Reddit mentions: The best philosophy of logic books

It depends. But I'm glad you asked, for the following suggestions might also be helpful to others.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that pointing out fallacies is an efficient way to "fight the good fight". At least, that's my impression. Please correct me when I'm wrong.

Unfortunately, almost all the evidence points to a different direction: It's usually not very effective, because those committing the fallacy usually don't care much about a logical analysis of the situation, anyway. This does also apply to non-believers. Assuming all humans process information in two ways (see Kahneman's System 1 and 2), even atheists often seem to ignore their own system 2, because it actually takes effort to use it.

However, if you're looking for resources about fallacies, any good book on logic will help. One of the best one, I've been told, is "Introduction to logic" by Gensler. You may only need the first 5 chapters, because it becomes quite technical after that. Maybe, Amazon can help find a less technical book.

If, however, you're looking to persuade people, that's a completely different story.

Here, a very common recommendation is Cialdini's "Influence". You can research its contents easily online, so there's no need to buy it. Cialdini emphasizes six common areas to get people to agree with you.

I've looked at your comment history, so here's a short overview what you may want to change to be more effective:

• Liking: People say yes to people they like. Being offensive to believers is thus unlikely to help you make your point.
  
• Scarcity: People often want they don't think is hard to get. It's thus okay to say that we as atheists may indeed by the exception. It might help to say, you understand if your opponent is unable to understand your position.
  
• Authority: It helps to have bookmarks, or notes, from authorities who believers respect (typically other believers).
  
• Social Proof: It helps to have notes and bookmarks about being a non-believer is on the rise, generally speaking.
  
• Reciprocity: People tend to return a favor. This is hard to apply online, but it may help offline.
  
• Commitment: If people commit, verbally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more likely to honor that commitment. It's thus worth trying to get your opponents to agree to a certain set of principles. For instance, the fight about gay marriage was won by appealing to one of the most common principles among Americans: Freedom. A simple change of words (from the "right to marry" to the "freedom to marry") made a big difference.
  
  Hope this helps.

aha, first congratulations if you've gotten in, if not good luck.

Econ grad student here.

I'm going to make suggestions more specific to the course of study given there. I'm going to assume you're going into undergrad and from the UK, and I won't say anything about PolySci.

You can start with an introduction to logic like this. I unfortunately don't remember the name of my textbook, but I think they were similar, save money by emailing the professor who teaches that course and asking him what book he uses. If you want to take the 'classics' approach, maybe Aristotle's Organon. Definitely start with the logic because it's the one thing that will help you in any of the other classes.

I don't see any reason not to read Descartes' Discourse on Method, Plato’s Republic; or Aristotle’s Ethics from your second year core courses. Kant I remember as being kind of dense and hard to read, but I wasn't reading it for a purpose so I gave up easily.

As far as economics, sooner or later you will want to get a jumpstart on the mathematical methods. Hoy's Mathematics for Economists is my favorite. It's very readable and has answers in the back. Kahnacademy will help with any parts you don't remember, or need additional work to ease into. How to Prove it may come in handy, if not it's just really neat to see how mathematics evolves out of logical philosophy.

For your micro and macro series. If you want to go with a classical approach, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is very readable (skim over the parts about corn sales). Nudge is an interesting popular economics book. Again, you can email the professor's who teach the first year Micro and Macro and ask them what textbooks they use. (this will also allow you to buy the textbooks used online, rather than paying through the nose for them at the bookstore).

Sorry for the wall!

Edit 1: Kahnacademy also has several sections of videos on economics, and I think you would find the documentary series The Ascent of Money interesting.

I'm not sure how much my words will be of use for you, as I am myself not yet Catholic (I'm currently going through RCIA). However, I can relate with regard to a lack of Catholic friends. I'm an immigrant from India who was raised in a Hindu family; most of my friends are Indian and nominally Hindu. I've had only a couple of Christian friends in my life and never a Catholic friend. Reading and researching through books, articles, podcasts, videos, etc. have led me to the faith.

Oftentimes, in defending the faith, I have debated my family, my friends, and others close to me. It became clear to me that I needed a systematic plan if I was going to do this with any shred of ability. Here's mine. Perhaps it will be of use to you or somebody else who clicks on your post because they can relate.

1. Learn logic. I'm working through Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft right now. It's clear, readable, has plenty of examples, many of which are from interesting works, such as those of G.K. Chesterton or C.S. Lewis. It's an investment, to be sure, as it's running for ~ $20 online, but it's well worth it.
   
   
2. Study Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy. St. Thomas Aquinas is the universal doctor of the Catholic Church. You're not going to find a better source of philosophy, theology, and wisdom than this saint. Now, I don't recommend jumping right into the Summa Theologica or the Summa Contra Gentiles, at least not without a study guide, primarily because modern thought holds assumptions which Aquinas would have rejected. Therefore, to understand Aquinas' arguments, and really the arguments of any philosopher before Descartes, you need to understand the basic metaphysics (the understanding of being as being) of the classical (Aristotle, Plato, etc.) and medieval (Augustine, Aquinas, etc.) philosophers. Edward Feser is an American analytical philosopher who is also an orthodox Roman Catholic. He's written two books which I would highly recommend. First, and foremost, I think you will be well served by his The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (I'm sure you can see why). It's very readable but also deep. It's also polemical; you'll laugh out loud quite a bit. Second, I would recommend his Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide. This is an introduction to Thomistic philosophy. It goes over the metaphysical foundations, Aquinas' Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God, Aquinas' philosophy of ethics, and Aquinas' philosophy of psychology.
   
   
3. Once you have worked through these three books, I think you'll be ready to work through the more difficult works. However, and this is key, the vast, vast, vast majority of atheists and skeptics you'll come across and meet in your journey through this world can be easily and completely refuted if you familiarize yourself with and understand and think through the arguments laid out by Feser in these two books. Depending on your intelligence level and the availability of time, going through these three books might take you a bit of time. Don't worry. Take it slow. Once you understand their relevance and validity, you'll be able to both defend the faith and also show how atheism is false, incoherent, and dangerous.
   
