Best philosophy of logic books according to redditors
We found 294 Reddit comments discussing the best philosophy of logic books. We ranked the 125 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 294 Reddit comments discussing the best philosophy of logic books. We ranked the 125 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
This'll probably get buried, but this is a fairly well-known phenomenon that many have associated with dog whistling. The terms 'inner city', 'government spending', and 'welfare' have become dog whistles for anti-minority sentiments.
There's some really good work in linguistics, philosophy of language, and political philosophy that is circling these issues.
See Jennifer Saul's Dogwhistles Paper and Jason Stanley's How Propaganda Works.
Read this
The purpose of Milo's rhetoric isn't to create a rational, coherent, narrative. It's to piss people off and make rational conversation totally impossible. It is to fill every "discussion" with as much emotional detritus as possible so that people stop talking to each other altogether and actual lies end up getting spread and normalized by a deeply, deeply, sick society.
You can't argue with Milo because there is nothing there to argue with, it's all bullshit. And the more you engage with it the more you end up promoting it, the more you treat it as an actual proposition that has some sort of rational basis.
The "market place of ideas" liberals like to go on about is more like a fucking warzone
> their group doesn't need soldiers at all, they have plenty
then
> they don't have enough soldiers to fight the Saviours
ended with
> literally don't need soldiers for anything
Might I suggest https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0205820379 ?
I'm not sure how much my words will be of use for you, as I am myself not yet Catholic (I'm currently going through RCIA). However, I can relate with regard to a lack of Catholic friends. I'm an immigrant from India who was raised in a Hindu family; most of my friends are Indian and nominally Hindu. I've had only a couple of Christian friends in my life and never a Catholic friend. Reading and researching through books, articles, podcasts, videos, etc. have led me to the faith.
Oftentimes, in defending the faith, I have debated my family, my friends, and others close to me. It became clear to me that I needed a systematic plan if I was going to do this with any shred of ability. Here's mine. Perhaps it will be of use to you or somebody else who clicks on your post because they can relate.
In summary, I'd recommend reading the following books in this order:
God Bless and take care.
I know you're not actually interested, but for anyone in the audience who wants to learn about the sociological background, here are some books that elaborate on the patterns described above:
I don't know what others would recommend, but Quine's intro to logic is a classic text.
The democrats are soft and they refuse to acknowledge the kind of people they are opposed to. The whole "they go low, we go high!" thing was the most naive shit I ever heard in my life. And the Clinton campaign kept using it in response to Trump's demagoguery.
What they failed to understand is that your average American is an emotionally driven, subservient, sheeplike, cretin. They go by the balls, not the brains. If you don't believe me just watch Fox or listen to talk radio for five minutes. They don't deal in "facts", they deal in emotional catharsis, anger, horror. That's why it's effective. More than that the GOP strategy revolves around loading liberal rhetoric with emotional/racist detritus that works on a subconscious level more than a rational one. If you want a great explanation of all this then this and this are both great books. I'd highly recommend this also.
Whenever I hear a democrat say "I'll reach across the aisle!" I cringe. Tell me, who does that inspire? Why vote for you just so you can bend over backwards for people you hate? Bernie Sanders did as good as he did not because of policy specifics but because he knew how to capitalize on people's legitimate anger. Trump capitalized on racism. Bernie Sanders capitalized on the very obvious inequality and institutional crony capitalism that defines our government. One appealed to the worst in people, the other reminded people of how much they're getting screwed.
And that's the problem with democrats: they're stuck thinking in terms of political compromise, of moderation, of political correctness.
The most intelligent thing to come out of a democratic politician's mouth recently was when Perez said in public that republicans "don't give a shit about people". That's both true and sensationalist enough to make an impact.
You don't need to tell lies. You need to tell the truth so bluntly, brutally, and without any sort of veneer of compromise or civility. You need to be willing to look the entire GOP in the face and describe it as a corrupt octopus that is a threat to fucking civilization. You need to weigh down their language with subliminal associations with nazis marching down the street and mass slaughter of minorities.
Democrats need to stop treating republicans like people with good intentions and treat them as a fucking threat to our democracy. Then their base will get out and vote, then the spotlight will be shone brightly in the faces of the fucking dickheads. They need to attack, constantly. Instead they sit around defending.
The republicans offer nothing of substance. They do not treat political campaigns as debates but as a kind of mental warzone. The democrats try to appeal to people's better nature. People don't have a better nature, people are cynical shitheads. Roger Stone gets that.
Pointing out fallacies is worse than useless if you cannot explain why a given person's line of reasoning does not support their conclusion. But if you can explain the relevant information, giving the fallacy a name is still useless.
The book I used when I taught critical thinking is this one but it is pretty expensive. Try looking around for a good critical thinking textbook.
For an intro text, I always like to recommend The Logic Book.
And I think the best term you're looking for is "modern symbolic logic." Modal logic is part of modern symbolic logic (the part dealing with necessity and possibility), but best to get a handle on sentential and predicate logic first...
Current business & finance uni student here, definitely dreading the new timetable I have (with some early 8am lectures) I have to go to in 2 weeks, offering some tips at 4am in the morning-
some extra uni tips
Lastly,
a couple of cups of coffee and an all-nighter can write up a decent essay or report overnight but it won't help in the long term.
Good luck and just ease into uni with some preparation.
Free:
Stanford's Intro to logic - w/ Free online tools for completing exercises.
Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises
Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide
Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught - w/ free workbook
J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools
Open Logic Project - and List of other open/free sources.
Not Free or Kinda Free:
Gensler's Introduction to Logic - Book not free, but Free online tools
Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred) - Book includes useful software for additional logic exercises
> I want the government and our national security teams to be worried about ISIS.
What makes you believe they aren't taking the domestic threat seriously?
> Your continuing to pretend that maybe this shooter wasn't inspired by Islam and ISIS is hilarious.
Even when I've said repeatedly it's a distinct possibility? There's a dozen different narratives out there, from pundits to self-interested politicians to family members. I have no proof personally so it's too early for me to say.
You mock people for not jumping to conclusions even though not all the facts are available. It's just not a rational way of thinking. I suspect if facts come in that do contradict your preferred take on the world you'll dismiss them. Perhaps I can suggest [a book to help you] (https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Developing-Effective/dp/0230285295).
Best of luck on the road back to rationality.
Introduction to Logic 2nd ed. by Gensler is a good place to start.
That depends on why you're studying Logic.
