DOCSLIB.ORG

Syllogistic Analysis and Cunning of Reason in Mathematics Education

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Syllogistic Analysis and Cunning of Reason in Mathematics Education Syllogistic Analysis and Cunning of Reason in Mathematics Education Yang Liu Faculty of Health, Science and Technology Mathematics DISSERTATION | Karlstad University Studies | 2013:28 Syllogistic Analysis and Cunning of Reason in Mathematics Education Yang Liu DISSERTATION | Karlstad University Studies | 2013:28 Syllogistic Analysis and Cunning of Reason in Mathematics Education Yang Liu DISSERTATION Karlstad University Studies | 2013:28 ISSN 1403-8099 ISBN 978-91-7063-505-2 © The author Distribution: Karlstad University Faculty of Health, Science and Technology Department of Mathematics and Computer Science SE-651 88 Karlstad, Sweden +46 54 700 10 00 Print: Universitetstryckeriet, Karlstad 2013 WWW.KAU.SE Abstract This essay explores the issue of organizing mathematics education by means of syllogism. Two aspects turn out to be particularly significant. One is the syllogistic analysis while the other is the cunning of reason. Thus the exploration is directed towards gathering evidence of their existence and showing by examples their usefulness within mathematics education. The syllogistic analysis and the cunning of reason shed also new light on Chevallard's theory of didactic transposition. According to the latter, each piece of mathematical knowledge used inside school is a didactic transposi- tion of some other knowledge produced outside school, but the theory itself does not indicate any way of transposing, and this empty space can be filled with the former. A weak prototype of syllogism considered here is Freudenthal's change of perspective. Some of the major difficulties in mathematics learning are connected with the inability of performing change of perspective. Conse- quently, to ease the difficulties becomes a significant issue in mathematics teaching. The syllogistic analysis and the cunning of reason developed in this essay are the contributions to the said issue. Contents Introduction 1 1 Some Cases 9 2 The Problem and the Approach 29 3 Three Examples 35 3.1 Contingency and Necessity . 35 3.2 On 5 + 7 = 12 . 38 3.2.1 The Concept of the Number Five . 38 3.2.2 Adding and Subtracting . 45 3.2.3 The Additive Group of Integers . 49 3.3 On 1=2 + 1=3........................... 49 3.3.1 Numerical Values of Fractions . 50 3.3.2 Fractions . 51 3.3.3 The Field of Rationals . 55 3.4 On the Equation ax2 + bx + c =0 ............... 55 3.4.1 Constants . 56 3.4.2 Variables . 56 3.4.3 Equations . 56 4 The Syllogistic Analysis 65 4.1 Structural Analysis . 65 4.2 Nicholas Bourbaki . 69 4.3 Syllogism . 75 4.4 Sides . 80 5 The Cunning of Reason 85 5.1 A Philosophical Discussion . 87 5.1.1 The World in Motion and the World in Form . 87 5.1.2 Body and Mind . 93 5.1.3 Reason . 96 5.2 The Cunning of Reason in Three Contexts . 104 5.2.1 Lev Vygotsky . 104 i ii CONTENTS 5.2.2 Jean Piaget . 108 5.2.3 Gottlob Frege . 111 5.3 Axiomatization of the Cunning of Reason . 117 6 Numbers 123 6.1 Natural Numbers . 124 6.2 Counting . 128 6.3 Negative Integers and Integers . 131 6.4 Fractions . 142 6.5 Numbers in Triangular Structure . 153 6.6 Numbers in Minimum Structure . 164 6.7 Numbers in Peano Structure . 176 7 Probability and Statistics 183 7.1 Probability in Itself . 183 7.2 Probability for Others . 185 7.3 Probability for Itself . 186 7.4 Statistics . 189 7.5 Independent Identical Distributions . 191 7.6 Point Estimation . 191 7.6.1 Schema . 191 7.6.2 Characteristic Examples . 192 7.7 Interval Estimation . 193 7.7.1 Schema . 193 7.7.2 Characteristic Examples . 193 7.8 Hypothesis Testing . 195 7.8.1 Schema . 195 7.8.2 Characteristic Examples . 