   In summary, I'd recommend reading the following books in this order:
   
4. The Last Superstition by Edward Feser: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism-ebook/dp/B00D40EGCQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504537006&sr=8-1&keywords=the+last+superstition
   
5. Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide by Edward Feser: https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Guides-ebook/dp/B00O0G3BEW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1504537006&sr=8-2&keywords=the+last+superstition
   
6. Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft: https://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-Questions-Aristotelian-Principles/dp/1587318083/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
   
   God Bless and take care.

There's plenty of good resources online to do this, but I wanted to suggest to you the textbooks from which I taught myself Calculus in high school, and it's this series: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Calculus&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ACalculus%2Cp_lbr_one_browse-bin%3ARobert%20Blitzer&page=1

You probably aren't going to want to go out and spend a ton of money on these books, but if you can find old editions for cheap, I'd say it's worth your money. :)

Good luck with the math! Also, if you want to really start going proper math, another great book is: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=foundations+of+math&gs_upl=165l1646l0l1837l19l11l0l1l1l1l265l2237l0.5.6l11l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&biw=1032&bih=614&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=6951129580330045396&sa=X&ei=ntjhTqyvDo7FswaP7aGgBA&ved=0CHoQ8wIwCg#ps-sellers

And if you're interested in the logical underpinnings of the really fun mathematics, another great place to look is: http://www.amazon.com/Methods-Logic-W-V-Quine/dp/0674571762

Sorry that these are all big expensive textbooks, but I wanted to share with you some of my favorite books. :)

First, I'd like to say I really like your argument. There's a lot of great points here that I think that average person never considers, and they are all the worse for it. This kind of discussion should be something that every educated, informed people should consider in order to truly get at the roots of their own values.

We have a few base assumptions here. Many of which I imagine we'll have lots of overlap in agreement. But some I don't think we will. I'd like to go over them to see where you might find a reason to change your view.

Base assumption #1: "rights" exist.

We're stripping away to some core concepts here. So we need to be very clear on what is a right. Obviously this is not a right as guaranteed by any government as you excluded practical legislation as a goal of this discussion. You're obviously not arguing for any legal rights here, and I agree with that. I hate most forms of eugenics (I'm Jewish by blood (not practice), so my family has a history with it).

What is a right then? I would very much like to here how you outline what a "right" is, before I outline some of what I consider to be core concepts of "rights".

Base assumption #2: morality exists.

This one was kind of funny to me. For this statement:

> It is immoral to force a conscious entity into existence

to be true, you're essentially declaring all of human existence as immoral. Sure, individuals might not take that immoral leap into parenthood, but the species as a whole must reproduce to exist. And to reproduce requires creating consciousnesses that previously didn't exist. We can't obtain consent from beings that don't exist yet.

And since morality only exists because we invented the concept, then you're basically condemning our existence to be perpetually immoral (that's the part I found funny. Not wrong, just funny, because we can't be immoral without existing, but we can't be moral by existing, according to your statement).

I don't think there's anything explicitly wrong about that, but it just seems like a rather useless distinction. It's like defining two colors and then saying "but there's only 1 color in existence". What was the point of defining both colors if only one exists? What's the point of defining our existence as immoral if we literally cannot escape that immorality of existence.

I also don't like absolutes. I think we like to define our world in absolutes, and since reality resists simplicity, those absolutes end up being really unhelpful and destructive. For example: All [this group of people] like [something]. It's rarely helpful and just makes the person saying it look dumb. (There's a great book that has been helping me see the world differently that I highly recommend called Finite and Infinite Games. There's also a free pdf if you just google it.)

My point for bringing this up is that I think it would be better stated to say: All existance of conscious entities start immoral, as they could not consent to being created, but can become moral through the value of their existence.

I don't think all conscious beings are inherently immoral, at least not forever. I see your point that you can't consent to being born, but that doesn't mean you can't retroactively consent. This kind of consent cannot and should not exist in other moral choices (for example, rape cannot be retroactively given consent, nor can that consent be retroactively removed). But I think the unique nature of consciousness could allow for my interpretation.

Base assumption #3: the importance of naturally occurring forces on morality.

This one gets people tripped up all the time, but I don't think you're entirely tripped up on it. The classic (shitty) argument involving the extreme side of things is the banana argument seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

It's also known as The Watchmaker Analogy. It is where significance or importance is placed upon the natural state of something. People have misused this argument for their own ends in all sorts of arguments. This banana fits my hand, therefore it was designed to fit my hand, therefore God exists.

We're, obviously, biologically designed to make babies. But does the fact that making babies is naturally occurring mean it's moral? You seem to have taken the side of a definitive "no". Most people would probably say "yes", also definitively.

Again, I hate absolutes. I think we can find some morality in baby making, and we can find some immorality. You've definitely hit upon the immorality of baby making very clearly, and again, I want to applaud you for that, because I think this should be a more common discussion. But I don't think this one aspect of reproduction (the lack of consent from the consciousness being created) completely overwhelms all of the other aspects of reproduction. Not all of human existence is suffering. All human existence has suffering (I mean, we literally come into this world crying from the pain of taking our first breath), but most of human existence has joy too (I won't say "all" because I'm sure there's plenty of singleton cases we could point out where the human's existence was essentially nothing but pain and suffering. Some diseases really suck.).

And I only point to the continued improvement of human comfort as a sign that humanity can find joy, and prefers it to suffering. The quality of most human lives has improved greatly over the last few hundred years. Plenty new types of suffering has occurred, but I don't think you'd find any sane person that would prefer to live before the industrial revolution.

We strive for a better life. For ourselves. Sometimes for others. But we've found value in living because we have a desire to live longer than before. And in greater numbers. I propose that our strive for improvement shows two things:

1. Suffering exists (because we're trying to escape it).
   
   
2. We're willing to put up with the suffering long enough to try to reduce it.
   
   This, to me, is a non-explicit form of consent to existence. While I agree with you that we cannot consent before we exist, and to be brought into existence is inherently without our consent, I propose that the consent can be earned through use of our existence.