Do you plan to use Logic as a tool for doing Philosophy? If so, I recommend studying Logic for Philosophy by Theodore Sider. You will get a more rigorous, formal treatment of propositional and predicate logic than what your introductory textbook likely contained. You will be exposed to basic proof theory and model theory. You will also learn, in depth, about several useful extensions to predicate logic, including various modal logics.
Do you want to become a logician, in some capacity? If so, the classic text would be Computability and Logic by Boolos and Jeffrey. This is an extremely rigorous and intensive introduction to metalogical proof. If you want to learn to reason about logics, and gain a basis upon which to go on to study the foundations of mathematics, proof theory, model theory, or computability, then this is probably for you.
Also, perhaps you could tell us what textbook you've just finished? That would give us a better idea of what you've already learned.
A brilliant buddy of mine loves this book: https://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-Questions-Aristotelian-Principles/dp/1587318083
It depends what you're trying to get out of it.
There are literally hundreds of introductory texts for first-order logic. Other posters can cover them. There's so much variety here that I would feel a bit silly recommending one.
For formal tools for philosophy, I would say David Papineau's Philosophical Devices. There's also Ted Sider's Logic for Philosophy but something about his style when it comes to formalism rubs me the wrong way, personally.
For a more mathematical approach to first-order logic, Peter Hinman's Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic springs to mind.
For a semi-mathematical text that is intermediate rather than introductory, Boolos, Burgess, and Jeffrey's Computability and Logic is the gold standard.
Finally, if you want to see some different ways of doing things, check out Graham Priest's An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic.
A child's first words are adorable.
My son just told me no for the first time.
Are all first words adorable?
I'm sorry the class is ending, but that opens up room for new classes that may be equally awesome!
An item for you.
First, I'd like to say I really like your argument. There's a lot of great points here that I think that average person never considers, and they are all the worse for it. This kind of discussion should be something that every educated, informed people should consider in order to truly get at the roots of their own values.
We have a few base assumptions here. Many of which I imagine we'll have lots of overlap in agreement. But some I don't think we will. I'd like to go over them to see where you might find a reason to change your view.
Base assumption #1: "rights" exist.
We're stripping away to some core concepts here. So we need to be very clear on what is a right. Obviously this is not a right as guaranteed by any government as you excluded practical legislation as a goal of this discussion. You're obviously not arguing for any legal rights here, and I agree with that. I hate most forms of eugenics (I'm Jewish by blood (not practice), so my family has a history with it).
What is a right then? I would very much like to here how you outline what a "right" is, before I outline some of what I consider to be core concepts of "rights".
Base assumption #2: morality exists.
This one was kind of funny to me. For this statement:
> It is immoral to force a conscious entity into existence
to be true, you're essentially declaring all of human existence as immoral. Sure, individuals might not take that immoral leap into parenthood, but the species as a whole must reproduce to exist. And to reproduce requires creating consciousnesses that previously didn't exist. We can't obtain consent from beings that don't exist yet.
And since morality only exists because we invented the concept, then you're basically condemning our existence to be perpetually immoral (that's the part I found funny. Not wrong, just funny, because we can't be immoral without existing, but we can't be moral by existing, according to your statement).
I don't think there's anything explicitly wrong about that, but it just seems like a rather useless distinction. It's like defining two colors and then saying "but there's only 1 color in existence". What was the point of defining both colors if only one exists? What's the point of defining our existence as immoral if we literally cannot escape that immorality of existence.
I also don't like absolutes. I think we like to define our world in absolutes, and since reality resists simplicity, those absolutes end up being really unhelpful and destructive. For example: All [this group of people] like [something]. It's rarely helpful and just makes the person saying it look dumb. (There's a great book that has been helping me see the world differently that I highly recommend called Finite and Infinite Games. There's also a free pdf if you just google it.)
My point for bringing this up is that I think it would be better stated to say: All existance of conscious entities start immoral, as they could not consent to being created, but can become moral through the value of their existence.
I don't think all conscious beings are inherently immoral, at least not forever. I see your point that you can't consent to being born, but that doesn't mean you can't retroactively consent. This kind of consent cannot and should not exist in other moral choices (for example, rape cannot be retroactively given consent, nor can that consent be retroactively removed). But I think the unique nature of consciousness could allow for my interpretation.
Base assumption #3: the importance of naturally occurring forces on morality.
This one gets people tripped up all the time, but I don't think you're entirely tripped up on it. The classic (shitty) argument involving the extreme side of things is the banana argument seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
It's also known as The Watchmaker Analogy. It is where significance or importance is placed upon the natural state of something. People have misused this argument for their own ends in all sorts of arguments. This banana fits my hand, therefore it was designed to fit my hand, therefore God exists.
We're, obviously, biologically designed to make babies. But does the fact that making babies is naturally occurring mean it's moral? You seem to have taken the side of a definitive "no". Most people would probably say "yes", also definitively.
Again, I hate absolutes. I think we can find some morality in baby making, and we can find some immorality. You've definitely hit upon the immorality of baby making very clearly, and again, I want to applaud you for that, because I think this should be a more common discussion. But I don't think this one aspect of reproduction (the lack of consent from the consciousness being created) completely overwhelms all of the other aspects of reproduction. Not all of human existence is suffering. All human existence has suffering (I mean, we literally come into this world crying from the pain of taking our first breath), but most of human existence has joy too (I won't say "all" because I'm sure there's plenty of singleton cases we could point out where the human's existence was essentially nothing but pain and suffering. Some diseases really suck.).
And I only point to the continued improvement of human comfort as a sign that humanity can find joy, and prefers it to suffering. The quality of most human lives has improved greatly over the last few hundred years. Plenty new types of suffering has occurred, but I don't think you'd find any sane person that would prefer to live before the industrial revolution.
We strive for a better life. For ourselves. Sometimes for others. But we've found value in living because we have a desire to live longer than before. And in greater numbers. I propose that our strive for improvement shows two things:
This, to me, is a non-explicit form of consent to existence. While I agree with you that we cannot consent before we exist, and to be brought into existence is inherently without our consent, I propose that the consent can be earned through use of our existence.
Your question is flawed. There is no end. A good perspective on this can be found in a great tiny book, "Finite and Infinite Games".
A finite game exists to achieve some sort of end. Getting DJT elected was a finite game, and next election, we'll play a repeated version of that same game. An infinite game exists for the purpose that we keep playing the game. MAGA! is an infinite game--we MAGA! so that we can continue to MAGA!
An infinite game can contain other infinite games and finite games. By its nature a finite game cannot contain an infinite game.
