• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should Logic Be a Required Course in Public High Schools?

Wirey

Fartist
The biggest problem with logic is that it is empirical to the viewer. Incinerating 6 million Jews is a logical choice if you believe the Nazis were right. Buying a Dodge is a logical choice if you find their vehicles most meet your needs. I think we would be better served if schools taught Occam's Razor:

Occam's razor - Wikipedia

Believing vast Jewish conspiracies dissolves pretty quick once you realize how unlikely they are.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
How does one make any subject "stick in the mind of the students"? Why do you think that learning logic is any different than learning grammar or math?

That sounds very anomalous. I would avoid drawing general conclusions from that anecdote.

I believe an active participation in Debates particularly Debate Clubs is important to develop 'logic' and critical thinking.'.

Like all academics you will reach some of the people successfully, some marginally, and rest will be academic space cadets.

I personally became very active in philosophy, formal logic and debate, but not until after my second year in college.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Unfortunately the study and practice of formal logic in religion has been a dismal failure, and replete with outdated world views, old concepts of infinities, and intense 'begging the question,' which commonly occurs here and other similar websites. This is where objective 'critical thinking' is seriously lacking.

Many theologians, philosophers, and apologists regardless of belief system need an education into critical thinking.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I agree it can be badly done, but logic, logical fallacies and critical thinking skills are really needed. Capitalism might collapse if people could spot the fallacies in advertising, but so be it.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
Logic is used to discern that which is true from that which is not true. If you have a problem with logical fallacies, the problem lies with you and your inability to accept that you might be wrong.

Logic is used to discern that which is true from that which is not true? No, it's not. You don't understand logic. Logic is about determining what type of argument someone is using and determining whether their conclusion agrees with the stated premise. If the conclusion does not agree with the stated premise it does not mean the premise or the conclusion are wrong, simply that the conclusion is invalid.

All men wear pink hats

John is a man

Therefore John wears pink hats

This is a valid statement but it's not true.



A logical fallacy is a mistake. Mistakes are not something that deductive reasoning can always reveal. Truth is not always as easy as 1+1 = 2. The human idea of truth is something that is generally accepted by most people but it changes over time. Things that were absolutely accepted as true thousands of years ago are now not considered to be true.



I can accept that I might be wrong, but can you prove it?
 
Last edited:

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Again and again on RF, I have encountered posters who want to make a logical argument, or who have been challenged to make a logical argument, or who have even claimed to have made a logical argument, then demonstrate or have already demonstrated that they don't have the first clue as to how to formulate a simple syllogism.

To be fair, my impression is that at least a slightly great portion of current active posters on RF might be more capable of stating a deduction than is the case among the general US adult population. Interestingly, I believe it is true for several posters I've encountered here that their familiarity with logic is due to self-education.

Of course, it seems to me it would not be difficult to adequately educate oneself in logic from freely available online sources. Indeed, it seems to me that the Wikipedia article on syllogisms provides sufficient information to enable to average adult to be able to formulate such a deduction. I mean, for God's sake, the article lists all 24 valid syllogisms, provides the Venn diagrams, and classifies them according to figure and type. What more does one need?

It also cannot be denied that junior high and high school students are exposed to and required to use the fundamental elements of deduction in other classes. I recall my 7th or 8th grade geometry class. I found the subject matter so beautiful because it was just the application of logic to lines, points, angles, triangles, etc.

Surely no one would disagree that education in the US public school system is woefully lacking in several important respects (e.g., compared to other developed countries, and even compared to some developing countries). I find it tempting to assess many of the problems that the US struggles with and other anomalies of US life and polices as to some degree a product of deficiencies in education--one of these glaring and fundamental deficiencies being in the use of basic logic.

So what do you say? If you disagree that logic should be a required course in public high schools, please explain why.

Absolutely.
But most people don’t get it even when they go to class.
Like math, everyone cannot be good at it.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Logic is used to discern that which is true from that which is not true? No, it's not. You don't understand logic. Logic is about determining what type of argument someone is using and determining whether their conclusion agrees with the stated premise. If the conclusion does not agree with the stated premise it does not mean the premise or the conclusion are wrong, simply that the conclusion is invalid.

All men wear pink hats

John is a man

Therefore John wears pink hats

This is a valid statement but it's not true.



A logical fallacy is a mistake. Mistakes are not something that deductive reasoning can always reveal. Truth is not always as easy as 1+1 = 2. The truth is something that is accepted but it changes over time. Things that were absolutely accepted as true thousands of years ago are now not considered to be true.



I can accept that I might be wrong, but can you prove it?

I would agree with everything, except that truth can change.
People can change over time, but truth is forever truth.

Is it a truth that the earth is a sphere and not flat.
I assume most everyone would say yes.
But for much of human history people thought it was flat.
The truth did not change.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
I would agree with everything, except that truth can change.
People can change over time, but truth is forever truth.

Is it a truth that the earth is a sphere and not flat.
I assume most everyone would say yes.
But for much of human history people thought it was flat.
The truth did not change.

Real truth does not change. What humans accept as truth does.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Again and again on RF, I have encountered posters who want to make a logical argument, or who have been challenged to make a logical argument, or who have even claimed to have made a logical argument, then demonstrate or have already demonstrated that they don't have the first clue as to how to formulate a simple syllogism.