Logic admittedly isn't my area of expertise, but the logic class I took several years ago used this, which does a pretty good job of breaking down basic types of logical arguments, so that would probably be helpful. The Little Logic Book would also be a great and accessible guide for learning how arguments work, and how to both construct good arguments while recognizing bad ones. Beyond that, I'd say read good philosophers, especially analytic philosophers, since they have a tendency to be a bit more clear and organized with their thoughts. I learned a lot from reading Plantinga when I was first finding my footing, and I'm sure a thread made requesting good examples of clear and accessible instances of analytic philosophy would yield many more results. I might also check out Thomas Aquinas or Descartes, since they both write in a fairly clear style that uses fairly basic and clear instances of argument to build their ideas and express them clearly, and there will be shelves upon shelves of secondary material on them to help you see all the little subtleties going on in their work. Hope this helps.

On my way out, but briefly.

One option is to just power through, mindful of the limits. It'll help to familiarize yourself with the notation, even if the details are difficult to follow. You'll be required to take some formal logic for your program. But if you're looking to get ahead of the game, there are some online resources that may be useful. I compile some of those resources here. Quoting that:

>Free, general logic resources: Stanford's Intro to logic and Mathematical Thinking- w/ Free online tools for completing exercises; Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises; Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide; Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught - w/ free workbook; J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools; Open Logic Project - and List of other open/free sources.
>
>Not Free: Gensler's Introduction to Logic, Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred). [Karen Howe's has her logic stuff online using Pospesel's books.]
>
>Common Symbols: here
>
>Lists of Rules of Inference: here, here, here, here

Routledge has a guide to the Tractatus that could be helpful. Anscombe's guide has a glossary with some of the common symbols. I haven't watched, but there's this lecture video on YouTube re logic in the T.. hope that helps

There's not even an argument in all that waffle. Just a series of unsupported statements with no structure and a lot of metaphors.

> THE peevishness of the campaigning has obscured the importance of what is at stake.

No, everyone realises that this is important.

> A vote to quit the European Union on June 23rd, which polls say is a growing possibility, would do grave and lasting harm to the politics and economy of Britain.

Ok, why?

> The loss of one of the EU’s biggest members would gouge a deep wound in the rest of Europe.

Umm, ok but why?

> And, with the likes of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen fuelling economic nationalism and xenophobia, it would mark a defeat for the liberal order that has underpinned the West’s prosperity.

Wait, you still have not supported any of the above statements, why are you just moving on to people not involved with the UK?

> That, clearly, is not the argument of the voices calling to leave.

It's not the argument of anyone, because it is not an argument.

> As with Eurosceptics across the EU, their story is about liberation and history. Quitting the sclerotic, undemocratic EU, the Brexiteers say, would set Britain free to reclaim its sovereign destiny as an outward-looking power.

Ok... and that's bad why?

> Many of these people claim the mantle of liberalism—the creed that this newspaper has long championed. They sign up to the argument that free trade leads to prosperity. They make the right noises about small government and red tape. They say that their rejection of unlimited EU migration stems not from xenophobia so much as a desire to pick people with the most to offer.

Ok... still not explained any of the above statements yet.

> The liberal Leavers are peddling an illusion.

Ok, why?


> On contact with the reality of Brexit, their plans will fall apart.

Jesus are you going to explain or try and back up any of your statements?

> If Britain leaves the EU, it is likely to end up poorer, less open and less innovative.

Right. Why?

> Far from reclaiming its global outlook, it will become less influential and more parochial. And without Britain, all of Europe would be worse off.

So that would be a no to the whole explanation thing then?

> Start with the economy.

I'd like you to start with what you started with.

> Even those voting Leave accept that there will be short-term damage (see article). More important, Britain is unlikely to thrive in the longer run either.

Le sigh.

> Almost half of its exports go to Europe.

Well if you are in an agreement with Tesco that you get their goods without paying VAT and every other supermarket you have to pay VAT at then maybe it is not a surprise if you do more of your shopping at Tesco?

> Access to the single market is vital for the City and to attract foreign direct investment.

Most foreign direct investment comes from China, who are not in the EU. And remember this is direct investment not indirect investment which just gets routed through and past us into the EU using passporting.

> Yet to maintain that access, Britain will have to observe EU regulations, contribute to the budget and accept the free movement of people—the very things that Leave says it must avoid. To pretend otherwise is to mislead.

To pretend that 'access' to the single market is the same as a free trade agreement is misleading. South Korea has a FTA with the EU that allows them 'access' but they are not part of the single market so do not pay to the EU budget, do not pay tariffs on exporting, do not have free movement of people, and are not constrained by the common external tariff.

> Those who advocate leaving make much of the chance to trade more easily with the rest of the world. That, too, is uncertain.

Nothing is certain, so that's a terrible benchmark. What we are talking about is likely. And given that nations like to trade with each other and the UK is a large economy with global links it is likely that other nations would like to trade with us.

> etc etc

I mean this is all weak stuff. There isn't even proper argument structure just a lot of assertions. They never seek to explain anything in the article.

I think you should buy this book:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Developing-Effective/dp/0230285295/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466217014&sr=1-1&keywords=critical+thinking

It is really good and will teach you the difference between an argument and a statement.

I wasn't taught it until recently, when I got into philosophy at uni. The way I've learnt it (and the way most tend to) is through studying logic. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy has a good page on informal logic here.

If you want to learn more about logic itself, I would recommend reading into it with the relevant texbooks, such as Patrick J Hurley's concise introduction to logic or Samuel Guttenplan's The Languages of Logic. I would highly recommend the first, over the second. If you can't buy the books, there's a good series on formal logic here that I've gone through, before.

It can be a hard thing to learn, but it is extremely rewarding. Logic gets you to think with better clarity, deconstruct ideas better and make stronger arguments. Best of luck!

