fallacy detective/thinking toolbox...

[Lynn in Caribbean]

I see on various posts that many of you list these on your plans for the year.

What do you do with these books? Just read through them? Is there written work that you do as well? Do you issue a credit for reading through these books?

Thank you!

Lynn

[mktkcb]

personally, they are "logic lite", although very well done, engaging, and a great intro. I would give them a half credit in Jr. high, together, and use them for high school only as a warm up for the "meat" of whatever logic you plan to give them credit for. JMO. BTW, all my kids have used them, loved them, and I'm just about ready to use them again next year with my to-be 6th grader.

[Colleen]

What do you do with these books? Just read through them? Is there written work that you do as well? Do you issue a credit for reading through these books?

I've been reading Fallacy Detective with my oldest, who just turned 13. Actually, my whole family listens in as we use the book on occasion during lunch. Even my 8 year old can grasp the material, so that gives you an idea of the depth. There's no written work, btw; it's purely a matter of reading and discussing a bit. Both books (we own Thinking Toolbox and plan to go through that next) are enjoyable and somewhat informative, but I certainly don't consider them credit-worthy. I view them more as a pleasant thinking game, something to read/chat about over a meal.

[Faithr]

I read The Fallacy Detective aloud to my then 7th and 8th graders and we enjoyed it immensely. However, there were a few things about the book I didn't care for. For one thing you can tell it is written by younger people (I think the authors were high school/college age, perhaps). This could be a draw or a disadvantage but there is a flippancy to it that grated on my nerves just a little bit as we went along. So that was minor. However, the book is also extremely conservative and fundamentalist, though again we could over look these things for the most part. However, I do think that they authors sometimes fall into their own fallacies. And it was so long ago I can't remember specific examples but in their effort to be entertaining and politcal they sometimes would say things that would illustrate various fallacies. I was all prepared to use the book again with my 8th grader because we really got a lot out of it in spite of the various minor flaws. But then I saw The Art of Argument, put out by Classical Academic Press. This one is just more 'mature' and deeper and better presented. So I'm going with that for my 8th grader.

[In The Great White North]

Is The Art of Argument too "mature" for a 12 year-old? I've been thinking about doing it with all three (17,14,12) just so their arguments can be more interesting than "Yes, it is" "No it isn't" "Yes, it is. I saw it." "No, it isn't. That was X." "You're wrong." "You're making things up." .....

[Kathy in MD]

I read The Fallacy Detective aloud to my then 7th and 8th graders and we enjoyed it immensely. However, there were a few things about the book I didn't care for. For one thing you can tell it is written by younger people (I think the authors were high school/college age, perhaps). This could be a draw or a disadvantage but there is a flippancy to it that grated on my nerves just a little bit as we went along. So that was minor. However, the book is also extremely conservative and fundamentalist, though again we could over look these things for the most part. However, I do think that they authors sometimes fall into their own fallacies. And it was so long ago I can't remember specific examples but in their effort to be entertaining and politcal they sometimes would say things that would illustrate various fallacies. I was all prepared to use the book again with my 8th grader because we really got a lot out of it in spite of the various minor flaws. But then I saw The Art of Argument, put out by Classical Academic Press. This one is just more 'mature' and deeper and better presented. So I'm going with that for my 8th grader.

I've used The Thinking Toolbox and agree with Faithr. My ds and I enjoyed it immensely. We'd sit together on the couch and read it, discuss the activities and laugh and laugh.

But even in The Thinking Toolbox, occasionally they slipped into trying to teach WHAT to think rather than HOW to think. Reading it with my ds allowed me to point out these instances.

Next year we will also be doing The Art of Argument and possibly CAP's next book in their logic series. AoA doesn't try to convince the student what to think, rather it focuses on how to think.

Now all I need to do is find another school subject that allows ds and I to laugh together on the couch.

[Karenciavo]

However, the book is also extremely conservative and fundamentalist, though again we could over look these things for the most part.

I cringe when I see someone use the word "Fundamentalist" because it's one of those words that means different things to different people and is often used as a derogatory comment. Although there is no official list, to be a Fundamentalist in the purest sense of the word one simply believes:

The Bible is the infallible Word of God
In the deity of Christ
Christ was born of a virgin
Christ's death on the cross as a substitutionary atonement
Christ was resurrected from the dead
Christ will come again

So if this is how you are using the term in view of the Bluedorns then I agree. I will also agree that their conservative views are present in their books. There are not many instances when they use actual political events, but when they do they usually focus on fallacies committed by liberal Democrats and Republicans. I don't think it would have been too difficult to find a few fallacies from Worldnet Daily or Focus on the Family.

AoA is also a Christian text and has a conservative slant. I used it with my oldest when he was 12 and he did fine with it. There is a good deal of writing if you follow the program as written.

[Kathy in MD]

......
AoA is also a Christian text and has a conservative slant......

I agree that AoA does have a moderately conservative Christian slant. The authors may actually be more conservative than that. But what I noticed on my initial reading was that the AoA authors weren't trying to tell the student what to think. And I have a big hang up about a logic book trying to tell students what to think instead of how to think. (Thinking Toolbox only did that a few times, but it was enough so I wouldn't buy Fallacy Detec.)

