Logic

Summer Session 2012
21 May ¾ 22 June

Michael F. Goodman
Department of Philosophy
Humboldt State University

Text: The Power of Logic, 3/e, by C. Stephen Layman. (Required)

Section 1:
Basic Concepts: Chapter 1 (pp 1-11 and 20-45)

Informal Fallacies: Chapter 4 (almost all)

Section 2:
Statement Logic: Truth Tables, Chapter 7 (all)

Section 3:
Statement Logic: Proofs, Chapter 8 (almost all)

Quizzes: If all goes as planned, here are the dates of the quizzes:

Web pages for:

Summer 2012 Quizzes & Exams

Summer
Quiz 1
Summer
Quiz 2
Summer
Quiz 3
Summer
Quiz 4
Summer
Quiz 5
Summer
Quiz 6
Summer
Quiz 7
Summer
Quiz 8
Summer
Quiz 9
Summer
Quiz 10
Argument
Assignment #1
Argument
Assignment #2
Argument
Assignment #3
Summer
Exam 1
Summer
Exam 2
Summer
Exam 3

This class is fairly difficult and requires a great deal of self-motivation to get through some of the material. There are no in-class sessions, since the course is entirely "online". If you have a question about something, you can't keep it for the next class session, because there are no class sessions. You will need to eMail me with your questions. I will respond as soon as I get your eMail. This can be frustrating, I realize, since an "immediate" response will be impossible most of the time. My primary goal in the class is to help you understand the material in this course, and I will do whatever I can to confer with you, explain and re-explain subjects, and spend as much time as necessary. Ultimately, you are the one who must learn it, and then show me by answering the questions I pose.

While most quizzes will be devoted to material currently being studied, Chapter 1 is fair game for questions on all quizzes as well as the exams.

Argument assignments. I will be giving you three argument assignments throughout the course. These will be eMailed to you and the instructions will be clear and precise. Treat this like a quiz, though I'm likely to give you 36-48 hours to return your work, as it usually involves quite a bit of creativity.

As you can see by the schedule, I put a lot of weight on the symbols and notation section of Chapter 7. This is because Chapter 7 is applicable to (indispensable for) the truth table method as well as Chapter 8. By the end of the course, you'll know translations pretty darn well. There is a link on the Prospectus titled "More translation excercises." If you will master these translations, you will surely ace all translation questions on the quizzes and exams.

Quizzes. Since the class is "online," all quizzes and exams are open book and open note. You will have 24 hours to respond for each quiz (24 hours from the hour I send it out via eMail) and 36 hours to respond for each of the exams. For every 1 hour of lateness in responding to/answering the quizzes and exams, there will be a 10 percent reduction in the grade. I know very well that there can be problems with eMail and the internet. It is your responsibility to get the answers to me on time, which probably means sending your answers in as early as you can. While I want to be gracious about all this, I also want to be fair. It is never fair for a student to have more time than the other students to complete the work assigned. Hence, I am very strict about time limits on quizzes and exams.

Here is how the quizzes will go: on the third day of the course, I will eMail the first quiz to you (probably around 9:30-10:00 am). You need to send your answers to me, via eMail, within the next 24 hours. I will then begin to respond to your answers (which I will do individually), offering comments and noting errors as well as notifying you of your grade for that quiz. (You should keep a running tally of your grades so that you can compute just where you are (percent-wise).) This procedure will be repeated for each quiz and exam (although you'll have 36 hours for each exam). I hope this is explained clearly. If you have any question(s), please ask.

Exams. There will be three exams in this course. The first exam will cover Chapters 1 and 4 (but remember, we aren't studying all parts of either of those chapters). The second exam will cover Chapter 7. The last exam will cover Chapter 8 (except section 8.6). Please be aware that I reserve the right to ask quiz and exam questions on Chapter 1 on every quiz and every exam. For the exams, you will have thirty-six hours to return your answers, from the time I send the exam.

Grading. General grading scheme: 100-93 = A; 92-90 = A-; 89-87 = B+; 86-83 = B; 82-80 = B-; 79-77 = C+; 76-73 = C; 72-70 = C-; 69-67 = D+; 66-60 = D; 59-00 = F. I do not grade on a curve. How do I grade? Fair, but merciful.