> Hahaha, very amusing as I was just thinking the same thought to myself! "I don't think I quite meant that sentence like I stated it, perhaps I need to re-evaluate what I actually mean." It's more like, we've given certain words too much power? I feel the thought in my head, I'm just struggling to articulate it exactly. Because if you asked me "Do words have power" my answer would be "yes." This is a contradiction, seemingly. I suppose what I'm saying is that we give specific words too much energy or power, or perhaps it's even deeper on a language level? Some are trying to change our language into something that I feel is less useful to us? Or that sometimes I feel that our language is being hijacked in order to serve a specific agenda, and force dialogue into certain channels? I shall keep pondering what I actually mean...

Ok, that made sense, and I would agree. Certain words and ideas hold more power than they "should." That's a very interesting, very complex topic. I'm not sure what I mean by should, but for example, screaming terrorist on Sept 12 2011 probably held a different meaning that day, and for many days following. I don't mean that it actually "had a different meaning;" it would be more accurate to call it a different effect.

> Back to that peculiar situation we sometimes find ourselves in, where there are two truth's in opposition to one another. The reason I'm beginning to see isn't that it's necessarily the universe that holds the two truths in opposition, but our own language that defines things rigidly, that makes things seem in opposition to one another, but in reality are part of a greater whole.

Yes. 2x yes.

I've mentioned Wittgenstein a couple times here before, but if you want to make headway on language and its usage, you should try reading his two works Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations.

I've been eyeing the Tractatus in my pile of books, but honestly my mind is not yet advanced enough to understand it to the degree I feel it deserves. But maybe you might find it worth the read regarding language and its usage. He was huge on word games - not playing them, well maybe, but I think he had a truly holistic understanding of language.

EDIT: And while we're on the topic of language, since I cannot seem to escape the Being-Becoming duality, I instead attempt to embrace it to the extent that it furthers my understanding of the world.

Let's take the sentence "I don't know that yet." The most important takeaway from that sentence is that it does not read "I don't know that." The expectation of future understanding exists when you include the word, sure, but does expectation of future understanding not exist if you exclude the word 'yet'? The answer must be no, and it's quite easy to prove so, but to leave it at that would be folly. Does not including the word 'yet' have an implication regarding a trajectory of the mind and body? Why did that person not say the word yet? Do they not think understanding may come in the future? The man that says 'yet' is already thinking with energy into the future, and as such, I tentatively argue that the inclusion of the word yet, its mere inclusion, has consequences on whether or not you will achieve whatever came before 'yet'. Alternatively, the man that considers future understanding and excludes the word 'yet', purposefully or not, must in some manner be limiting himself.

So, does the man that says 'yet' and attains that future understanding exist as the man who was going to know, always going to know, or does that same man exist as the man that knows because he said 'yet'?

Ultimately, I see man as trying to separate himself from language, but that is an ignorant perspective. Ignorant of the vast interconnectivity of EVERYTHING. Oh there is so much to say about language... I would say other than trying to answer why there is something and not nothing, language might be the most complex and befuddling topic in existence.

The real issue is that Americans have a tendency to conflate sex and gender. I've had a lot of forms say "Gender: M / F" which is inaccurate. It should be "Sex: M / F", but they say gender because "sex" as a word is also taboo. Likewise, "gender dysphoria" should probably actually be called "sex dysphoria" but it is what it is.

Honestly, even "Sex: M / F " is not great, because genotypes like XXY - Kleinfelter Syndrome exist. One estimate puts the prevalence of intersexed people at roughly 1-2%. And that's just talking about things like chromosomes and genital formation. It's easy to imagine that there is another 1-2% of people who are intersexed due to brain differences.

Gender, as in "gender identity" is a different story. I could go on at length about gender. The short answer is that I think "gender" is a meaningless construct that is the epitome of what it means to be a Wittgenstein's Beetle. While I absolutely believe that people should be free to wear whatever clothes they want, get HRT, whatever, take a gender label like "boi." Unscientific though it may be, let us look to the Urban Dictionary definition of "boi" because natural language philosophers are concerned with "actual and possible uses of words". According to Urban Dictionary, "boi" can mean a male or a female, heterosexual or homosexual, young or old. The only consistency is a sense of immaturity for which there are many other more useful words. Even take a word like "feminine." Both Ronda Rousey and Conchita Wurst put such different takes on the concept of "feminine" that the word itself is meaningless.

What kinds of deductive reasoning? I'd recommend practice and study of a specific application of deduction over reading about it in general.

I've played several games that require deduction:

• Flow Free: Android iOS
  
• Hashi: Android iOS
  
• Slitherlink: Android iOS
  
• Paint By Numbers/Hanjie: Web (can be printed for pencil and paper), Web
  
• Electric Box: Web, requires Flash
  
  Other examples are Logic grids, Sudoku, and many others.
  
  I find that deduction is a skill that's easy to develop in a particular domain (like any of the above games), but hard to generalize. Playing the above games for fun, I've developed a better understanding of how to use proof by contradiction, but not much else.
  
  Those kinds of high-level ideas are probably best learned from a logic textbook like Introduction to Logic, but the abstract knowledge may not translate to practical skills without domain-specific practice and study.

People seems to be interested these days in symbolic logic, which in fact is believed to be superior. Nevertheless, I feel that Socratic Logic is the method preferable when trying to ascertain truth. I recommend Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft edition 3.1.

Another field I would recommend is the study of the Stoic philosophers. There is much wisdom that is quite apt for our day and our journey through life. I recommend this site as a launching point into the subject.

>What man can you show me who places any value on his time, who reckons the worth of each day, who understands that he is dying daily?" Seneca The Younger (Letter I: On Saving Time in Moral Letters to Lucius).

Current business & finance uni student here, definitely dreading the new timetable I have (with some early 8am lectures) I have to go to in 2 weeks, offering some tips at 4am in the morning-

• Ease into study.
  
  
• When you leave campus for the day, I'd avoid any study work unless it's of content you quite don't understand.
  
  
• If travelling on public transport, if you want to, just do some quick light research on what it is you're not understanding, like things as simple as wikipedia pages.
  
  
• Know where your limit is, in that, if you're at the point of procrastination where everything you need to do is just annoying, don't continue. Break the study up. Be it 5 - 10 minutes. It still counts.
  