196 Afterword and Acknowledgment 199 Bibliography 203 Introduction HALFWAY upon the road of our life, I came to myself amid a dark wood where the straight path was confused. And as it is a hard thing to tell of what sort was this wood, savage and rough and strong, which in the thought renews my fear, even so is it bitter; so that death is not much more; but to treat of the good which I there found, I will tell of the other things which there I marked. Alighieri Dante, Divine Comedy, translated by Arthur John Butler, 1894. The change of perspective, as a didactical principle, is one of the most important contributions made by Freudenthal (1978, pp. 242{252) in the domain of mathematics education. The importance of this principle is very clear as Freudenthal said: Yet I believe that the observation I reported here is the most important I have been confronted with for quite a while, and I am sure that the questions it gives rise to are the most urgent we are expected to answer. Some of learning difficulties, even for those who are excellent in arithmetic, is caused by being unable to perform change of perspective. (ibid., pp. 245-249) The situation that the student gazes at a task and says of I do not know where to begin is certainly recognizable for many teachers. The student for some mysterious reason is locked in one perspective or what amounts to the same as trapped in one context. The change of perspective does not mean to overthrow the old perspective, on the contrary, this old perspective is equally valuable as the new one. The change of perspective consists in a synthesis of two different perspectives. The equation x + 7 = 11 was used by Freudenthal in his enunciation on the change of perspective. For my purpose I shall use the equation 2x+4 = 6 instead. In general, an equation is a synthesis A = B of two objects A and B, as a result, an equation is a syllogism. To solve the equation 2x+4 = 6 is to relate it to another equation x = 1 through some intermediate equations. I shall exhibit the procedure of relating two equations now, it is 2x + 4 = 6 2x = 2 x = 1: 1 2 INTRODUCTION Altogether there are three equations (syllogisms), and solving equation be- comes finding interrelationships among the equations. Mathematics, according to Encyclopedia Britannica (2012), is the science of structure, order and relation (see the quotation at the beginning of the chapter four). The simplest order is that between two objects, say, 3 < 5; and the same holds for the relation. In the sense of the present essay, an order is a syllogism and a relation is a such as well. One of the most important mathematical structures, the group structure, is also a syllogism, for it concerns itself the multiplication of two elements. Mathematics, according to Encyclopedia Britannica (2012) again, deals with logical reasoning. The logical reasoning in mathematics is either induc- tive or deductive. The deductive reasoning, before Frege, was completely identified with the Aristotelean syllogistic reasoning. An Aristotelean syllo- gism has the form of ( A ! B =) A ! C B ! C where the sign ! means the word is. The curricula in Sweden after 1962 seem, according to Tomas Englund (oral communication), to evolve in the following fashion: centralization −! de-centralization −! re-centralization with Lgr 62, Lpo 94 and Lgr 11 as the characteristic documents. The formula is understood in the sense of descriptions on aims and knowledge in school- ing. This attitude is in fact confirmed by a recent thesis of Nordin (2012). Those five paragraphs above exhibit the change of perspective, the equa- tion solving, the group structure, the Aristotelean deductive reasoning, and the development of curricula in Sweden since 1962. A close examination of these examples reveals a common part that they share. They all have some- thing to do with syllogisms and their interrelationships, and these words are in fact the principal words of this essay. As a principle, the exact meanings of the principal concepts used shall not be given here but in the main body of the text. In a broadest sense, a syllogism is thesis −! antithesis −! synthesis: In order to be able to talk about interrelationships among syllogisms, we shall treat a syllogism as a structure, just like a water molecule is made up by an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms in which case the said interrelationships are on the level of water. Syllogism and interrelationship being the principal issues, the present essay is constructed with the center at the following questions: 3 • how can teaching and learning of mathematics be organized by syllo- gisms? • what makes the syllogistic organization possible? The aim here is therefore to inquire into these two fundamental questions and to indicate answers. Of course, the inquiry starts with a fundamental belief that teaching and learning of mathematics can to a great extent be organized by the syllogism. This belief does not grow from the middle of nowhere, it is an outcome from a huge accumulation of mathematics and mathematics teaching practices. And it should