The SJW "movement" is an infinite game of increasingly stratified and divided population groups claiming victimhood status and unearned social superiority from other groups. The SJW infinite game will employ numerous finite games such as "every pet a 'service animal'", "Never question my pronouns", you get the picture. Those are battles launched in order to continue a war on human unity that's sole purpose is to continue and deepen the wounds of that war.
Introduction to Logic is actually highly recommended. Or you can find a free introduction, called ForallX.
Wear a garlic chain and carry a silver bullet.
I find that you can have the strongest argument but they won't believe it because they'll have to change their lives. If you really want to do it, I suggest reading this: https://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-Questions-Aristotelian-Principles/dp/1587318083
Following up on this, do yourself a favor and read Chomksy's Manufacturing Consent. There's also a youtube documentary/movie with excerpts from his lectures to help give you a feel for his ideas.
Lastly, I'm currently in the middle of reading Jason Stanley's book "How Propaganda Works." I like it so far; I'm about 1/2 way through it.
Well.. you can order from Amazon and choose priority shipping (and it will arrive tomorrow) I guess.
Here are some literatures you might like:
How Propaganda Works by Jason Stanley. ★★★★★
A well reasoned, well argued description of how propaganda works in liberal democracies with ample examples from American politics. The thing that struck me the most was its acknowledgement of class and how Stanley repeatedly quotes W. E. B. Du Bois.
Anyway, it's like a treasure trove on how to identify all sorts of propaganda in defense of truly democratic free speech.
Hey there.
You mention that your brother is bright -- how bright exactly? First of all, Computability and Logic is quite an advanced book that is typically aimed towards 2nd year logic students, and is usually for students who have taken a rigorous discrete mathematics course in their first year.
It delves quite deeply into the theory of logic and the philosophy of mathematics and would not be suited as a light exercise book for someone unless they have taken a math-heavy first-year logic course and are planning on taking up electrical engineering or something of the sort.
As for Hurley's book, a Concise Intro to Logic, well, this is on the other side of the spectrum -- it is very watered down compared to other logic readings, and pales in comparison (to most other introductory logic books) with regard to depth and breadth on formal logic.
It's usually aimed at first-year philosophy students who are taking introductory courses in logic or critical thinking, and most of it is simply rote-learning certain forms of argument as well as a lot of "quick and dirty" techniques which mimic that of a dry maths textbook. If you're looking for an interesting exposition into logic, then this book is certainly not it -- it would serve better as a high-school introduction for logic, and if prescribed to anyone older, would be very lackluster.
Here are some suggestions for you:
If you're looking for mathematically-oriented logic puzzles, then you should check out Smullyan's series of puzzle books. You can find them on Amazon.
That doesn't follow.
>Why do you get a claim to what real logic is?
You know. Logic logic. This.
What ludichrist is practicing is a specific epistemological theory. A theory which, among Internet atheists, often gets labelled "logic" when it is no such thing.
>Just curious, where are you studying?
Oh, it's just for fun. I'm a nerd. I'm learning out of this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-Gensler/dp/0415226759/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1317779423&sr=8-5
I offer hugs, not to be condescending, but because finite gamers are the bane of any ranked system.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0205820379
Know this back and forth, for starters. If there is any passage of this book that gives you any pause of understanding whatsoever, then you're not even ready to start thinking about maybe eventually contributing something to logic.
[This is actually a great book] (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Propositional-Revised-3rd/dp/0130258490) and comes with software that you can use to test your new skills.
I would read up on it and use your new logic sword to slay those who try and argue with you while out on the town courting ladies at the bar. In your next politically charged conversation, whip out some logic and prove the tenants of your opponents arguements false, sit back and watch the ladies swoon.
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Formal-Logic-Primer-Sentence/dp/0139031707
or
http://www.amazon.com/Deductive-Logic-Warren-Goldfarb/dp/0872206602
both use variations of natural deduction for proof systems. I'd check these out.
>Wow, you're a hostile chap, aren't you?
No. I've found that more often than not people assume that anyone disagreeing with them must not like them as a person for some reason. What you're doing is making a fundamental mistake, you're not dissociating your ideas from your person. I'm hostile to some of your ideas because they're poorly justified, but that doesn't mean I'm hostile to you as a person. There is nothing about any view that you hold that is essential to who you are. You could change your mind on any issue and you'd still be the same person.
>aren't actually rebuttals to anything I said
They were direct rebuttals to what you said. Your argument makes a prescription by way of analogy. I aimed to show that 1) the analogy doesn't hold and 2) even if it did, the prescription would not follow.
>that resembled a good counterargument.
At this point, I'd like to ask you about your experience in forming and deconstructing arguments. Have you read any informal logic textbooks? If you haven't, I highly suggest this one: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Arguments-Introduction-Informal-Logic/dp/0495603953 - this textbook was integral in my syllabus when I taught a class at a university on understanding arguments. I have a graduate degree in what is essentially making and analyzing arguments. I'm appealing to authority here, but note that appeals to authority are only fallacious when the person isn't actually an authority. If I asked a particle physicist about particle physics and used his testimony in an argument, it wouldn't be unreasonable.
>Cotton, for whatever reason, no long holds a negative connotation. Swastikas do. Cheese does.
Okay, let's imagine for a second a hypothetical situation. Imagine that one day, a bunch of people wake up with the idea in their head that cilantro is evil and display their opinion such that some people think it holds a negative connotation. Would using cilantro then become wrong? I don't think so. The fact that some people think that something has a negative connotation does not make it wrong to use it.
Furthermore, you're the only one being an essentialist about cheese. You're saying that if it's not dairy, it's not cheese. Therefore cheese represents dairy which represents suffering. However, you're ignoring the fact that not everyone thinks cheese implies dairy! There are tons of things that people call cheese that are barely dairy products. Think of all the vegetable oil spreads that call themselves butter too. Why aren't you getting up in arms about that too? You're not realizing that language is fluid and flexible. People will use terms however they want and use whatever associations they want.
Vegans want to preserve to good associations of cheese, the taste, the kinds of foods that traditionally require it (I made a vegan eggplant parm last month). Vegans realize that the negative associations that cheese has are not essential to what cheese is. Because they recognize that meanings can change over time.
You seem to be very close to an 'etymology determines meaning' argument, and that's a very poor one. It's the kind of argument that people use to appeal school suspensions when they say they were just calling their teacher a bundle of sticks.
>In the case of cheese, the cruelty involved in making the cheese is an intrinsic component of the cheese itself.