  
• If you know you're behind and you've got days off between classes & lectures, go either to the library or even somewhere where you can just hammer out the work that suits your tastes. Only enough that you think is enough to be on par. That may be either on track with what each week's lecture about or what you believe is enough to properly understand the concepts.
  
  
• When studying, what ever helps to get you relaxed, do that in breaks (you choose how long your breaks are though).
  
  
• When you get home, reduce your gaming time if you can (e.g. spend some extra time on off days when you're satisfied you've caught up).
  
  
• Avoid being hungry when studying. Same with being dehydrated.
  
  
• If you feel as if working under pressure does well to help focus, set dates where you'd want to do that before due dates for things like written assessments, study for exams. Add extra days to subjects you feel you're stuck on. It will help to avoid the last tip.
  
  some extra uni tips
  
  
• Check out your uni's student council. See what promotions and deals you can use for things like food
  
• Research at uni is more complex than what it was in highschool.
  
• Feel your research skills may be falling short or feels as if it's not really answering the question? I hope you've got a good study skills handbook. (I'd recommend The Study Skills handbook by S. Cottrell and Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument). I use both.
  
  
• If you can, if there's people within your tutes you kinda connect with, see if you can catch up with them and ask if they'll hang out for study sessions. Personally for me, these help in understanding ideas and what you have to focus on.
  
  Lastly,
  a couple of cups of coffee and an all-nighter can write up a decent essay or report overnight but it won't help in the long term.
  
  Good luck and just ease into uni with some preparation.

The best book that I know of for learning math from scratch up through algebra is the fourth edition of Wade and Taylor's "Fundamental Mathematics". This book's approach is exceptionally clean and structured. It presents all of its topics in their proper logical context, and contains loads of exercises.

https://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-mathematics-Thomas-Leonard-Wade/dp/0070676526/

I was home schooled, and this was the primary text I read before going to collage. This book is one of the main reasons that I was so successful when getting both a Bachelors and a Master's in Mathematics.

If you want a very deep understanding of mathematics and have more time, I would also recommend starting with "The Power of Logic" fifth edition by Howard-Snyder and Wasserman. It is the best book I have seen for learning logic in a natural and complete way.

https://www.amazon.com/Power-Logic-Frances-Howard-Snyder-Dr/dp/0078038197/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+power+of+logic&qid=1572132710&sr=8-1

After that, any other books on linear algebra or any other math/CS books would be much easier.

If you end up taking this route, then I would be willing to answer any questions that you have on either of these books. Let me know if this interests you.

but what it sounds like and describes are different things. the only reason someone would perceive it that way is because they think the concept of "good reasoning" is a joke or not as complex as it actually is. (try to get >98th percentile on the LSAT.)

good reasoning is easily evaluated by a set of pretty objective (relatively speaking) criteria.

1. how logically coherent are the claims (does the conclusion follow from the premise)
   
   
2. are the claims ambiguous
   
   
3. are these claims supported with some kind of evidence, preferably empirical
   
   
4. if replying, are the claims relevant (do they address central claims made by other people)
   
   I could probably think of more. there are several argumentation books you can buy which list "rules for argumentation" (a really good one is Understanding Arguments by Sinnott-Armstrong and Fogelin, but on this issue particularly Walton's Informal Logic is great), and there tends to be a lot of commonality among the rules

I mean, do what feels right to you. But I'd always advise against pushing anymore.There is no point.

Once you know you're both not there to learn, you're antagonizing without purpose, or you're doing it with purpose (malice).

Last year a mentor of mine gave me this book, http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713, and it changed the way I look at these conversations. I don't always follow the right path, but it helped me see that conversations exist on a field that we set. If you have a debate with someone and you're both playing with the same rules, like trying to find the best policy to solve a problem, then things go well.

But if one of you has a different set of rules, like, defend a belief I know is true against this attack. Then the game falls apart. Imagine playing basketball against someone playing football. You wouldn't "win" or "loose" because neither of you are playing the same game. He might score a touchdown while you're shooting over and over again, and you might both be keeping your own score, but you're not playing a game together... and it'd look foolish to any bystandard.

This is what a conversation like the one you're recounting sounds like.

And, what's worse, if he's playing a game in which the rules include " attack the other person" and at some point you get frustrated and join in attacking him, now you're both playing the same game of just being mean to each other.

Anyways,
take care.

I'd recommend Finite and Infinite Games.

A great general 'how-to' on being a good gamer.

"A finite player plays to be powerful; an infinite player plays with strength."

“No one can play a game alone. One cannot be human by oneself."

“Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries.”

Carse gets a bit hippy-dippy but is still chock full of compact truisms that will stick with you and help mold a better gaming outlook.

I learned logic from 'A concise introduction to Logic.' by hurley

Do you have some idea of the type of logic you want to learn? an introduction into modern logic usually encompases two aspects: propositional (sentential) and predicate (first-order) logic. Once you learn these, you can learn other types of fun logic like metalogic, modal logic, and maybe even set theory. There's also Aristotelian logic (i.e. syllogisms and the square of opposition.) I learned this, but i never use it so i wouldn't recommend learning it (although the text i provided has chapters on both)

Overall, I think it's a great text and you can easily learn everything in the book on your own without a teacher. The book's pricey, but it's worth it if you're serious about learning Logic. I still use it whenever i want to learn what a specific term is called, remember a rule of inference, predicate logic restriction, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/0495503835

i've found that this is a pretty good resource if you want a written introduction online:

http://www.cs.odu.edu/~toida/nerzic/content/logic/intr_to_logic.html

I really liked Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic. I don't know if its the best for self-learners per se but over all its just a great logic textbook and really helped me out. Also, Irving Copi studied under Bertrand Russell while at the University of Chicago so there's some bonus points right here.

Awesome! My educational background is in Philosophy. I know it's not popular to go around listing fallacies and forms in logic, but understanding them and how they work has been instrumental to my understanding of persuasion (especially of the moral kind). Just reading the first four of five chapters of this logic textbook could help fortify your case for language. I wish you the best of luck!