not be taken as an answer to the fundamental questions, not even a partial one, for what concerns mathematics education is not a simple positive answer but more importantly the how-issue in the questions. It is this issue that the essay is principally addressed to. In the process of the inquiry it is revealed that two aspects of syllogism are particularly significant. The one, which lies outside syllogism, is the syllogistic analysis; and the other lying inside is the cunning of reason. In fact it is these two aspects that are really the underpinnings of the present essay. Thus, teaching and learning of mathematics can be greatly organized by syllogistic analysis and skillful use of the cunning of reason; and the syllogistic organization is possible because of our deductive faculty and the cunning of reason.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 7.1 Rules of Implication I
    Natural Deduction is a method for deriving the conclusion of valid arguments expressed in the symbolism of propositional logic. The method consists of using sets of Rules of Inference (valid argument forms) to derive either a conclusion or a series of intermediate conclusions that link the premises of an argument with the stated conclusion. The First Four Rules of Inference: ◦ Modus Ponens (MP): p q p q ◦ Modus Tollens (MT): p q ~q ~p ◦ Pure Hypothetical Syllogism (HS): p q q r p r ◦ Disjunctive Syllogism (DS): p v q ~p q Common strategies for constructing a proof involving the first four rules: ◦ Always begin by attempting to find the conclusion in the premises. If the conclusion is not present in its entirely in the premises, look at the main operator of the conclusion. This will provide a clue as to how the conclusion should be derived. ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in the consequent of a conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via modus ponens. ◦ If the conclusion contains a negated letter and that letter appears in the antecedent of a conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining the negated letter via modus tollens. ◦ If the conclusion is a conditional statement, consider obtaining it via pure hypothetical syllogism. ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a disjunctive statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via disjunctive syllogism. Four Additional Rules of Inference: ◦ Constructive Dilemma (CD): (p q) • (r s) p v r q v s ◦ Simplification (Simp): p • q p ◦ Conjunction (Conj): p q p • q ◦ Addition (Add): p p v q Common Misapplications Common strategies involving the additional rules of inference: ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a conjunctive statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via simplification.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10: Symbolic Trails and Formal Proofs of Validity, Part 2
    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine CHAPTER 10: SYMBOLIC TRAILS AND FORMAL PROOFS OF VALIDITY, PART 2 Introduction In the previous chapter there were many frustrating signs that something was wrong with our formal proof method that relied on only nine elementary rules of validity. Very simple, intuitive valid arguments could not be shown to be valid. For instance, the following intuitively valid arguments cannot be shown to be valid using only the nine rules. Somalia and Iran are both foreign policy risks. Therefore, Iran is a foreign policy risk. S I / I Either Obama or McCain was President of the United States in 2009.1 McCain was not President in 2010. So, Obama was President of the United States in 2010. (O v C) ~(O C) ~C / O If the computer networking system works, then Johnson and Kaneshiro will both be connected to the home office. Therefore, if the networking system works, Johnson will be connected to the home office. N (J K) / N J Either the Start II treaty is ratified or this landmark treaty will not be worth the paper it is written on. Therefore, if the Start II treaty is not ratified, this landmark treaty will not be worth the paper it is written on. R v ~W / ~R ~W 1 This or statement is obviously exclusive, so note the translation. 427 If the light is on, then the light switch must be on. So, if the light switch in not on, then the light is not on. L S / ~S ~L Thus, the nine elementary rules of validity covered in the previous chapter must be only part of a complete system for constructing formal proofs of validity.