Again, this is just not true. Words change meaning over time. There is nothing about any collection of letters or symbols that necessarily connect to something out in the world.
This is how I learned logic, for computer science.
First chapter of this Discrete mathematics book in my discrete math class
https://www.amazon.ca/Discrete-Mathematics-Applications-Susanna-Epp/dp/0495391328
Then, using The Logic Book for a formal philosophy logic 1 course.
https://www.amazon.ca/Logic-Book-Merrie-Bergmann/product-reviews/0078038413/ref=dpx_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1
The second book was horrid on itself, luckily my professor's academic lineage goes back to Tarski. He's an amazing Professor and knows how to teach...that was a god send. Ironically, he dropped the text and I see that someone has posted his openbook project.
The first book (first chapter), is too applied I imagine for your needs. It would also only be economically feasible if well, you disregarded copyright law and got a "free" PDF of it.
This introductory is used in many college courses: Deductive Logic
Telling someone they misunderstood you isn't an ad hominem attack.
Neither is making a polite recommendation.
https://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/1285196546/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=VHMJ1YAND37MCWY17062
It's actually a pretty breezy read for the subject matter. Graeme Forbes has another text out there somewhere but as bright as the man was I thought he taught in a way that worked only for the students that already "got it"
Logic admittedly isn't my area of expertise, but the logic class I took several years ago used this, which does a pretty good job of breaking down basic types of logical arguments, so that would probably be helpful. The Little Logic Book would also be a great and accessible guide for learning how arguments work, and how to both construct good arguments while recognizing bad ones. Beyond that, I'd say read good philosophers, especially analytic philosophers, since they have a tendency to be a bit more clear and organized with their thoughts. I learned a lot from reading Plantinga when I was first finding my footing, and I'm sure a thread made requesting good examples of clear and accessible instances of analytic philosophy would yield many more results. I might also check out Thomas Aquinas or Descartes, since they both write in a fairly clear style that uses fairly basic and clear instances of argument to build their ideas and express them clearly, and there will be shelves upon shelves of secondary material on them to help you see all the little subtleties going on in their work. Hope this helps.
Dude... Aristotle's ideas about categorical syllogisms are way out of date. You should be saying "It's the same with people who talk about logic but have never read a contemporary textbook like Copi's Introduction to Logic". If the people who talk about logic don't even know about Copi's Rules of Inference THEN we should jump on their backs. Aristotle was smashed by George Boole lol
Well, I'm certainly not an Economist^tm by any stretch, but I'll check it out. I've seen some of the conversations on those subs linked from here or SLS, and I hardly even know where to begin to address the questions, and I hang my head in shame because it's the same kind of infantile sophistry I used to throw at people. Seems like I'm not the only one who read this book.
What kinds of deductive reasoning? I'd recommend practice and study of a specific application of deduction over reading about it in general.
I've played several games that require deduction:
Other examples are Logic grids, Sudoku, and many others.
I find that deduction is a skill that's easy to develop in a particular domain (like any of the above games), but hard to generalize. Playing the above games for fun, I've developed a better understanding of how to use proof by contradiction, but not much else.
Those kinds of high-level ideas are probably best learned from a logic textbook like Introduction to Logic, but the abstract knowledge may not translate to practical skills without domain-specific practice and study.
I think you should know better than to assume the Internet is a window into reality rather than a frame into the individual creators mind. People acting wildly get clicks. People being outrageous get attention. Like a car on fire in the street, we are fixated by potential threats. Your own behavior is unfortunately the result of this mediated environment, and it's more unfortunate still that somewhere it is being recorded.
May I suggest a few books?
https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Every-Argument-Abuse/dp/147252912X
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0385421311/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492614126&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=art+of+worldly+wisdom&dpPl=1&dpID=51PYUaO9GdL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226748421/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492614163&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=anger+mercy+revenge&dpPl=1&dpID=31QLikJ2OGL&ref=plSrch
Give those three a try and let me know when you're finished.
As others have noted, there really is no essential reading list. What you'll have read by the time you finish your Ph.D. will depend on your coursework, transition requirement (comps, paper), and your dissertation. This will obviously vary widely from individual to individual. It will also vary from program to program. Essential metaphysics reading might include David Lewis in one program, but another program may completely ignore Lewis and have you read Heidegger instead.
I noticed that you said that you're interested in metaphysics and logic. If you're preparing for a Ph.D. and you're doing typical analytic metaphysics, then I recommend you check the following out.
Logic for Philosophy by Ted Sider
The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology edited by Herman Cappelen, Tamar Gendler, and John Hawthorne.
The second book is really expensive, so if you don't have access to a good university library, then at least work through the one chapter called "Method in Analytic Metaphysics" by Daniel Nolan. You can find the chapter here
I'd recommend Finite and Infinite Games.
A great general 'how-to' on being a good gamer.
"A finite player plays to be powerful; an infinite player plays with strength."
“No one can play a game alone. One cannot be human by oneself."
“Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries.”
Carse gets a bit hippy-dippy but is still chock full of compact truisms that will stick with you and help mold a better gaming outlook.
I do. The book was Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft. I found it valuable because it's a comprehensive treatment of informal logic as presented by Aristotle, suitable for use in an undergraduate classroom, with practice exercises for each chapter and answers in the back of the book. The idea that stands out in my mind most sharply from that book was a throwaway observation Kreeft made at one point -- that the ends do justify the means because means are useless if they have no end, but good ends do not justify evil means. I was still in the process of trying to formulate my basic stance on moral issues at the time, so that idea hit me with a force that was almost physical. (Not sure why that particular idea should stand out so much more than the others, but it does.)
I used to identify completely with the positions presented in that book, but I've found plenty to argue with in the intervening time -- particularly on the subject of the theory of mind. If you decide to read it, it's important to remember that Kreeft has organized that book as a presentation of Aristotle's works on logic, so some of its positions can be painfully simplistic in light of subsequent research. (The example I'm thinking of is an early chapter section on the properties of the mind, which takes a naïve position that the mind actually goes to the places it imagines and changes size to encompass the things it imagines. Embodiment and phenomenology offer much better solutions than that.) That said, I think it's still the most valuable book of informal logic on the market, even if it needs to be taken cum grano salis.
I use this in my informal logic class. Start there.
Quine's Methods of Logic and Mathematical Logic (in that order) have been my favorites, and I've heard good things about Tarski's Introducion to Logic: and the the Methodology of Deductive Sciences but have yet to get around to it.