One illustration on why TT occasionally grated on my nerves was their reason why an individual should prepare a list of arguments against his own position. TT maintained a person would do this to help him defend against others' arguments. AoA reason for doing the same was to get at the truth. AoA acknowledges that we are human, and sometimes we are wrong. And how humans can correct those errors is to examine their assumptions completely. TT *seems* to be proposing that there is no reason to re-evaluate your opinions. To me, that seems to contradict thinking and reasoning. To me, that is the sign of a bull-headed person, not an individual firm in his convictions.

[Chris in VA]

I guess we are logic dummies around here. We worked hard to really learn the Fallacies in FD, and, because we worked about 60 hours on the book, I gave my son .5 credit in 9th grade for logic. It was a new subject for both of us. Had I known, I'd have used it as a supplement and used Traditional Logic for a semester instead. But I don't feel apologetic at all for giving him credit as I did. YMMV, and usually does.

[Katia]

We used both books, I called it "Introduction to Logic" and gave my girls 1/4 credit for an elective.

One dd went on to Formal Logic from Memoria Press and I gave her 1/2 elective credit for that course. Other dd wasn't interested, so we did different electives.

The colleges oldest dd applied to didn't have any issues with the text or amount of credit awarded. This worked for us.

[Karenciavo]

Hmm, I no longer have a copy of TT, but I can tell you that in FD they do not do this. Lesson 2 focuses on listening and students are exhorted to listen to opposing views in humility because "Humility brings respect for others and for their thoughts." A humble person "admits that other people may have better ideas then he does." A humble person "is willing to question his own position on the issue." Lesson 3 covers opposing viewpoints. The very first benefit listed is because "we gain the opportunity to change our minds if we are wrong."

Just so you know, I actually prefer AoA myself.

Karen

I agree that AoA does have a moderately conservative Christian slant. The authors may actually be more conservative than that. But what I noticed on my initial reading was that the AoA authors weren't trying to tell the student what to think. And I have a big hang up about a logic book trying to tell students what to think instead of how to think. (Thinking Toolbox only did that a few times, but it was enough so I wouldn't buy Fallacy Detec.)

One illustration on why TT occasionally grated on my nerves was their reason why an individual should prepare a list of arguments against his own position. TT maintained a person would do this to help him defend against others' arguments. AoA reason for doing the same was to get at the truth. AoA acknowledges that we are human, and sometimes we are wrong. And how humans can correct those errors is to examine their assumptions completely. TT *seems* to be proposing that there is no reason to re-evaluate your opinions. To me, that seems to contradict thinking and reasoning. To me, that is the sign of a bull-headed person, not an individual firm in his convictions.

[Faithr]

I didn't mean to offend. I too believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God but I do not read it literally. I guess what I was refering to (and my memory may be hazy) were the arguments poking at evolutionists . . . I don't read the Bible as a science textbook for instance when it comes to creation but as something that contains spiritual truths, that God is the Creator, that Adam and Eve sinned, etc.

So I used fundamentalists to mean those who take the Bible literally. I should perhaps amend my ways, if that is not the common understanding of the word.

I don't mind a conservative slant. I'm kind of conservative myself in many ways. I think you, Karen, said it better than I, that you get the feeling the authors are telling you WHAT to think and not how.

But again, in spite of all this, we really enjoyed and learned much from The Fallacy Detective. If I hadn't stumbled on AoA, I would have happily used it again.

AoA is entertaining in its presentation as well, so I expect to enjoy it too.

[Kathy in MD]

Hmm, I no longer have a copy of TT, but I can tell you that in FD they do not do this. Lesson 2 focuses on listening and students are exhorted to listen to opposing views in humility because "Humility brings respect for others and for their thoughts." A humble person "admits that other people may have better ideas then he does." A humble person "is willing to question his own position on the issue." Lesson 3 covers opposing viewpoints. The very first benefit listed is because "we gain the opportunity to change our minds if we are wrong."

Just so you know, I actually prefer AoA myself.

Karen

Oh drats! I just lost my post with lots of quotes. :(

Briefly, chapter 7 on opposing arguments in TT was very different from FD. Time after time it stated that by preparing opposing arguments, you bolster your own beliefs and you can win your arguments. The closest it came to echoing FD was when it stated that preparing opposing arguments humbles us and lets us realize that why be believe things may not be based entirely on good reasons. Nowhere did it state that you might actually change your opinions because of doing your own "anti" arguments. I wish TT did as good a job on opposing viewpoints as what your reporting for FD.

[Gwen in VA]

We use The Fallacy Detective and Memoria's Logic I & II and call it one credit.

One child has used The Thinking Toolbox, and I have now sold the book. We didn't like it. I have a hard time putting my finger on why -- it just seemed quite convoluted.

[Lynn in Caribbean]

My soon-to-be 9th grader really wants to study logic, so...

I think that we will read through Fallacy Detective our 1st semester, then do Traditional Logic I the 2nd semester. According to the Memoria Press site TL I is a 1-semester course. This will be our Intro to Logic, and would be 1/2 credit.

The other 1/2 credit would come from TL II in his 10th grade year.

Does that sound about right for credits? Did you give 1/2 credit for each of these TL courses?

Thank you for all of the replies on Fallacy Detective!!

Lynn