ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] txtbk on logic

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "John F. Sowa" Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:23:14 -0400 <46A3AEA2.3030005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 ```Chris and Wacek,    (01) I agree with Chris:    (02) CM> ... the natural deduction system they [Copi & Cohen] use > is an inelegant hash of primitive rules, derivable rules, > and substitution patterns.    (03) But I would qualify the following statements:    (04) CM> In my view, the best general intro to deductive logic for both > average students and good/excellent students is Bergmann, Moor, > and Nelson's _The Logic Book_. This text first builds natural > deduction systems The Right Way :-) using primitive introduction > and elimination rules only, and only thereafter extends the > systems by introducing derived rules, showing in each case *that* > the new rule is derivable from the primitive rules.    (05) vQ> The one you propose has some nasty comments on amazon, perhaps > from less-than-average students.    (06) I haven't read that book, but from looking through the front matter, I would agree (1) their approach is better than Copi & Cohen's, but (2) the reviewers who made nasty comments had very good reasons for hating it (and most other available logic books).    (07) Unfortunately, most logicians, including B. M. & N., have never seen the far more elegant and vastly more teachable system of natural deduction by Peirce, which makes every other version seem kludgy and ill-motivated by comparison.    (08) I used to teach logic using traditional textbooks, but in 1978, I discovered Peirce's rules and began to discuss them in my courses as an interesting alternative. When I did that, the students themselves complained: "Why didn't you start with that method?" And they were right. Students really understand logic when you teach Peirce's method *first* -- after that, they can see the fundamental principles behind any method of proof.    (09) Students who were previously exposed to logic by the *wrong* way (i.e., any method other than Peirce's) really become excited when I show how full FOL plus proofs can be taught in *one hour* in a way that people can actually understand.    (010) Following are the slides of a 45-minute talk that I presented at a conference in June (too bad I didn't have the extra 15 min):    (011) http://www.jfsowa.com/peirce/remark.pdf Peirce's Remarkable Rules of Inference    (012) Page 7 has a table that summarizes Gentzen's rules of 1935, and the next few pages compare them to Peirce's rules of 1897. For a more complete intro, see Peirce's tutorial of 1909:    (013) http://www.jfsowa.com/peirce/ms514.htm Existential Graphs    (014) John    (015) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (016) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] txtbk on logic, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] txtbk on logic, Waclaw Kusnierczyk Re: [ontolog-forum] txtbk on logic, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] txtbk on logic, John F. Sowa <= Re: [ontolog-forum] txtbk on logic, Chris Menzel