I really liked Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic. I don't know if its the best for self-learners per se but over all its just a great logic textbook and really helped me out. Also, Irving Copi studied under Bertrand Russell while at the University of Chicago so there's some bonus points right here.
I mean, do what feels right to you. But I'd always advise against pushing anymore.There is no point.
Once you know you're both not there to learn, you're antagonizing without purpose, or you're doing it with purpose (malice).
Last year a mentor of mine gave me this book, http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713, and it changed the way I look at these conversations. I don't always follow the right path, but it helped me see that conversations exist on a field that we set. If you have a debate with someone and you're both playing with the same rules, like trying to find the best policy to solve a problem, then things go well.
But if one of you has a different set of rules, like, defend a belief I know is true against this attack. Then the game falls apart. Imagine playing basketball against someone playing football. You wouldn't "win" or "loose" because neither of you are playing the same game. He might score a touchdown while you're shooting over and over again, and you might both be keeping your own score, but you're not playing a game together... and it'd look foolish to any bystandard.
This is what a conversation like the one you're recounting sounds like.
And, what's worse, if he's playing a game in which the rules include " attack the other person" and at some point you get frustrated and join in attacking him, now you're both playing the same game of just being mean to each other.
Anyways,
take care.
> is on the losing side of an argument
Nice argument lol.
2 times u have given false claims to support an argument and yet people have linked you facts Peru and Chile servers don't work for ranked. Ohh.... here is another one: https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/5equ4v/petition_to_make_valve_change_us_east_to_peru/dafgsdg/?context=3
Pick up a good book. I recommend https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Arguments-Introduction-Informal-Logic/dp/0495603953/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1480132593&sr=8-2&keywords=understanding+arguments. Maybe you can learn something.
Here are a few links to different Intro to Logic texts that teach Syllogistic Logic. Gensler is the cheapest and has an easy method for testing validity, called the star test, but is less traditional. The others take a more traditional approach.
Gensler
Hurley
Copi
Also, you may want to try Carneades.org. He has video series on the subject:
Categorical Logic at Carneades.org
Hope this helps!
I'm just a beginner but Peter Kreeft's book on Socratic Logic is very good. I've learned a lot from this introductory book. He's very effective at communicating rather complex concepts with simple language. There are also a plethora of exercises in the book at the end of every section.
https://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-Questions-Aristotelian-Principles/dp/1587318083
I really really like Gensler's book. The proof system he uses is extremely intuitive and easy.
I doubt feeling guys read these but whatever, nowhere do any of these guys say libertarian. It's all in the process my friend.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Traditional-Logic-Classical-Contemporary/dp/1419616714
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1587318083/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_2/188-1086745-9869315?ie=UTF8&refRID=MPZFCGDQ73B3E0CACX46
https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-as-Science-Large-Print/dp/1478335475
You're a fucking idiot for taking the discussion into an irrelevant tangent (theft), putting words in my mouth, and using a strawman tactic (ie, you need to learn to argue your point effectively).
So let's cut out all the bullshit you added to convolute the original point. Quote to me where I said I was okay with theft? The debate was over whether $200 would be missed by most businesses, yeah? You brought up theft, and also doing anything not approved by company management. Your original question was, and I quote:
>I'm curious what brewery you work at where the company is okay with just blowing 200 or so dollars worth of profit so that you all can embarrass a newbie and get free beer. One of the big ones?
Let's see that again:
>I'm curious what brewery you work at where the company is okay with just blowing 200 or so dollars
You establish here that we are assuming that the company approves of this practice in order to embarrass new people.
My response:
>For most businesses, even small ones, $200 is nothing. Chump change.
A direct response indicating why a company might be okay with this practice. And my later point that a company is not going to worry about $200 going missing is not the same as the company being okay with $200 going missing.
Back to your overestimation of a business's concern over a few hundred dollars turning up missing. At some point you are talking about investing more resources into finding the resources that went missing than the original worth of the resources in question - when this is a small amount of money, you are talking literally hours worth of someone's salary before this happens, unless it is a dedicated position such as an LP meant for reducing loss over a long period of time. Unaccounted for loss is a part of doing business, and much of this unaccounted for loss is either stolen or due to erroneous accounting - the difference between the two is irrelevant when it comes to the overall effect on the business. Unless, as I said earlier, the loss becomes a pattern. This is obviously a problem situation that should be dealt with no matter what it is causing it.
Recommended reading for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Developing-Effective/dp/0230285295
Check out Harry Gensler's Introduction to Logic. He is a really good writer - and everything is very clear.
I think that should be done as a precursor to politics. That way you are in a better position to evaluate the information. It also has a strong link to something that I think is not taught explicitly enough, and that is how science works. We're taught sciences in a way that focuses on how nature works but often overlooks why the scientific method is so important. When people realise that science is simply making sure you test what people say against the real world it helps you to develop a healthy scepticism, where you are not just doubting everything people say but you look for the evidence and their sources.
I was taught a bit of this in history (primary and secondary sources etc.) but I think that it should go much further. I would advise anyone interested in critical thinking to just pick up a book like this one: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Developing-Effective/dp/0230285295
Believe me you will never look at politics or adverts in the same way ever again.
> I told you I believe in an objective morality.
So you say.
> In your mind does the First Amendment consist of special
> exceptions provided for a group of offensive talkers?
> Protections for gun owners apply to everyone, the fact that you
> don't own a gun doesn't make you not protected for the same
> reason that you not saying things that are offensive doesn't mean
> that the first amendment doesn't apply to you.
See this is the problem, you think we are talking about the constitution.
This is about a bill that will hopefully prevent the extinction of elephants. But only if people can keep their eye on the ball. Only if every little special interest group doesn't get to put in their little ammendment to make it "better".
> Prove right now objectively that the golden rule is true.
Here's an introductory text book on logic which contains a proof of the golden rule. I'm sure this is better than anything I could come up with:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-J-Gensler/dp/0415996511
> I can easily prove that it is faulty and subjective. I like to be cut, therefore I can cut other people.
How smart you are. Its difficult to believe that so many people over so many years of human history couldn't come up with your simple yet irrefutable proof.
> Name some regulations that have been removed due to being ineffective.
The prohibition act of 1919 comes to mind.
>> Surely the people that have written this bill have spent more time thinking about what might work than the NRA minions of reddit
> Why would you assume this? Because you agree with it?
No, because it makes more sense that bill takes longer to write than it does to write a reddit response. Although this thread may yet prove me wrong.
