3 ms·
When I say people should study logic, I don't mean necessarily its formal presentation. If you're not a mathematician, a philosopher or a computer scientist, in
by bananamerica 7y ago
When I say people should study logic, I don't mean necessarily its formal presentation. If you're not a mathematician, a philosopher or a computer scientist, informal logic is more than enough (and a bit of rhetoric certainly won't hurt). Besides, you can understand a lot even if you skip the formal bits, and there are good non-formal texts on many logic topics. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1] is definitely more approachable than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[2] in that regard.
I'd also like to point out that the book[3] I recommended for beginners in the comment above is entirely informal.
[1] https://www.iep.utm.edu/ https://www.iep.utm.edu/
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/ https://plato.stanford.edu/
[3] https://bookofbadarguments.com/ https://bookofbadarguments.com/
- astine 7y ago"When I say people should study logic, I don't mean necessarily its formal presentation." If that's the case, you probably shouldn't have linked to that Wikipedia article because it's mostly about formal logic systems. Regardless, I'd usually classify studying informal fallacies more under critical thinking than logic strictly speaking. There's an entirely different set of formal logical fallacies that apply to formal logic.
- bananamerica 7y agoI did link to a book on informal fallacies. And I do not agree with your classification. It's narrow and doesn't reflect the history of the field. Logic is a tool for mathematicians, philosophers, and computer scientists. Like any versatile tool, it can be adapted for different — but related — tasks. On the topic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/