Logic teaching in the 21st century
Abstract
Reception: October 15, 2015 Accepted: January 22, 2016 Today we are much better equipped to let the facts reveal themselves to us instead of blinding ourselves to them or stubbornly trying to force them into preconceived molds. We no longer embarrass ourselves in front of our students, for example, by insisting that “Some Xs are Y” means the same as “Some X is Y”, and lamely adding “for purposes of logic” whenever there is pushback. Logic teaching in this century can exploit the new spirit of objectivity, humility, clarity, observationalism, contextualism, tolerance, and pluralism. Accordingly, logic teaching in this century can hasten the decline or at least slow the growth of the recurring spirit of subjectivity, intolerance, obfuscation, and relativism. Besides the new spirit there have been quiet developments in logic and its history and philosophy that could radically improve logic teaching. One rather conspicuous example is that the process of refining logical terminology has been productive. Future logic students will no longer be burdened by obscure terminology and they will be able to read, think, talk, and write about logic in a more careful and more rewarding manner. Closely related is increased use and study of variable-enhanced natural language as in “Every proposition x that implies some proposition y that is false also implies some proposition z that is true”. Another welcome development is the culmination of the slow demise of logicism. No longer is the teacher blocked from using examples from arithmetic and algebra fearing that the students had been indoctrinated into thinking that every mathematical truth was a tautology and that every mathematical falsehood was a contradiction. A further welcome development is the separation of laws of logic from so-called logical truths, i.e., tautologies. Now we can teach the logical independence of the laws of excluded middle and non-contradiction without fear that students had been indoctrinated into thinking that every logical law was a tautology and that every falsehood of logic was a contradiction. This separation permits the logic teacher to apply logic in the clarification of laws of logic. This lecture expands the above points, which apply equally well in first, second, and third courses, i.e. in “critical thinking”, “deductive logic”, and “symbolic logic”.References
AUDI, R. (ed.) (2015). Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (third edition). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
BOOLE, G. (1854/2003). The Laws of Thought (facsimile of 1854 edition, with an introduction by J. Corcoran). Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
CHURCH, A. (1956). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton: Princeton UP.
COHEN, M. and E. Nagel (1934/1993). Introduction to Logic (second edition, revised with new exercises, new indices, a new bibliography, and a 30-page introduction by J. Corcoran). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
CORCORAN, J. (1972). “Harris on the Structures of Language”. In Transformationelle Analyse (pp. 275292) (ed. Senta Plötz). Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.
CORCORAN, J., W. Frank and M. Maloney. (1974). String Theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 39, 625-37. MR0398771 (53 #2622).
CORCORAN, J. and J. Swiniarski (1978). Logical Structures of Ockham’s Theory of Supposition. Franciscan Studies, 38, 161-183.
DUMMETT, M. (1973). Frege: Philosophy of Language. New York: Harper and Row.
FREGE, G. (1893/1967). The Basic Laws of Arithmetic (M. Furth, translator). Berkeley: UC Press. Galen. (200? /1964). Institutio Logica. (Trs. and ed. J. Kieffer). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP.
KNEALE, W. and M. Kneale. (1962). Development of logic. Oxford: Oxford UP.
LACHS, J. and R. Talisse (eds.) (2007). American Philosophy: an Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge.
OCKHAM, William Of. (1330?/1990). Philosophical Writings (Philotheus Boehner, translator), Indianapolis: Hackett.
QUINE, W. O. (1940). Mathematical logic. New York: Harper-Row.
QUINE, W. O. (1970). Philosophy of logic. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
QUINE, W. O. (1987). Peano as logician. History and Philosophy of Logic, 8, 15-24.
QUINTILIAN. (96?/1920). Institutio Oratoria. (Trans. H.E. Butler). Cambridge: Harvard UP.
RUSSELL, B. (1922). Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul.
SAGÜILLO, J. M. (1999). “Domains of sciences, universe of discourse, and omega arguments”. In History and philosophy of logic, vol. 20 (pp. 267-280).
TARSKI, A. (1941/1995). Introduction to Logic. New York: Dover.
TARSKI, A. and S. GIVANT. (1987). A Formalization of Set Theory without Variables. Providence: American Mathematical Society.
WATTS, I. (1725/1790). Logick. London: Buckland et al.
WITTGENSTEIN, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul.
Once the text is accepted for publication in Quadripartita Ratio, the authors must sign two legal documents: the License of Use and the Declaration of Authorship.
With the License of Use, the authors agree to the publication and diffusion of their work (integration in databases, diffusion in our social media, possible reeditions, etc.). However, it authorizes the download, reproduction and distribution of all published content, as long as the content is not modified and the source is indicated (name of the journal, volume, number, pages and electronic address of the document).
With the Declaration of Authorship, the authors manifest that the work is theirs, original and unpublished.
