Logic program comparison

[LJB]

I am trying to decide which logic program to take my children through.

What is the substantive difference between Martin Cothran's Traditional and Material Logic courses and the courses from Classical Academic Press (The Art of Argument, The Argument Builder, and The Discovery of Deduction) other than the order in which material and formal logic is taught?

Martin told me at a convention that his materials are based on pre-20th Century developments in philosophy and I was wondering if his is the only program in the homeschooling market that has that distinction (which I highly value). I know his program is solid beyond question but, frankly, it's a bit daunting for me even with the DVD lectures option.

Thanks,
LJB

[Enigma]

I would love to know the difference between the ones LBJ mentioned and the logic sequence put out by Logos School. Logic is daunting for me, as well. I am hoping mine will be able to take advantage of the online courses.

[pschaeffer]

I am posting here a response Martin previously gave about MP's logic in contrast to Logos Press' logic. Soon I will have his response about CAP's logic which I will post when I have it. -Paul
______________
Well, let me take a stab at this question, with the obvious proviso that I authored one of the texts being compared. And let me class my answers in two parts: the first those with which I think the authors of both texts would agree, and the second those with which there might be disagreement.

1. Facts about the two books with which both authors would agree:

First, the Memoria Press Traditional Logic series emphasizes traditional, linguistic logic while Jim's series emphasizes modern mathematical logic.

Second, the Memoria Press program is "deeper" (it goes into one system of logic and spends all its time studying it, while Jim's program is "wider" in the sense that it covers several system of logic (the traditional and the modern).

Third, the Memoria Press program has more exercises than Jim's (I think he would agree with this, anyway).

2. Facts about the two books with which there may be disagreement between the authors:

First, the two systems respectively studied in the two books are entirely different, involve different assumptions about reality, and have different philosophical origins. Traditional logic is Aristotelian in origin and assumes that words or "terms" legitimately refer to universal ideas (also called "natures" or "essences") which exist in things. This is an assumption that is common to all of classical thought and to historic Christianity, and finds its greatest expression in the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. Modern logic is nominalist in nature and originates with Gottlob Frege, a 19th century German philosopher, Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead and Ludwig Wittgenstein. I think Jim would agree with me on most of these facts, although he might not agree with me as to the significance of them.

Secondly, traditional logic is what was actually used in the trivium. The trivium is language study, and traditional logic is conducted in and oriented toward real human language, while modern logic deals much more in mathematical symbols. This is a reflection of the differing assumptions about words. In traditional logic, a term is a sign signifying a nature, and cannot be replaced with any other word to yield the same meaning, since then it would refer to another nature. In modern logic, on the other hand, terms can function as essentially mathematical symbols, which can be replaced with any other term and still yield the same meaning. Traditional logic treats language qualitatively, while modern logic involves the belief that language can be quantified. Again, I think Jim would agree with most of these points, but not necessarily about their significance.

Thirdly, traditional logic uses a mastery learning approach, ensuring that the student has mastered the program at each level and is therefore prepared to proceed to the next lesson. It includes quite a lot of exercises to ensure this mastery. Jim's program would benefit from some supplementation in this regard (I think the videos that go along with the program help in this regard).

All that being said, Jim's program is a fine program and is the best thing out there to teach the system of modern logic at the high school level.

Martin

[Enigma]

That is fascinating. So the two programs teach two different types of logic. A child could, therefore, learn both types.

[martin]

Enigma,

I would add that there is nothing "wrong" with modern logic as long as you understand what it is. It is essentially how computers think. Its best use is as a study of certain mathematical forms of reasoning and as a preparation for computer science.

[LJB]

Logic progams

Thanks, Paul, for posting Martin's comparison of his curriculum and Logos' curriculum. I'm looking forward to reading what he has to say about CAP's. LJB

[The Autumn Oak]

I am also looking forward to hearing a comparison with Art of an Argument...

[[email protected]]

I've been following this thread and I am grateful for the honest comparison. I read an article in the archives here at Memoriapress.com not too long ago and I thought some of you might be interested. The article was written by Martin Cothran and is titled 'Logic is Not Math'
Here is the link:

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/logicmath.html

We will be using Traditional Logic this Year and are looking forward to it!
Blessings! Jennifer

[martin]

The difference between Memoria Press' Traditional Logic and Art of Argument

The chief difference between Memoria Press' Traditional Logic and Material Logic, on the one hand, and the Art of Argument is that they are covering different things. TL covers formal logic; AA is a course on informal fallacies. Informal fallacies are a branch of material logic, but not the part of material logic covered in the current MP text.

Right now we don't have a course covering informal fallacies.

The more relevant comparison is between TL and the The Discovery of Deduction. I think the main differences would be what is covered in the respective texts. Both TL books together cover the complete system of traditional logic, which includes 1) simple categorical arguments; 2) simple hypothetical arguments; and 3) complex forms of both categorical and hypothetical arguments. DD covers only the first. I don't know but I suspect CAP may be planning another complementary course for those.

We really stress the mnemonic verse devised by William of Sherwood in the Middle Ages for the manipulation of syllogisms so they really get to know them from all perspectives. DD doesn't have this, but, again, that may be included in a later book.

I think our logic books may be more exercise-heavy as well. We really stress mastery learning in all our programs so we really go overboard on making sure there are enough exercises to really master the subject. Maybe we are a little OCD about that, but it seems to work pretty well.

Those seem to me to be the major differences.

[The Autumn Oak]

Thanks Martin :-)

[LJB]

Thanks, Martin! I'd already ordered Traditional Logic but the comparison is extremely helpful!
LJB