Introduction to Logic Experiences

[FloatingEgg]

I'm taking an introduction to logic course as an elective this year at university. I'm not sure what I expected from a professor that teaches logic...

1. He always wears a black suit and a black fedora with converse running shoes.
2. He's passionate, sometimes driving himself to the point of tears.
3. He compared intellect, emotion, and intuition with three STTOS characters (Spock, Bones, and Kirk).
4. His primary goal is to make us into Human Beings opposed to Barbarians.
5. So far, most of his lectures have focused on three different types of love (Eros, Agape, and Philia). I can see where he's going with Philia, but the other two are making my nose itch.
6. He makes a lot of generalizations, particularly when it comes to human sexual behavior.
7. He's an out-of-the-closet liberal, and is frequently late for class because of his involvement in the elections. He gave us a lecture about voting today, drawing the conclusion that cynical is another word for lazy.
8. He tries to reach us by awkwardly using slang that he identifies with our age group. I don't use homie in conversation.

Would you describe him as a typical logic professor?

[untermensche]

This is your introduction to an eccentric university professor.

Maybe a psychology class will explain the need in some to express eccentricity.

[kennethamy]

I'm taking an introduction to logic course as an elective this year at university. I'm not sure what I expected from a professor that teaches logic...

1. He always wears a black suit and a black fedora with converse running shoes.
2. He's passionate, sometimes driving himself to the point of tears.
3. He compared intellect, emotion, and intuition with three STTOS characters (Spock, Bones, and Kirk).
4. His primary goal is to make us into Human Beings opposed to Barbarians.
5. So far, most of his lectures have focused on three different types of love (Eros, Agape, and Philia). I can see where he's going with Philia, but the other two are making my nose itch.
6. He makes a lot of generalizations, particularly when it comes to human sexual behavior.
7. He's an out-of-the-closet liberal, and is frequently late for class because of his involvement in the elections. He gave us a lecture about voting today, drawing the conclusion that cynical is another word for lazy.
8. He tries to reach us by awkwardly using slang that he identifies with our age group. I don't use homie in conversation.

Would you describe him as a typical logic professor?

He may be a logic professor, but he isn't teaching you any logic.* If you can drop the course, drop the course-fast. (What text is he using? Or is that a silly question?)

*Or anything else, so far as I can tell.

[untermensche]

He may be a logic professor, but he isn't teaching you any logic.* If you can drop the course, drop the course-fast. (What text is he using? Or is that a silly question?)

*Or anything else, so far as I can tell.
But it might be an easy A.

[kennethamy]

But it might be an easy A.

Maybe. But with someone like that, you can't take the chance. It might be an easy F too.

[untermensche]

Maybe. But with someone like that, you can't take the chance. It might be an easy F too.
Frankly I was being facetious.

If there is time to get into another class, I agree entirely with your initial advice.

[FloatingEgg]

He took a long time to get into the material, so I didn't have the opportunity to drop the course in a period of time that I'd be comfortable with. I won't drop the course now because it would be inconvenient for me. The text "Attacking Faulty Reasoning," which I've already read, should be sufficient to get me through the exam.

[kennethamy]

He took a long time to get into the material, so I didn't have the opportunity to drop the course in a period of time that I'd be comfortable with. I won't drop the course now because it would be inconvenient for me. The text "Attacking Faulty Reasoning," which I've already read, should be sufficient to get me through the exam.

Let's hope. Courage.

[FloatingEgg]

I've been trying to give my professor the benefit of the doubt, but I'm starting to lose my patience. Today he talked about pacificism, Jesus, Ghandi, and Bono. In particular, the lecture about Jesus and agape raised my hackles.

I don't have a problem challenging my other professors, but something about this prof's presentation encourages me to stay my hand. He pontificates, constantly taking what he sees as the moral highground on diverse subjects, and just as I'm about to challenge him on one point, he quickly moves on to the next, raising his voice and flapping his arms like a strange bird performing a mating dance.

Today, he gave us a list of his heroes, and explained each one in the context of the three types of love that I mentioned earlier. I was going to comment on Jesus, but I couldn't remember the appropriate passage from the Bible that contradicted his interpretation.

I'm tempted to ask him when he plans to get to the Logic part of the course, as politely as possible of course, and I'd like to provide a different interpretation of his so-called heroes, but I'm not sure how productive that would be. I'm really grasping at straws here.

[untermensche]

I've been trying to give my professor the benefit of the doubt, but I'm starting to lose my patience. Today he talked about pacificism, Jesus, Ghandi, and Bono. In particular, the lecture about Jesus and agape raised my hackles.