Perhaps books like The Art of Memory, The Logic Of Failure, Prometheus Rising, Finite and Infinite Games could offer some new perspectives.
Edward De Bono's work on lateral thinking might also be of interest.
There's plenty of good resources online to do this, but I wanted to suggest to you the textbooks from which I taught myself Calculus in high school, and it's this series: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Calculus&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ACalculus%2Cp_lbr_one_browse-bin%3ARobert%20Blitzer&page=1
You probably aren't going to want to go out and spend a ton of money on these books, but if you can find old editions for cheap, I'd say it's worth your money. :)
Good luck with the math! Also, if you want to really start going proper math, another great book is: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=foundations+of+math&gs_upl=165l1646l0l1837l19l11l0l1l1l1l265l2237l0.5.6l11l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&biw=1032&bih=614&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=6951129580330045396&sa=X&ei=ntjhTqyvDo7FswaP7aGgBA&ved=0CHoQ8wIwCg#ps-sellers
And if you're interested in the logical underpinnings of the really fun mathematics, another great place to look is: http://www.amazon.com/Methods-Logic-W-V-Quine/dp/0674571762
Sorry that these are all big expensive textbooks, but I wanted to share with you some of my favorite books. :)
> Your idea of injustice is just what everyone else calls LIFE.
how cute
>Taxes pay for military bases and hardware. By your rationale, I should either be able to take the nearest nuclear sub out for a ride or I should get money for not being able to do that.
not for riding but you ought to be able to opt out of something like a nuclear weapon program. this is called direct democracy and it has been proven to work.
>The reason you shouldn't continue is not because I'm picking words. You shouldn't continue because you have a horseshit argument that you clearly cannot back up
i have backed up all my arguments.
you on the other hand is not making much sense
I suggest you read this book
>http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-J-Gensler/dp/0415996511/
I recommend this to all beginners -- I like the Barwise & Etchemendy book because it's aimed at people with no background at all in logic or upper-level math, it's restricted to propositional and first-order logic (which I think logicians of all stripes should know), and it comes with proof-checker software so that you can check your own understanding instead of needing to find someone to give you feedback.
After that, you'll have some familiarity with the topic and can decide where you want to go. For a more mathematical route, I think Enderton (mentioned previously) or Boolos are good follow-ups. For a more philosophical route, I think Sider or Priest are good next steps.
>training in rhetoric (and rhetorical tricks), which is a related skill, would be awesome.
A curriculum based on Jason Stanley's How Propaganda Works might cause the whole edifice to collapse.
Okay mate!
Thanks!
Enjoy continuing with your poor logic, comprehension and reasoning.
I highly recommend the following for you bro
https://wabisabistore.com/collections/books-and-guides/products/critical-thinking-teacher-companion
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Arguments-Introduction-Informal-Logic/dp/0495603953
It is certainly tempting to do so.
James Carse in his book Finite and Infinite Games (http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/0345341848/) wrote:
"Evil is never intended as evil. Indeed, the contradiction inherent in evil is that it originates in the desire to eliminate evil..."
By playing their game we risk becoming mindless ideologues in our own right; we would sell our soul (metaphorically) and corrupt our own morals.
Put in another context, the irony of freedom of speech is that we must allow people to argue against freedom of speech. If we silence those that are against freedom of speech we have fallen into their trap. If we don't try those accused of terrorism in a court of law, then we have destroyed what terrorists themselves have wish to destroy.
I'll quote Carse once more:
"Evil is not the inclusion of finite games in an infinite game, but the restriction of all play to one or another finite game."
Here
I think Goldfarb is very thorough, although he can get somewhat dense. Then there's Tomassi, who's more conversational/informal (while still going over mostly the same stuff as Goldfarb). The second is probably more beginner friendly, but it's also quite a bit longer. If you know math, I imagine you would get through Goldfarb pretty well though.
Oh yea, interesting that they teach number theory even in CS. I guess CS is most mathematical field if you compare it other fields except math?
​
I haven't gotten into this stuff very deep, I am studying through this. I am very sure I wanna pursue math but there are only limited amount of areas to have time to study and I am not quite sure how 'active' the field is on that area (foundations of mathematics).
People seems to be interested these days in symbolic logic, which in fact is believed to be superior. Nevertheless, I feel that Socratic Logic is the method preferable when trying to ascertain truth. I recommend Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft edition 3.1.
Another field I would recommend is the study of the Stoic philosophers. There is much wisdom that is quite apt for our day and our journey through life. I recommend this site as a launching point into the subject.
>What man can you show me who places any value on his time, who reckons the worth of each day, who understands that he is dying daily?" Seneca The Younger (Letter I: On Saving Time in Moral Letters to Lucius).
I took that as a class, Not the textbook I used but looks similar on the inside.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0205820379
Jason Stanley, a Philosophy professor at Yale, has two recent books that might be of interest: How Propaganda Works, and How Fascism Works. Depending on how broadly you want to define "philosophy", US Naval War College professor Tom Nichols's book, The Death of Expertise, would also be fit the bill. The ideas in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by NYU ethics/business professor Jonathan Haidt also come up frequently in conversation.
If you're willing to look further back (and perhaps define philosophy even more broadly), the late NYU education professor Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business might be of interest.
This is a classic logic text I used as an undergrad:
https://www.amazon.com/Methods-Logic-Willard-Orman-Quine/dp/0674571762/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2/144-3692070-4202828?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0674571762&pd_rd_r=d2bce5e1-7920-11e9-bee9-f381f43bc426&pd_rd_w=wECMX&pd_rd_wg=tpHvf&pf_rd_p=a2006322-0bc0-4db9-a08e-d168c18ce6f0&pf_rd_r=MAZ7WGR0JV0HZMV097EC&psc=1&refRID=MAZ7WGR0JV0HZMV097EC
> A FINITE GAME is defined as KNOWN PLAYERS, FIXED RULES, and AN AGREED UPON OBJECTIVE TO WIN; like a football/soccer match.
The rules are fixed, the objective is fixed, and the players are known. You could argue the last point and say the players aren't known in pubs due to smurfing, multiple accounts, and shit like that - but for the sake of argument consider competitive leagues where the players are absolutely known.
The rules frequently change (patches) but during each point the rules are static. Other games update and change rules in sports and e-sports. The objective has never once changed in the history of the game (which is true of almost all games) in Dota it is to destroy the enemy ancient while yours is still alive.