    [Show full text]
  • Saving the Square of Opposition∗
    HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2020.1865782 Saving the Square of Opposition∗ PIETER A. M. SEUREN Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Received 19 April 2020 Accepted 15 December 2020 Contrary to received opinion, the Aristotelian Square of Opposition (square) is logically sound, differing from standard modern predicate logic (SMPL) only in that it restricts the universe U of cognitively constructible situations by banning null predicates, making it less unnatural than SMPL. U-restriction strengthens the logic without making it unsound. It also invites a cognitive approach to logic. Humans are endowed with a cogni- tive predicate logic (CPL), which checks the process of cognitive modelling (world construal) for consistency. The square is considered a first approximation to CPL, with a cognitive set-theoretic semantics. Not being cognitively real, the null set Ø is eliminated from the semantics of CPL. Still rudimentary in Aristotle’s On Interpretation (Int), the square was implicitly completed in his Prior Analytics (PrAn), thereby introducing U-restriction. Abelard’s reconstruction of the logic of Int is logically and historically correct; the loca (Leak- ing O-Corner Analysis) interpretation of the square, defended by some modern logicians, is logically faulty and historically untenable. Generally, U-restriction, not redefining the universal quantifier, as in Abelard and loca, is the correct path to a reconstruction of CPL. Valuation Space modelling is used to compute
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Logic II Text (2Nd Ed
    Table of Contents A Note to the Teacher ............................................................................................... v Further Study of Simple Syllogisms Chapter 1: Figure in Syllogisms ............................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Mood in Syllogisms ................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 3: Reducing Syllogisms to the First Figure ............................................................... 11 Chapter 4: Indirect Reduction of Syllogisms .......................................................................... 19 Arguments in Ordinary Language Chapter 5: Translating Ordinary Sentences into Logical Statements ..................................... 25 Chapter 6: Enthymemes ......................................................................................................... 33 Hypothetical Syllogisms Chapter 7: Conditional Syllogisms ......................................................................................... 39 Chapter 8: Disjunctive Syllogisms ......................................................................................... 49 Chapter 9: Conjunctive Syllogisms ......................................................................................... 57 Complex Syllogisms Chapter 10: Polysyllogisms & Aristotelian Sorites .................................................................. 63 Chapter 11: Goclenian & Conditional Sorites ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Common Sense for Concurrency and Strong Paraconsistency Using Unstratified Inference and Reflection
    Published in ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4852 http://commonsense.carlhewitt.info Common sense for concurrency and strong paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection Carl Hewitt http://carlhewitt.info This paper is dedicated to John McCarthy. Abstract Unstratified Reflection is the Norm....................................... 11 Abstraction and Reification .............................................. 11 This paper develops a strongly paraconsistent formalism (called Direct Logic™) that incorporates the mathematics of Diagonal Argument .......................................................... 12 Computer Science and allows unstratified inference and Logical Fixed Point Theorem ........................................... 12 reflection using mathematical induction for almost all of Disadvantages of stratified metatheories ........................... 12 classical logic to be used. Direct Logic allows mutual Reification Reflection ....................................................... 13 reflection among the mutually chock full of inconsistencies Incompleteness Theorem for Theories of Direct Logic ..... 14 code, documentation, and use cases of large software systems Inconsistency Theorem for Theories of Direct Logic ........ 15 thereby overcoming the limitations of the traditional Tarskian Consequences of Logically Necessary Inconsistency ........ 16 framework of stratified metatheories. Concurrency is the Norm ...................................................... 16 Gödel first formalized and proved that it is not possible
    [Show full text]
  • To Determine the Validity of Categorical Syllogisms
    arXiv:1509.00926 [cs.LO] Using Inclusion Diagrams – as an Alternative to Venn Diagrams – to Determine the Validity of Categorical Syllogisms Osvaldo Skliar1 Ricardo E. Monge2 Sherry Gapper3 Abstract: Inclusion diagrams are introduced as an alternative to using Venn diagrams to determine the validity of categorical syllogisms, and are used here for the analysis of diverse categorical syllogisms. As a preliminary example of a possible generalization of the use of inclusion diagrams, consideration is given also to an argument that includes more than two premises and more than three terms, the classic major, middle and minor terms in categorical syllogisms. Keywords: inclusion diagrams, Venn diagrams, categorical syllogisms, set theory Mathematics Subject Classification: 03B05, 03B10, 97E30, 00A66 1. Introduction Venn diagrams [1] have been and continue to be used to introduce syllogistics to beginners in the field of logic. These diagrams are perhaps the main technical tool used for didactic purposes to determine the validity of categorical syllogisms. The objective of this article is to present a different type of diagram, inclusion diagrams, to make it possible to reach one of the same objectives for which Venn diagrams were developed. The use of these new diagrams is not only simple and systematic but also very intuitive. It is natural and quite obvious that if one set is included in another set, which in turn, is included in a third set, then the first set is part of the third set. This result, an expression of the transitivity of the inclusion relation existing between sets, is the primary basis of inclusion diagrams.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle and Gautama on Logic and Physics
    Aristotle and Gautama on Logic and Physics Subhash Kak Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803-5901 February 2, 2008 Introduction Physics as part of natural science and philosophy explicitly or implicitly uses logic, and from this point of view all cultures that studied nature [e.g. 1-4] must have had logic. But the question of the origins of logic as a formal discipline is of special interest to the historian of physics since it represents a turning inward to examine the very nature of reasoning and the relationship between thought and reality. In the West, Aristotle (384-322 BCE) is gener- ally credited with the formalization of the tradition of logic and also with the development of early physics. In India, the R. gveda itself in the hymn 10.129 suggests the beginnings of the representation of reality in terms of various logical divisions that were later represented formally as the four circles of catus.kot.i: “A”, “not A”, “A and not A”, and “not A and not not A” [5]. Causality as the basis of change was enshrined in the early philosophical sys- tem of the S¯am. khya. According to Pur¯an. ic accounts, Medh¯atithi Gautama and Aks.ap¯ada Gautama (or Gotama), which are perhaps two variant names for the same author of the early formal text on Indian logic, belonged to about 550 BCE. The Greek and the Indian traditions seem to provide the earliest formal arXiv:physics/0505172v1 [physics.gen-ph] 25 May 2005 representations of logic, and in this article we ask if they influenced each other.