I don't have a problem challenging my other professors, but something about this prof's presentation encourages me to stay my hand. He pontificates, constantly taking what he sees as the moral highground on diverse subjects, and just as I'm about to challenge him on one point, he quickly moves on to the next, raising his voice and flapping his arms like a strange bird performing a mating dance.

Today, he gave us a list of his heroes, and explained each one in the context of the three types of love that I mentioned earlier. I was going to comment on Jesus, but I couldn't remember the appropriate passage from the Bible that contradicted his interpretation.

I'm tempted to ask him when he plans to get to the Logic part of the course, as politely as possible of course, and I'd like to provide a different interpretation of his so-called heroes, but I'm not sure how productive that would be. I'm really grasping at straws here.
Are you sure you are not a character living out here the latest story line from Doonesbury?

[Minnesota Joe]

I'm tempted to ask him when he plans to get to the Logic part of the course, as politely as possible of course, and I'd like to provide a different interpretation of his so-called heroes, but I'm not sure how productive that would be. I'm really grasping at straws here.

Wow, it sounds a lot like my logic course except mine was taught by a Catholic from the local seminary.

No Copi & Cohen for me, no, instead it was a bound collection of his notes and a lot of the flaky stuff you seem to be encountering. The point isn't that all this stuff is flaky in all instances, but it sure is flaky in a course called Introduction to Logic!

Still, it wasn't all bad. It's an experience anyway, right?

[FloatingEgg]

Are you sure you are not a character living out here the latest story line from Doonesbury?

I don't read Doonesbury, so I'm afraid your joke flew right over my head. :D

Wow, it sounds a lot like my logic course except mine was taught by a Catholic from the local seminary.

No Copi & Cohen for me, no, instead it was a bound collection of his notes and a lot of the flaky stuff you seem to be encountering. The point isn't that all this stuff is flaky in all instances, but it sure is flaky in a course called Introduction to Logic!

Still, it wasn't all bad. It's an experience anyway, right?

How did you get through it without violently using a sharp object?

[kennethamy]

I'm tempted to ask him when he plans to get to the Logic part of the course, as politely as possible of course, and I'd like to provide a different interpretation of his so-called heroes, but I'm not sure how productive that would be. I'm really grasping at straws here.

Well, yes. That seems to me a pertinent question. (Not impertinent, pertinent). If you have the courage, and if you want to help students, you should have a talk with the Department head. Your instructor is clearly incompetent, and neither you, nor your class is learning anything except his views about matters that have nothing whatever to do with logic. So all of you are being cheated by him. That's what I would do.

[sweetiepie]

I'm taking an introduction to logic course as an elective this year at university. I'm not sure what I expected from a professor that teaches logic...

1. He always wears a black suit and a black fedora with converse running shoes.
2. He's passionate, sometimes driving himself to the point of tears.
3. He compared intellect, emotion, and intuition with three STTOS characters (Spock, Bones, and Kirk).
4. His primary goal is to make us into Human Beings opposed to Barbarians.
5. So far, most of his lectures have focused on three different types of love (Eros, Agape, and Philia). I can see where he's going with Philia, but the other two are making my nose itch.
6. He makes a lot of generalizations, particularly when it comes to human sexual behavior.
7. He's an out-of-the-closet liberal, and is frequently late for class because of his involvement in the elections. He gave us a lecture about voting today, drawing the conclusion that cynical is another word for lazy.
8. He tries to reach us by awkwardly using slang that he identifies with our age group. I don't use homie in conversation.

Would you describe him as a typical logic professor?
Typically 'introduction' type electives are fed to whoever will teach them, and whoever does teach them is free to teach however they want to. In my experience they end up being the best and worst classes. It is, ofcourse, your job to figure out which it will be before "Add/drop" is over. At the point you're at now, I'd just bring a notebook to class, assuming of course that you have to go to class, and doodle.

If you're really keen on logic, you ought to check math or compsci, at my school they had logic classes that way way way outclassed the 'intro to logic' that was part of the philosophy curriculum. Probably because math/compsci students are already logical.

More generally-- if you don't want to be bored out of your mind, AVOID intro classes.

[kennethamy]

my intro to logic course was taught by a grad student named boris who would go on extremely long and humorous rants about everything from his girlfriend to the goriest movie he ever saw.
Typically 'introduction' type electives are fed to whoever will teach them, and whoever does teach them is free to teach however they want to. In my experience they end up being the best and worst classes. It is, ofcourse, your job to figure out which it will be before "Add/drop" is over.
If you're really keen on logic, you ought to check math or compsci, at my school they had logic classes that way way way outclassed the 'intro to logic' that was part of the philosophy curriculum. Probably because math/compsci students are already logical.

