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

[Sue in St Pete]

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
[/QUOTE]

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
[/QUOTE]

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

[Sue in St Pete]

Bill/Holly or anyone else,

Opinions on Art of Argument (http://www.classicalacademicpress.com/aa.html)?

[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 (http://www.classicalacademicpress.com/aa.html)?

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.

[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 FL]

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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm). (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 (http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm). (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
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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm). (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 (http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/) 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]

[QUOTE=Spy Car;426832]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.

[Beth in SW WA]

Thanks, Mav!

[Beth in SW WA]

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

UPDATE:

Ds is enjoying Intro To Logic. He corrects my logic much too often now :)

The dvds aren't as exciting as, let's say...Fringe... But, they are not boring, which is what I've heard is a complaint about this program.

Anyone else have luck w/ their logic programs?