Edit: Add: For example, one of the most popular fallacies is of course the ad hominem: "Stuart's arguments on climate change are irrelevant because he hates children and is mean to small animals." You can see how this works to undermine the speaker and appeal to the emotions of the reader, making them wonder if indeed such an awful person could really care for the environment.

William Lycan's Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction is very helpful and comprehensive as an overview.

As for really famous primary works in the field, you might want to check these out:


Truth and Meaning

Tarski's The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics

Quine's Two Dogma's of Empiricism

Davidson's Truth and Meaning

Pragmatics

Austin's How to Do Things with Words

Grice's Logic and Conversation


Reference

Donellen's Reference and Definite Descriptions

Kripke's Naming and Necessity

Wittgenstein

Primary Lit:

Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and Tractatus (obviously)

Secondary Lit (I'm only well versed on the secondary lit for the later Wittgenstein, so I'll give you that):

Marie McGinn's Routledge Guide

John McDowell's Wittgenstein on Following a Rule

Meredith Williams' Wittgenstein, Mind, and Meaning

----

Hope that helps!

EDIT: Added a lot

Two thoughts.

> I don't care who wins either, as long as the game takes place.

Are you James Carse? (His book is a must-read.)

> I could be content picking up litter along the highway too, but it would only be because I gave up on life altogether.

This whole subject reminds me of this talk by Mr. Money Moustache. (aka Peter Adeney.) The sooner you can get rich enough that you don't have to work, the more your work becomes meaningful.

The part at the end of the talk where you compares "work done for love" versus "scammy work" really struck a deep chord with me. The word he pulls out is "authenticity". This guy has it really figured out.

If your values connect to your work, you get meaning from it.

Well I learned from these (undergraduate level):

The Power of Logic by Howard-Snyder, Howard-Snyder and Wasserman

and

Methods of Logic by Willard Van Orman Quine

I highly recommend both but Methods is not a good place to start. Excellent once you can handle yourself though. Unfortunately The Power of Logic is somewhat expensive.

By the way, here's an excellent online resource that you may find helpful.

> Like I said before, it was a smartass response that you're reading too far into.

Like I said before, it was a very basic inference. You're looking way too much into what I was saying.

> Saying "a mix of both idiots and intellegent people who are idiotic" rather than "idiots" doesn't have the same ring to it.

You're reading your own use of the word into his statement. Maybe that is what he meant, but that's not what the logic of his statement said, which is why I was asking him about it.

Here are a couple texts that I think you would benefit from.

• Numbah 1
  
• Numbah 2
  
  The first one is really solid, but it's expensive. The second one isn't as robust, but it gets the job done, and it's significantly cheaper.
  
  > i'm out.
  
  Cheers :)

I do. The book was Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft. I found it valuable because it's a comprehensive treatment of informal logic as presented by Aristotle, suitable for use in an undergraduate classroom, with practice exercises for each chapter and answers in the back of the book. The idea that stands out in my mind most sharply from that book was a throwaway observation Kreeft made at one point -- that the ends do justify the means because means are useless if they have no end, but good ends do not justify evil means. I was still in the process of trying to formulate my basic stance on moral issues at the time, so that idea hit me with a force that was almost physical. (Not sure why that particular idea should stand out so much more than the others, but it does.)

I used to identify completely with the positions presented in that book, but I've found plenty to argue with in the intervening time -- particularly on the subject of the theory of mind. If you decide to read it, it's important to remember that Kreeft has organized that book as a presentation of Aristotle's works on logic, so some of its positions can be painfully simplistic in light of subsequent research. (The example I'm thinking of is an early chapter section on the properties of the mind, which takes a naïve position that the mind actually goes to the places it imagines and changes size to encompass the things it imagines. Embodiment and phenomenology offer much better solutions than that.) That said, I think it's still the most valuable book of informal logic on the market, even if it needs to be taken cum grano salis.

For an intro text, I always like to recommend The Logic Book.

And I think the best term you're looking for is "modern symbolic logic." Modal logic is part of modern symbolic logic (the part dealing with necessity and possibility), but best to get a handle on sentential and predicate logic first...

It is hard to find books that really square this topic, and I'm not sure of your exposure so I'm going to suggest some fun fiction works to start you off.
The Diamond Age is a good book to express some of the computer science concepts.

and

Cryptonomicon is good to understand how some of Turing's ideas were understood.

For actual philosophy ideas I recommend just ordering some heavier works that are harder to get through like

Quintessence

German Idealism

History of Western Philosophy

And (while I hesitate to mention it because I worry about the backlash on /r/philosophy) I think that Philosophy: Who Needs It is important to read if only to argue with people that believe in Ayn Rand's teachings.

I'll leave it at that for now. Most of what I've learned about this have been by reading Wikipedia and random usenet and irc posts. Books that are succinct and good are hard to come by.

I have a great book that discusses formal logic in general. It covers a lot of different types of formal logic, such as syllogistic, propositional, quantificational, and modal.. It not only explains the ideas simply, but also extremely well for beginners. It's called Introduction to Logic. I found it via torrent a couple months back.

The best thing about the book, at least from a philosophy perspective, is that it covers many of the important arguments used by philosophers throughout history and how their arguments are structured while simulataneously teaching you how to do the types of logic they're using in the arguments. It's pretty cool.

I'm just a beginner but Peter Kreeft's book on Socratic Logic is very good. I've learned a lot from this introductory book. He's very effective at communicating rather complex concepts with simple language. There are also a plethora of exercises in the book at the end of every section.

https://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-Questions-Aristotelian-Principles/dp/1587318083

A child's first words are adorable.
My son just told me no for the first time.
Are all first words adorable?


I'm sorry the class is ending, but that opens up room for new classes that may be equally awesome!

An item for you.

For a history of philosophy, I'll second the comments on Will Durant and Bertrand Russell's books. Also, Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind, is a little more modern style and covers more of the 20th century.