    [Show full text]
  • A Three-Factor Model of Syllogistic Reasoning: the Study of Isolable Stages
    Memory & Cognition 1981, Vol. 9 (5), 496-514 A three-factor model of syllogistic reasoning: The study of isolable stages DONALD L. FISHER University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Computer models of the syllogistic reasoning process are constructed. The models are used to determine the influence of three factors-the misinterpretation of the premises, the limited capacity of working memory, and the operation of the deductive strategy-on subjects' behavior. Evidence from Experiments 1, 2, and 3 suggests that all three factors play important roles in the production of errors when "possibly true" and "necessarily false" are the two response categories. This conclusion does not agree with earlier analyses that had singled out one particular factor as crucial. Evidence from Experiment 4 suggests that the influence of the first two factors remains strong when "necessarily true" is used as an additional response category. However, the third factor appears to interact with task demands. Some concluding analyses suggest that the models offer alternative explanations for certain wellestablished results. One common finding has emergedfrom the many subjects on syllogisms with concrete premises (e.g., "All different studies of categorical syllogisms. The studies horses are animals") will differ from their performance all report that subjects frequently derive conclusions to on abstract syllogisms (e.g., "All A are B") (Revlis, the syllogisms that are logically incorrect. Chapman and 1975a; Wilkins, 1928). And it has been argued that the Chapman (1959), Erickson (1974), and Revlis (1975a, performance of subjects on syllogisms with emotional 1975b) argue that the problem lies with the interpreta­ premises (e.g., "All whites in Shortmeadow are welfare tion or encoding of the premises of the syllogism.
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Logic and Computational Thinking
    philosophies Article Traditional Logic and Computational Thinking J.-Martín Castro-Manzano Faculty of Philosophy, UPAEP University, Puebla 72410, Mexico; [email protected] Abstract: In this contribution, we try to show that traditional Aristotelian logic can be useful (in a non-trivial way) for computational thinking. To achieve this objective, we argue in favor of two statements: (i) that traditional logic is not classical and (ii) that logic programming emanating from traditional logic is not classical logic programming. Keywords: syllogistic; aristotelian logic; logic programming 1. Introduction Computational thinking, like critical thinking [1], is a sort of general-purpose thinking that includes a set of logical skills. Hence logic, as a scientific enterprise, is an integral part of it. However, unlike critical thinking, when one checks what “logic” means in the computational context, one cannot help but be surprised to find out that it refers primarily, and sometimes even exclusively, to classical logic (cf. [2–7]). Classical logic is the logic of Boolean operators, the logic of digital circuits, the logic of Karnaugh maps, the logic of Prolog. It is the logic that results from discarding the traditional, Aristotelian logic in order to favor the Fregean–Tarskian paradigm. Classical logic is the logic that defines the standards we typically assume when we teach, research, or apply logic: it is the received view of logic. This state of affairs, of course, has an explanation: classical logic works wonders! However, this is not, by any means, enough warrant to justify the absence or the abandon of Citation: Castro-Manzano, J.-M. traditional logic within the computational thinking literature.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure
    An Example of a Categorical Syllogism All soldiers are patriots. No traitors are patriots. Therefore no traitors are soldiers. The Four Conditions of Standard Form ◦ All three statements are standard-form categorical propositions. ◦ The two occurrences of each term are identical. ◦ Each term is used in the same sense throughout the argument. ◦ The major premise is listed first, the minor premise second, and the conclusion last. The Mood of a Categorical Syllogism consists of the letter names that make it up. ◦ S = subject of the conclusion (minor term) ◦ P = predicate of the conclusion (minor term) ◦ M = middle term The Figure of a Categorical Syllogism Unconditional