I googled your term to see what in the fuck you're on about with infinite games because I've never heard of that concept in relation to game theory and came up with only one possible source for the term and idea: Finite and Infinite Games by James P Carse. https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713
James' book goes on to list examples and elaborate on what in the fuck an infinite game is. In his own words an infinite game is something without an end - something without a clear objective and that other players can join with ever changing rules. This is a kind of metaphor for life and human relationships. He uses motherhood as an example.
You trying to call Dota an infinite game under this definition is cute, but a complete troll. You argue there are always more Dota games, but that is true of any active sport or game. That logic would imply every single game is infinite which is wrong by the authors own definitions. Claiming that because Dota's rules change it is infinite is equally misrepresented and wrong because they never ever change mid game. Nearly all sports and games have rule changes over time which means that using your own logic any game that has had one rule change is infinite which is wrong again.
If you're not trolling you might have some substance abuse problems (legally obtained or otherwise) or some mental health complications (diagnosed or not). I don't mean that to be an insult either - just an observation that could be helpful but almost certainly won't due to the nature of... lots of things.
I took an intro logic course this past fall St my community college and we used this textbook http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0205820379
My prof picked and chose chapters. I really really enjoyed the class and this book. I got an A in the class if that helps endorse it from a new philosopher's POV.
I know this is insanely expensive (you can probably find a free copy somewhere on the internet--shh) I used this textbook for symbolic logic and advanced mathematical logic.
https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Book-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0078038413
It depends. But I'm glad you asked, for the following suggestions might also be helpful to others.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that pointing out fallacies is an efficient way to "fight the good fight". At least, that's my impression. Please correct me when I'm wrong.
Unfortunately, almost all the evidence points to a different direction: It's usually not very effective, because those committing the fallacy usually don't care much about a logical analysis of the situation, anyway. This does also apply to non-believers. Assuming all humans process information in two ways (see Kahneman's System 1 and 2), even atheists often seem to ignore their own system 2, because it actually takes effort to use it.
However, if you're looking for resources about fallacies, any good book on logic will help. One of the best one, I've been told, is "Introduction to logic" by Gensler. You may only need the first 5 chapters, because it becomes quite technical after that. Maybe, Amazon can help find a less technical book.
If, however, you're looking to persuade people, that's a completely different story.
Here, a very common recommendation is Cialdini's "Influence". You can research its contents easily online, so there's no need to buy it. Cialdini emphasizes six common areas to get people to agree with you.
I've looked at your comment history, so here's a short overview what you may want to change to be more effective:
Hope this helps.
Get a basic background in logic and statistics and their respective fallacies. This will give you the knowledge and tools you need to think critically of 99% of what you find in news media and websites. A good introduction to logic is Harry Gensler's Introduction to Logic textbook. A good guide to statistical fallacies and how to spot them is [The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb] (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable-ebook/dp/B00139XTG4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421288487&sr=1-1&keywords=the+black+swan+taleb).
I have a better one
Two thoughts.
> I don't care who wins either, as long as the game takes place.
Are you James Carse? (His book is a must-read.)
> I could be content picking up litter along the highway too, but it would only be because I gave up on life altogether.
This whole subject reminds me of this talk by Mr. Money Moustache. (aka Peter Adeney.) The sooner you can get rich enough that you don't have to work, the more your work becomes meaningful.
The part at the end of the talk where you compares "work done for love" versus "scammy work" really struck a deep chord with me. The word he pulls out is "authenticity". This guy has it really figured out.
If your values connect to your work, you get meaning from it.
For a history of philosophy, I'll second the comments on Will Durant and Bertrand Russell's books. Also, Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind, is a little more modern style and covers more of the 20th century.
For introductions to logic, Kant is pretty advanced. I'd start with Anthony Weston's Rulebook for Arguments for a short but fairly comprehensive explanation of the basics. For more formal logical analysis, I like Howard Pospesel's cartoon-driven explanations and exercises: Predicate Logic and Propositional Logic.
I would recommend Harry Gensler's book Introduction to Logic. He's a Jesuit Priest, and the book tackles many issues of religion and philosophy and even has a chapter on belief logic.
but what it sounds like and describes are different things. the only reason someone would perceive it that way is because they think the concept of "good reasoning" is a joke or not as complex as it actually is. (try to get >98th percentile on the LSAT.)
good reasoning is easily evaluated by a set of pretty objective (relatively speaking) criteria.
I could probably think of more. there are several argumentation books you can buy which list "rules for argumentation" (a really good one is Understanding Arguments by Sinnott-Armstrong and Fogelin, but on this issue particularly Walton's Informal Logic is great), and there tends to be a lot of commonality among the rules
In the logic classes I took (my professor always said he hated the textbooks), we used this book and this book. They weren't perfect, but they were a good start.
>Your rule says that the exception shouldn't happen, period. If it does, then the rule needs heavy revision.
Ron Paul hired Amway spokesperson and author Doug Wead to serve as senior campaign adviser for $8,000 a month. Wead continues to run similar schemes to this very day with other members of Ron Paul's family, and Rand Paul himself recently hired Doug Wead as senior adviser as well.
No it doesn't. I don't subscribe to a philosophy that advocates for a utopian society. You throw up straw men like nothing I've ever seen before. Also, why are you so obsessed with Amway?
>Irrelevant. People are also voluntary voting for Donald Trump, in far higher number than they are for Rand.
Not irrelevant. You said that people can become billionaires by selling a product that 99% of people think is bullshit. Which is still completely false and you've yet to back up that claim. Also, Donald Trump has nothing to do with this argument. Please focus on defending the claim that a billionaire can make a product that 99% of people think are bullshit and still be a billionaire.
>Bernie Madoff.
He's serving 150 years in a federal prison. Let's keep it to billionaires that played within the law because in a free market economy he would still be rotting in prison.
>Estimated minimum wage effects on employment from a meta-study of 64 studies showed insignificant employment effect (both practically and statistically) from the minimum-wage raises supporting the Keynesian model. The most precise estimates were heavily clustered at or near zero employment effects (elasticity = 0).
47% of respected economics professors agree with the following statement, vs. only 14% who disagree: "The distortionary costs of raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour and indexing it to inflation are sufficiently small compared with the benefits to low-skilled workers who can find employment that this would be a desirable policy."
Mind you, 14% is the number of professors who claim that the costs outweigh the benefits. The number of professors who claim zero benefits in the first place is going to be far less than that.
And before you claim bias: This economic survey was conducted by the Chicago school, which is the most libertarian branch of economics out of the ones that use actual math.
