Logic books for beginners

[Diane_Windsor]

Over in GT I have come across bad argument after bad argument after bad argument. This has inspired me to study logic, which is a branch of philosophy correct? Can you give a beginner some book suggestions on logic and how I can spot fallacious arguments more easily?

Thanks,
Diane

 

[fuzzyh]

Come let us Reason Together by Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks
Logic by Gordon H. Clark

These are two written by Christians. I'd prefer Geisler over Clark. Geisler is extremely profound, but simple in his writings. He may be one of the greatest philosophers in the world today.

 

[sparklecat]

If you're looking for a textbook, I'd recommend Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic, 8th edition.

 

[morningstar2651]

Yep, it's a branch of Philosophy

I'll dig through my boxes (I recently moved) as soon as I have time and see if I can find my logic class book from last year. I took a logic college class...the dismal performances of my classmates during class made worry me about what may happen if they are given a position of responsibility.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Let's see...

Quine's Elementary Logic

Carnap's Introduction to Symbolic Logic and Its Applications

Maybe Russell's The Principles of Mathematics


Quine's book is pretty short, yet robust, and cheap.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The Art of Reasoning, by David Kelley.

 

[evania]

The Elements of Reasoning, 4th edition. by ronald Munson, David Conway and Andrew Black. (it's a tinny book, don't let the abundance of authors deter you) This book is required for my philosophy class, and being entirely new to philosophy, I find this book very easy to understand. It has helped me immensley.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Maybe Russell's The Principles of Mathematics

Let me guess that's a book about math-I'll have to pass on that one.

Thanks ladies and gentlemen for all the reccomendations thus far!

Keep them coming.

Diane

 

[Brimshack]

If you're not interested in formal logic, then

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...da162-20/104-6366788-3972733?v=glance&s=books

It's a pretty good introductory text. Sadly, it is expensive ...textbooks!

As a side issue, the book

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...bs_b_2_1/104-6366788-3972733?v=glance&s=books

...is a pretty good study of reasoning in a specific field.

One thing I would caution though is don't become too focused on rooting out fallacies. Even when studying fallacies, you should use them to help you understand good reasoning. Logic is about more than just catching the obvious mistakes.

 

[ClementofRome]

Hey Diane....we have bumped into one another over in WP. This is not an answer to your question about logic texts, but keep in mind that GT is a cesspool. Most folks over there are so blinded by their presuppositions and assumptions (i.e. worldview) that all logic goes right out the window.

 

[Imaginosis]

Can you give a beginner some book suggestions on logic and how I can spot fallacious arguments more easily?

Stephen Toulmin wrote some excellent books that discuss using non-symbolic logic. He argues that people, in general, don't communicate using syllogisms or symbolic logic. He's not totally dismissing symbolic logic, just that it's not practical or realistic in the vast majority of human communication. For instance, in the Court Room, lawyers, judges, etc, usually don't use symbolic logic. I recommend supplementing your readings of Stephen Toulmin with books on Venn Diagrams, symbolic logic, and syllogisms. No one approach is a panacea.

I tend to believe that the following quote best describes the individual pursuing correct thinking:

"A syncretistic individual implementing synergistic integration in order to posit the impossibility of the implausibility."

 

[Eudaimonist]

"A syncretistic individual implementing synergistic integration in order to posit the impossibility of the implausibility."

Huh?

 

[Imaginosis]

Huh?

Huh?

 

[AFallingStar]

I used "Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic" by Martin Cothran.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Hey Diane....we have bumped into one another over in WP. This is not an answer to your question about logic texts, but keep in mind that GT is a cesspool. Most folks over there are so blinded by their presuppositions and assumptions (i.e. worldview) that all logic goes right out the window.

True.

Stephen Toulmin wrote some excellent books that discuss using non-symbolic logic. He argues that people, in general, don't communicate using syllogisms or symbolic logic. He's not totally dismissing symbolic logic, just that it's not practical or realistic in the vast majority of human communication. For instance, in the Court Room, lawyers, judges, etc, usually don't use symbolic logic. I recommend supplementing your readings of Stephen Toulmin with books on Venn Diagrams, symbolic logic, and syllogisms. No one approach is a panacea.

I tend to believe that the following quote best describes the individual pursuing correct thinking:

"A syncretistic individual implementing synergistic integration in order to posit the impossibility of the implausibility."

I have no idea what you just said. Please rephrase in layman's terms. As for that quote-you might as well be speaking Greek to me.

DIANE

 

[Brimshack]

The goal of Toulmin's work was to make logic more practical. If logic deals mainly with syllogisms, then it is only useful when dealing with arguments in syllogistic form.

E.g.

All Men are Mortal.
Socrates is a Man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Okay, that's a good example of a Syllogism, and knowing that the form of that syllogism, and that arhuiments with that form are Deductively valid every time can be very useful, so long as you are addressing arguments that actually take a syllogistic form. As Toulmin pointed out, however, most reasoning does NOT take that form. Most reasoning is even too fuzzy to apply formal logical principles to without substantial changes in the meaning of the original argument. So, he tried to produce an approach to logic that was more flexible, and could be applied to a range of arguments in real life.

It's because of people like Toulmin, Chaim Perelman, and Michael Scriven, etc. that many universities now offer some variant of a parctical reasoning class where the entire analysis of an argument is almost always done in natural language. Rather than focuing on formal logic (where you translate arguments into symbolic notations and then calculate the validity of an argument using mathematical formula), many logic classes now focus on critical thinking skills that can be applied to arguments left in their original wording.

I don't know if it would really help to read Toulmin's main book though; it's more an argument for other logicians. The point is that if you wish to study methods of logic that are useful in every day speech, you might be more interested in looking at something influenced by his approach.

 

[Imaginosis]

I have no idea what you just said. Please rephrase in layman's terms. As for that quote-you might as well be speaking Greek to me.

A syncretistic man implementing synergistic integration in order to posit the impossibility of the implausibility.

It breaks up into three parts. Examine the parts and the statement makes absolute sense.

1) Syncretism
2) Synergism
3) Positing the impossibility of the implausibility

Shalom,

The Basque-Chicano

 

[realitybites]

Check out "An Introduction to Logic" by Copi and Cohen published by Prenhall.

"Logic" by Gordon Clark is also good.