy as well. We really stress mastery learning in all our programs so we really go overboard on making sure there are enough exercises to really master the subject. Maybe we are a little OCD about that, but it seems to work pretty well.

Those seem to me to be the major differences.

 

______________________

We chose to use MP's TL 1-2, and maybe we'll also do Material. Having looked at the programs (and having formerly studied logic extensively), my dh thought that TL had the important ideas for logic. We didn't want a lot of symbolic mathematical-type logic, but one based more on words and definitions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2021 at 5:39 PM, Bokons said:

Ds15 will be taking Informal Logic at True North Homeschool Academy for grade 10. They use Art of Argument and Argument Builder for a full year course. 

I have a student enrolled in that class as well! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...