For introductions to logic, Kant is pretty advanced. I'd start with Anthony Weston's Rulebook for Arguments for a short but fairly comprehensive explanation of the basics. For more formal logical analysis, I like Howard Pospesel's cartoon-driven explanations and exercises: Predicate Logic and Propositional Logic.

I think Goldfarb is very thorough, although he can get somewhat dense. Then there's Tomassi, who's more conversational/informal (while still going over mostly the same stuff as Goldfarb). The second is probably more beginner friendly, but it's also quite a bit longer. If you know math, I imagine you would get through Goldfarb pretty well though.

I took an intro logic course this past fall St my community college and we used this textbook http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0205820379

My prof picked and chose chapters. I really really enjoyed the class and this book. I got an A in the class if that helps endorse it from a new philosopher's POV.

Get a basic background in logic and statistics and their respective fallacies. This will give you the knowledge and tools you need to think critically of 99% of what you find in news media and websites. A good introduction to logic is Harry Gensler's Introduction to Logic textbook. A good guide to statistical fallacies and how to spot them is [The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb] (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable-ebook/dp/B00139XTG4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421288487&sr=1-1&keywords=the+black+swan+taleb).

Here are a few links to different Intro to Logic texts that teach Syllogistic Logic. Gensler is the cheapest and has an easy method for testing validity, called the star test, but is less traditional. The others take a more traditional approach.

Gensler

Hurley

Copi

Also, you may want to try Carneades.org. He has video series on the subject:

Categorical Logic at Carneades.org

Hope this helps!

A brilliant buddy of mine loves this book: https://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-Questions-Aristotelian-Principles/dp/1587318083

I guess I get to look cool by posting the first logic book reference:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Reasoning-Introduction-Critical/dp/0393930785/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

I'm sure there are other good one's out there. I took logic in college, but didn't retain much. I think this book will give you a real solid foundation in the basics.

Also, I'd recommend deciding for yourself why logic works, as part of your epistemology:

http://intentionalworldview.com/Epistemology+(The+Theory+of+Knowledge)#How_is_knowledge_acquired_

Okay mate!

Thanks!

Enjoy continuing with your poor logic, comprehension and reasoning.

I highly recommend the following for you bro

https://wabisabistore.com/collections/books-and-guides/products/critical-thinking-teacher-companion

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Arguments-Introduction-Informal-Logic/dp/0495603953

Dude... Aristotle's ideas about categorical syllogisms are way out of date. You should be saying "It's the same with people who talk about logic but have never read a contemporary textbook like Copi's Introduction to Logic". If the people who talk about logic don't even know about Copi's Rules of Inference THEN we should jump on their backs. Aristotle was smashed by George Boole lol

As others have noted, there really is no essential reading list. What you'll have read by the time you finish your Ph.D. will depend on your coursework, transition requirement (comps, paper), and your dissertation. This will obviously vary widely from individual to individual. It will also vary from program to program. Essential metaphysics reading might include David Lewis in one program, but another program may completely ignore Lewis and have you read Heidegger instead.

I noticed that you said that you're interested in metaphysics and logic. If you're preparing for a Ph.D. and you're doing typical analytic metaphysics, then I recommend you check the following out.

Logic for Philosophy by Ted Sider

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology edited by Herman Cappelen, Tamar Gendler, and John Hawthorne.

The second book is really expensive, so if you don't have access to a good university library, then at least work through the one chapter called "Method in Analytic Metaphysics" by Daniel Nolan. You can find the chapter here

Here are the links!

1. https://www.amazon.com/Cengage-Advantage-Books-Understanding-Introduction/dp/1285197364/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497492050&sr=8-1&keywords=Understanding+Logic
   
   
2. https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-J-Gensler/dp/1138910597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497492131&sr=8-1&keywords=introduction+to+logic
   
   
3. https://www.amazon.com/Rulebook-Arguments-Hackett-Student-Handbooks/dp/0872209547/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497492196&sr=8-1&keywords=rule+for+arguments
   
   Hope it helps!

This may not be exactly what you're asking for and its merits as a serious philosophical text are questionable but it's a really wonderful little book:

http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0393930785/?coliid=IIEFUXHFJV2A7&colid=NGKL0HXDREXC&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

Hope you're rich, it's expensive

That depends on why you're studying Logic.

Do you plan to use Logic as a tool for doing Philosophy? If so, I recommend studying Logic for Philosophy by Theodore Sider. You will get a more rigorous, formal treatment of propositional and predicate logic than what your introductory textbook likely contained. You will be exposed to basic proof theory and model theory. You will also learn, in depth, about several useful extensions to predicate logic, including various modal logics.

Do you want to become a logician, in some capacity? If so, the classic text would be Computability and Logic by Boolos and Jeffrey. This is an extremely rigorous and intensive introduction to metalogical proof. If you want to learn to reason about logics, and gain a basis upon which to go on to study the foundations of mathematics, proof theory, model theory, or computability, then this is probably for you.

Also, perhaps you could tell us what textbook you've just finished? That would give us a better idea of what you've already learned.

I recommend this to all beginners -- I like the Barwise & Etchemendy book because it's aimed at people with no background at all in logic or upper-level math, it's restricted to propositional and first-order logic (which I think logicians of all stripes should know), and it comes with proof-checker software so that you can check your own understanding instead of needing to find someone to give you feedback.

After that, you'll have some familiarity with the topic and can decide where you want to go. For a more mathematical route, I think Enderton (mentioned previously) or Boolos are good follow-ups. For a more philosophical route, I think Sider or Priest are good next steps.

I'm using this book for a second logic course in an undergrad philosophy program, and even though it's in its 5th edition, it's full of typos—in the text, in the exercises, and in the answers (downloadable from the publisher's web site). I'm compiling a list to submit at the end of the semester. The quality control is just terrible.

Also, I take to logic easily, so I learn the material despite the book. But I'm helping some of my friends study, and its teaching method is doing them no favors.

The textbook we used for the first course, Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic, was much better, but it won't cover the advanced material OP is interested in.

I really really like Gensler's book. The proof system he uses is extremely intuitive and easy.