Validity Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 AAA EAE IAI AEE EAE AEE AII AIA AII EIO OAO EIO EIO AOO EIO Conditional Validity Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Required Conditio n AAI AEO AEO S exists EAO EAO AAI EAO M exists EAO AAI P exists Constructing Venn Diagrams for Categorical Syllogisms: Seven “Pointers” ◦ Most intuitive and easiest-to-remember technique for testing the validity of categorical syllogisms. Testing for Validity from the Boolean Standpoint ◦ Do shading first ◦ Never enter the conclusion ◦ If the conclusion is already represented on the diagram the syllogism is valid Testing for Validity from the Aristotelian Standpoint: 1. Reduce the syllogism to its form and test from the Boolean standpoint. 2. If invalid from the Boolean standpoint, and there is a circle completely shaded except for one region, enter a circled “X” in that region and retest the form. 3. If the form is syllogistically valid and the circled “X” represents something that exists, the syllogism is valid from the Aristotelian standpoint.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Theory of the Assertoric Syllogism
    Aristotle’s Theory of the Assertoric Syllogism Stephen Read June 19, 2017 Abstract Although the theory of the assertoric syllogism was Aristotle’s great invention, one which dominated logical theory for the succeeding two millenia, accounts of the syllogism evolved and changed over that time. Indeed, in the twentieth century, doctrines were attributed to Aristotle which lost sight of what Aristotle intended. One of these mistaken doctrines was the very form of the syllogism: that a syllogism consists of three propositions containing three terms arranged in four figures. Yet another was that a syllogism is a conditional proposition deduced from a set of axioms. There is even unclarity about what the basis of syllogistic validity consists in. Returning to Aristotle’s text, and reading it in the light of commentary from late antiquity and the middle ages, we find a coherent and precise theory which shows all these claims to be based on a misunderstanding and misreading. 1 What is a Syllogism? Aristotle’s theory of the assertoric, or categorical, syllogism dominated much of logical theory for the succeeding two millenia. But as logical theory de- veloped, its connection with Aristotle because more tenuous, and doctrines and intentions were attributed to him which are not true to what he actually wrote. Looking at the text of the Analytics, we find a much more coherent theory than some more recent accounts would suggest.1 Robin Smith (2017, §3.2) rightly observes that the prevailing view of the syllogism in modern logic is of three subject-predicate propositions, two premises and a conclusion, whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Symbolic Logic: Volume 1 Formal Logic
    An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Symbolic Logic: Volume 1 Formal Logic Rebeka Ferreira and Anthony Ferrucci 1 1An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Symbolic Logic: Volume 1 Formal Logic is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 1 Preface This textbook has developed over the last few years of teaching introductory symbolic logic and critical thinking courses. It has been truly a pleasure to have beneted from such great students and colleagues over the years. As we have become increasingly frustrated with the costs of traditional logic textbooks (though many of them deserve high praise for their accuracy and depth), the move to open source has become more and more attractive. We're happy to provide it free of charge for educational use. With that being said, there are always improvements to be made here and we would be most grateful for constructive feedback and criticism. We have chosen to write this text in LaTex and have adopted certain conventions with symbols. Certainly many important aspects of critical thinking and logic have been omitted here, including historical developments and key logicians, and for that we apologize. Our goal was to create a textbook that could be provided to students free of charge and still contain some of the more important elements of critical thinking and introductory logic. To that end, an additional benet of providing this textbook as a Open Education Resource (OER) is that we will be able to provide newer updated versions of this text more frequently, and without any concern about increased charges each time.
    [Show full text]