I said the minimum wage causes unemployment, which you "disproved" in your first wikipedia article (with studies that showed absolutely no details regarding how the study was done) then you sent me the second article that has the majority of economists saying the exact opposite of what you first posted. The one's who disagree seem to be focusing on the word "noticeably" because a 9$ increase in minimum wage (as opposed to $7.25, now) would cause subtle increases in unemployment.
Regarding the "benefits of raising minimum wage" article. I never made a claim that it provided no benefits and I never made a claim about a $9 an hour minimum wage. All throughout history there have been slight increases in the minimum wage with fairly unnoticeable distortionary effects, but there are distortionary effects none the less including an increase in unemployment which you proved in your second article.
Again, more straw men.
>My argument is that you can be a billionaire even if 99% of the population thinks your product is bull shit. I've presented examples of this happening.
No you've said "amway" over, and over, and over again. Evil, Capitalist Amway provides over 21,000 people with decent enough paying jobs and sells nutritional supplements and different types of personal health care products. They don't "steal" money. Bernie Madoff is sitting in prison right now. Keep trying.
>I'm citing actual data and empirical examples. Meanwhile, you're claiming something that less than 14% of economics professors believe as a universal truth in economics circles, and you want to accuse me of living in an echo chamber.
I made no such claim. I made a claim that the minimum wage increases unemployment, which as you proved with your second article that it does.
Please stay on topic.
Also, read this when you get the chance and maybe we can keep this discussion from drifting off into 90 different directions with straw men whenever you can't prove a point you made.
Really? Nolt's Logics? Besides the numerous errors, it's telling that the book has not come out in a second edition.
I think Quine's Methods of Logic remains a fantastic text, if it is a bit dated and filled with Quinean quirks. A more recent text, Ted Siders' Logic for Philosophy is also very good, although the exercises are sometimes quite difficult. I would combine Sider's text with a book on metalogic, since he skips over some of that. Kleene's Mathematical Logic is a classic text by a real giant in the history of 20th century logic. Those should keep someone busy for a good year of study. If you want to branch out, Graham Priest's Introduction to Non-classical Logics will get you started in modal, tense, epistemic, paraconsistent and dialethic logics, also by a contemporary giant in the field.
After that, I would go on to set theory, and stop when I had a grasp of forcing.
I think instructors, particularly those not well versed in logic, find teaching argumentation itself daunting. A list of "don'ts" seems more agreeable. Look at the result: hypercritical knowitalls who shout "straw man" and "ad hominem" and can't form arguments of their own.
I'm coming more to the side of not teaching fallacies as an introduction to logic. Instead, focus on making proper arguments. A scholar so trained can identify poor form or content.
I have noticed that teaching fallacies causes students to identify problems where there are none due to misunderstandings. More to the point, a knowledge of fallacies does not mean a knowledge of correct structure.
Teach the structure first.
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Arguments-Introduction-Informal-Logic/dp/053462586X
https://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/1285196546/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504277214&sr=1-2&keywords=logic
As for your constant seeking of validation, i'll let life solve that for ya
Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility
> Like I said before, it was a smartass response that you're reading too far into.
Like I said before, it was a very basic inference. You're looking way too much into what I was saying.
> Saying "a mix of both idiots and intellegent people who are idiotic" rather than "idiots" doesn't have the same ring to it.
You're reading your own use of the word into his statement. Maybe that is what he meant, but that's not what the logic of his statement said, which is why I was asking him about it.
Here are a couple texts that I think you would benefit from.
The first one is really solid, but it's expensive. The second one isn't as robust, but it gets the job done, and it's significantly cheaper.
> i'm out.
Cheers :)
Finite and Infinite Games, by James P. Carse
I call this practical philosophy, and it has blown my mind since I first encountered it in 1987.
read finite and infinite games
relevant:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Propaganda-Works-Jason-Stanley/dp/0691173427
Another great book is Sider's Logic for Philosophy. This book, however, won't help you learn how to use logic as much. But it'll give you a deep sense of how it all works.
I'd honestly recommend reading both. It'd start with Gensler (jump in at propositional logic, go at least as far as quantified modal), then read Sider in full.
Not necessarily boolean logic.
Here are the books they use for the two classes I mentioned
The first one is logic for philosophy http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0205820379/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1463700116&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=copi+logic&dpPl=1&dpID=41gXn3dBTPL&ref=plSrch
The other one is specifically for programming logic and design
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1285776712/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1463700168&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=programming+logic+and+design&dpPl=1&dpID=51K7i7XT1cL&ref=plSrch
Here is the mobile version of your link
hmnnn. i love fantasy as a genre. and self help.
one of my favorite books is Finite and Infinite Games.
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713
I try not to watch anything violent or scary these days. I'm actually just getting back into gaming, and I'm always searching for a new non-violent playstation game to indulge in.
No. The argument is not a form of modus tollens. Also, we're not doing formal logic here, we're doing informal logic. There is a huge difference.
Alternatively, if you would like me to phrase my concerns in a deductive logical procedure unnatural to our everyday use of language and argumentation, by all means, ask.
Here let me show you how a conversation works.
Person 1: This is that way
Person 2: No, this appears to be that way, but you're very statement contradicted what you said in the first place:
Person 1: Okay I'll show you why it's not a contradiction (OR) hmm maybe I was wrong.
You stated that Iran is an Islamic state that implements Sharia.
You said "Iran has executed women for attacking their rapist why can't you admit that Islam if not encourages but influences these actions"
I said: This can't be true, because the woman would not be able to attack her rapist if the Sharia was implemented, because the rapist would already be dead!
At this point you either: admit that Iran isn't practicing the Sharia properly, or you point to evidence that the rapist was put to death and thus never assaulted.
You're just jumping from topic to topic. How do you expect a conversation to ever end then?
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-J-Gensler/dp/0415996511
This may not be exactly what you're asking for and its merits as a serious philosophical text are questionable but it's a really wonderful little book:
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713/
NTA. But I recommend not to do this.
You are 19 now. But once you grow older, all that teasing will be insignificant compared to the shit that you will face that is being a man in the real world.
Here's what I recommend you do. Get a copy of this book and start to read it regularly. And use the techniques presented in it and use it back at your sister. Tease her, mock her relentlessly for sometime and once she gets sick of it, get yourself a ceasefire and tell her to cut off her bullshit teasing.
It doesn't and I didn't. I would recommend you to read this.
Ok, so you just chose not to count all those previous CPUs, and built your argument on top of that.
You need one of these.