Further translations. On the Logic Webpage and on the Proepsctus, you will find a link to translations, with which we will be concerned in Chapter 7. You may disregard the homework assignments listed there, as they were not designed for this class.

Practice. The text contains a plethora of exercises and examples with which you should be acquainted. Daily Practice is one of the best ways to get good at the kinds of things you will be tested on in this course. I urge you to work the exercises in each assigned chapter. Also, if you can get hold of other logic texts that have the same material in them, it would be good for you to work the exercises in these as well. The more practice the better. Other Logic text titles you might want to look at are: A Concise Introduction to Logic, by Patrick Hurley; Introduction to Logic, by Copi, Cohen, and McMahon; Introduction to Logic, by Paul Herrick.

Academic honesty. It is the student's responsibility to know the Humboldt State University policy regarding academic honesty. For more information, go to the HSU catalog.

Area A Outcomes: Go to: http://www.humboldt.edu/~ugst/ucc/AreaAguideline.htm.

Area A Outcomes: Critical Thinking:
Upon completing this requirement, students will be able to:

Office hours: I do not hold regular office hours during summer. You are welcome to make an appointment to see me. Please call 826-5758.

Office & Phones:

Note important dates:

This course satisfies the Critical Thinking component in Area A of HSU General Education. It is also required for Philosophy majors and some Philosophy minors.

The catalog description of this course is: "Study of correct reasoning. Sentential logic, informal fallacies, and certain paradigms of inductive reasoning. Nature of language, artificial and natural."

Some Links:

About the Subject Matter

There are many things to learn in this course. In the beginning we will focus on some of the core concepts of logic, such as validity, soundness, acceptability and consistency. Argumentation is the primary area of study, with "good reasoning" being the highest value recognized. We will at once learn to distinguish arguments from nonarguments and study ways to evaluate arguments. This will be true also for the constituents of arguments, thatis, premises and conslusions. The traditional distinction between deduction and induction will be drawn and some common forms of inductive reasoning examined.

Some of our study of induction will carry over into the chapter on informal fallacies of reasoning, where we will look at such examples as appeal to authority, argument from pity, ignorance, ad hominem, and begging the question. Errors in reasoning will be the topic here, and understanding what these errors consist in will both allow us to be more careful in avoiding them and give us a definitive contrast with arguments which do not commit fallacies. Many people have argued that the study of informal fallacies is one of the most practical and useful experiences of one's entire college career.

Up to this point we will have concentrated on critical thinking from what may be called the informal perspective. Of equal importance is critical thinking involving the use of logical symbolization and the distinction between natural and artificial languages. This study is marked by a rigor matched only by that of mathematics proper. A crucial difference here is that formal or symbolic logic is not mathematics. To do the work in formal (sentential) logic, we will first construct an artificial language, translating from natural language (in our case, English) into the artificial. The value of this exercise will be recognized by what is learned about both the syntax and semantics of language in general. This will take us a long way toward the formal analyses of arguments.

With the tools in hand to evaluate arguments in logical notation, we will work through three methods. Two of these, truth tables and truth trees, allow us to determine the validity or invalidity of any argument in sentential logic. These techniques each provide insight into vital aspects of critical thinking. For example, tables elucidate the concepts of "validity" and "invalidity" to a degree unparalleled in sentential logic, while trees provide an excellent opportunity for understanding reasoning via reductio ad absurdum.

The third technique is called "natural deduction". While for some pure logicians, this is perhaps at the heart of logic, for us it will constitute only a relatively small part of our study. The insights gained here must not be taken lightly, however, because they are formidable. In proving arguments to be valid, we begin to understand 'inference' from the logical perspective. This cannot be overemphasized, because inference (good, bad, weak and strong) is one of the aspects common to all forms of critical thinking.

Another important part of the system of natural deduction is the work done using the Rule of Conditional Proof. Many times reasoning employs the drawing of assumptions. Understanding what assumptions to make, and how to deal with them once made, will fill in gaps in reasoning processes, including, for example, those of science.

If there is time, we will move into predicate logic. Here we extend our formal work to include more complex sentences and arguments using such quantifiers as 'all', 'none', and 'some'. This again will bring out aspects of syntax, semantics, inferences and relations.

Increasing your logic-based critical thinking skills broadly is the very point of this course.

Copyright 2011 by Michael F. Goodman.