To be fair, my impression is that at least a slightly great portion of current active posters on RF might be more capable of stating a deduction than is the case among the general US adult population. Interestingly, I believe it is true for several posters I've encountered here that their familiarity with logic is due to self-education.

Of course, it seems to me it would not be difficult to adequately educate oneself in logic from freely available online sources. Indeed, it seems to me that the Wikipedia article on syllogisms provides sufficient information to enable to average adult to be able to formulate such a deduction. I mean, for God's sake, the article lists all 24 valid syllogisms, provides the Venn diagrams, and classifies them according to figure and type. What more does one need?

It also cannot be denied that junior high and high school students are exposed to and required to use the fundamental elements of deduction in other classes. I recall my 7th or 8th grade geometry class. I found the subject matter so beautiful because it was just the application of logic to lines, points, angles, triangles, etc.

Surely no one would disagree that education in the US public school system is woefully lacking in several important respects (e.g., compared to other developed countries, and even compared to some developing countries). I find it tempting to assess many of the problems that the US struggles with and other anomalies of US life and polices as to some degree a product of deficiencies in education--one of these glaring and fundamental deficiencies being in the use of basic logic.

So what do you say? If you disagree that logic should be a required course in public high schools, please explain why.
I think that yea you can but the topics discussed here really aren't completely related to
Again and again on RF, I have encountered posters who want to make a logical argument, or who have been challenged to make a logical argument, or who have even claimed to have made a logical argument, then demonstrate or have already demonstrated that they don't have the first clue as to how to formulate a simple syllogism.

To be fair, my impression is that at least a slightly great portion of current active posters on RF might be more capable of stating a deduction than is the case among the general US adult population. Interestingly, I believe it is true for several posters I've encountered here that their familiarity with logic is due to self-education.

Of course, it seems to me it would not be difficult to adequately educate oneself in logic from freely available online sources. Indeed, it seems to me that the Wikipedia article on syllogisms provides sufficient information to enable to average adult to be able to formulate such a deduction. I mean, for God's sake, the article lists all 24 valid syllogisms, provides the Venn diagrams, and classifies them according to figure and type. What more does one need?

It also cannot be denied that junior high and high school students are exposed to and required to use the fundamental elements of deduction in other classes. I recall my 7th or 8th grade geometry class. I found the subject matter so beautiful because it was just the application of logic to lines, points, angles, triangles, etc.

Surely no one would disagree that education in the US public school system is woefully lacking in several important respects (e.g., compared to other developed countries, and even compared to some developing countries). I find it tempting to assess many of the problems that the US struggles with and other anomalies of US life and polices as to some degree a product of deficiencies in education--one of these glaring and fundamental deficiencies being in the use of basic logic.

So what do you say? If you disagree that logic should be a required course in public high schools, please explain why.
Yes but it won't help here this site. The other day someone posted "inflationary universe" I said it's DOA before it was even articulated it's not even wrong it's so wrong. To quote Wolfgang Pauli. Now the logic of the discussion is impeccable in fact it's very easy to understand. I could use the analogy "angels dancing on the head of a pin" to point them to what I am saying. But if the parties are absolutely convinced it's a totally valid discussion because the logistic structure is perfect and it can be it's nearly impossible to say anything G that snaps the person out of it no matter what. So logic can create a perfect illusion so there are limits to logic just based on that. Besides logic structures are just intellectual all truth starts in the heart. The intellectual is not primary but secondary to the heart. That's actually evolutionarily correct. That is how nature is structured the top is totally dependent on the bottom. The truth lay in the lesser than, not the greater than. That's a road a rarely traveled.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I think logic and critical reasoning skills should be required coursework in high school and again in university. However, I don't think those skills are very useful in winning arguments since most people are too irrational and egotistical to concede when they are demonstrated to be wrong. Rather than winning arguments, I think logic and critical reasoning skills are mostly of value in helping you to reason well.
 
The worst case scenario is a person who knows logic enough to use the names of fallacies as buzzwords where the fallacy in question does not apply (and yeah, there are quite a few of those on the internet).

This is my number one hate about RF.

From my experience on RF, the people who resort to 'argument by repeating name of fallacy' the most have the least idea of how to use them. Either that or have terrible comprehension skills so have completely missed the point so are identifying a phantom fallacy.

It's a neat piece of mental gymnastics to make them think they have refuted a point without actually having to do anything more than mindlessly repeating a cliche.

If I were king of RF, I would ban the naming of fallacies, unless they are followed by a clear explanation of why that fallacy applies (which usually negates the need to name the fallacy anyway).

The same as metaphor and analogy can be an impediment to thinking as well as an aid, so too can a rudimentary knowledge of generic fallacies.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
What is that exactly? What is course material for "thinking critically"? Did it used to be taught in high schools?
One example from my own high school career: while we were studying Richard III in English class, in history class we examined the story of Richard III from a historical perspective, looked at the historical accounts of the events the play described, and explored how to figure out which aspects of each version were likely true, likely false, or uncertain, as well as the motives each source might have had to embellish the facts.
 
Top