Why do you think they were logic courses? I am not saying they weren't, but why should they have been taught in those departments? Did they, for example, discuss the theory of argument? Math and comp/sci courses might contain some sections on, maybe, Boolean algebra, but learning Boolean algebra is not the same as learning logic, although it might be thought of as a part of logical technique.

It is to be hoped that someone who takes a logic course, will be better at reasoning skills (which is, I suppose, what you mean by being "logical") after they take the course than before. But that is not the main point of a logic course. The main point of a logic course is to teach student what logic is about, just as the point of an introduction to history course is to teach students what history is about, as well as to teach them a little history. It is not to make them better reasoners, although, it might very well do that. But John Locke once said that God did not provide men with two legs, and then left it up to Aristotle to make them logical.

[sweetiepie]

Why do you think they were logic courses? I am not saying they weren't, but why should they have been taught in those departments? Did they, for example, discuss the theory of argument? Math and comp/sci courses might contain some sections on, maybe, Boolean algebra, but learning Boolean algebra is not the same as learning logic, although it might be thought of as a part of logical technique.
err. your right about compsci, i'm thinking of an algorithm course a friend took.

my school taught formal logic as a math class, as it's largely a bunch of complex proofs and definitions like any other math class, and only remotely touches on words. i have no idea what the 'theory of argument' is, but I'd take 5:1 odds that whatever it is, it's common sense.

[sweetiepie]

It is to be hoped that someone who takes a logic course, will be better at reasoning skills (which is, I suppose, what you mean by being "logical") after they take the course than before. But that is not the main point of a logic course. The main point of a logic course is to teach student what logic is about, just as the point of an introduction to history course is to teach students what history is about, as well as to teach them a little history. It is not to make them better reasoners, although, it might very well do that. But John Locke once said that God did not provide men with two legs, and then left it up to Aristotle to make them logical.
The trouble is, everyone already knows what logic is, just as everyone already knows what history is. Sure, you can give em a clean definition, a few clever criticisms, but after that you're going to have to start teaching them actual history, and the way logic is applied by people who are good at applying it.

[kennethamy]

err. your right about compsci, i'm thinking of an algorithm course a friend took.

my school taught formal logic as a math class, as it's largely a bunch of complex proofs and definitions like any other math class, and only remotely touches on words. i have no idea what the 'theory of argument' is, but I'd take 5:1 odds that whatever it is, it's common sense.

Well, I suppose you must have a lot of evidence to give such odds. Could you share it with me? But, to explain: a part of the theory of argument would be the distinction between the validity of an argument, and the truth or falsity of the premises and or the conclusion. Do you think that the distinction between validity and truth is just "commonsense". If it is, then I would have to conclude that quite a few logic students are deficient in commonsense, because they often have a hard time grasping it. Another part of the theory would be the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Do you think that would just be commonsense too. (My comments about logic students and commonsense concerning validity and truth, are similar here) If you do, you must have a very exalted theory of commonsense. Could you let me in on some of that too?

P.S. Another part of the theory of argument, which is often more advanced than is taught in Intro classes concerns completeness, consistency, and independence proofs, but that would lead to issues that Godel and Church raised. But somehow, I don't think that proof theory would be usually called "commonsense" even by you.

[Kosh3]

your professor sounds like fun.

[Huon]

If it is your course, you could have a look at this :
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

If it is something like compsci, mathematical logic is relatively simple, at the beginning. You are told what is A, Not A, A And B, A Or B, A Xor B, Truth tables. The problem is that you will use bizarre signs, which are not directly on a keyboard !

But there are more difficult developements, which take more time to be described...

[kennethamy]

If it is something like compsci, mathematical logic is relatively simple, at the beginning. You are told what is A, Not A, A And B, A Or B, A Xor B, Truth tables.
But there are more difficult developements, which take more time to be described...

Yes. That's Boolean algebra which is a logical technique. But logical techniques are not the same as logic, and studying logical techniques is not the same as studying logic.

[jaboteer]

do you know what is not(A) ?

[kennethamy]

do you know what is not(A) ?

Meaning, what? Why do some people ask fragmented questions about something. Is that supposed to look profound? If you have an objection, why don't you just make it, and stop wasting time? I have no patience with this kind of adolescent pseudo-profundity, and wish it would stop.