I doubt feeling guys read these but whatever, nowhere do any of these guys say libertarian. It's all in the process my friend.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Traditional-Logic-Classical-Contemporary/dp/1419616714
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1587318083/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_2/188-1086745-9869315?ie=UTF8&refRID=MPZFCGDQ73B3E0CACX46
https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-as-Science-Large-Print/dp/1478335475

Check out Harry Gensler's Introduction to Logic. He is a really good writer - and everything is very clear.

/r/atheism, this thread is sophomoric. If any of you are interested in formal logic, here's my favorite introductory text. I bet you can pirate it.

Both Quine and Tarski have great introductory texts.

Introduction to Logic is actually highly recommended. Or you can find a free introduction, called ForallX.

I know this is insanely expensive (you can probably find a free copy somewhere on the internet--shh) I used this textbook for symbolic logic and advanced mathematical logic.

https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Book-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0078038413

This is how I learned logic, for computer science.

First chapter of this Discrete mathematics book in my discrete math class

https://www.amazon.ca/Discrete-Mathematics-Applications-Susanna-Epp/dp/0495391328


Then, using The Logic Book for a formal philosophy logic 1 course.
https://www.amazon.ca/Logic-Book-Merrie-Bergmann/product-reviews/0078038413/ref=dpx_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1


The second book was horrid on itself, luckily my professor's academic lineage goes back to Tarski. He's an amazing Professor and knows how to teach...that was a god send. Ironically, he dropped the text and I see that someone has posted his openbook project.

The first book (first chapter), is too applied I imagine for your needs. It would also only be economically feasible if well, you disregarded copyright law and got a "free" PDF of it.

Another great book is Sider's Logic for Philosophy. This book, however, won't help you learn how to use logic as much. But it'll give you a deep sense of how it all works.

I'd honestly recommend reading both. It'd start with Gensler (jump in at propositional logic, go at least as far as quantified modal), then read Sider in full.

> is on the losing side of an argument

Nice argument lol.

2 times u have given false claims to support an argument and yet people have linked you facts Peru and Chile servers don't work for ranked. Ohh.... here is another one: https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/5equ4v/petition_to_make_valve_change_us_east_to_peru/dafgsdg/?context=3

Pick up a good book. I recommend https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Arguments-Introduction-Informal-Logic/dp/0495603953/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1480132593&sr=8-2&keywords=understanding+arguments. Maybe you can learn something.

Great to hear! Some good texts to consider, which will take you through the end of the main syllabus in an introduction to first-order logic are Chiswell and Hodges and Smith. If you ever get the chance to look back through this material I'd recommend taking a look at Goldfarb, but I don't think that's a great place to start in your situation.

Great, go post it there and have others laugh at you for not being able to differentiate between shock tactics and academic arguments by analogy.

You need this book: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Arguments-Introduction-Informal-Logic/dp/0495603953

Read it. Learn something.

> I told you I believe in an objective morality.

So you say.

> In your mind does the First Amendment consist of special
> exceptions provided for a group of offensive talkers?
> Protections for gun owners apply to everyone, the fact that you
> don't own a gun doesn't make you not protected for the same
> reason that you not saying things that are offensive doesn't mean
> that the first amendment doesn't apply to you.

See this is the problem, you think we are talking about the constitution.

This is about a bill that will hopefully prevent the extinction of elephants. But only if people can keep their eye on the ball. Only if every little special interest group doesn't get to put in their little ammendment to make it "better".

> Prove right now objectively that the golden rule is true.

Here's an introductory text book on logic which contains a proof of the golden rule. I'm sure this is better than anything I could come up with:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-J-Gensler/dp/0415996511

> I can easily prove that it is faulty and subjective. I like to be cut, therefore I can cut other people.

How smart you are. Its difficult to believe that so many people over so many years of human history couldn't come up with your simple yet irrefutable proof.

> Name some regulations that have been removed due to being ineffective.

The prohibition act of 1919 comes to mind.

>> Surely the people that have written this bill have spent more time thinking about what might work than the NRA minions of reddit

> Why would you assume this? Because you agree with it?

No, because it makes more sense that bill takes longer to write than it does to write a reddit response. Although this thread may yet prove me wrong.

Telling someone they misunderstood you isn't an ad hominem attack.

Neither is making a polite recommendation.
https://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/1285196546/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=VHMJ1YAND37MCWY17062

It's actually a pretty breezy read for the subject matter. Graeme Forbes has another text out there somewhere but as bright as the man was I thought he taught in a way that worked only for the students that already "got it"

Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" and Sellars's "Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind" might be decent places to start familiarizing yourself with analytic philosophy after the demise (in effect) of logical positivism.

Quine's Methods of Logic and Mathematical Logic (in that order) have been my favorites, and I've heard good things about Tarski's Introducion to Logic: and the the Methodology of Deductive Sciences but have yet to get around to it.

hmnnn. i love fantasy as a genre. and self help.
one of my favorite books is Finite and Infinite Games.
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713

I try not to watch anything violent or scary these days. I'm actually just getting back into gaming, and I'm always searching for a new non-violent playstation game to indulge in.

Really? Nolt's Logics? Besides the numerous errors, it's telling that the book has not come out in a second edition.

I think Quine's Methods of Logic remains a fantastic text, if it is a bit dated and filled with Quinean quirks. A more recent text, Ted Siders' Logic for Philosophy is also very good, although the exercises are sometimes quite difficult. I would combine Sider's text with a book on metalogic, since he skips over some of that. Kleene's Mathematical Logic is a classic text by a real giant in the history of 20th century logic. Those should keep someone busy for a good year of study. If you want to branch out, Graham Priest's Introduction to Non-classical Logics will get you started in modal, tense, epistemic, paraconsistent and dialethic logics, also by a contemporary giant in the field.

After that, I would go on to set theory, and stop when I had a grasp of forcing.

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Formal-Logic-Primer-Sentence/dp/0139031707

or

http://www.amazon.com/Deductive-Logic-Warren-Goldfarb/dp/0872206602

both use variations of natural deduction for proof systems. I'd check these out.

This book is quite well known and renowned: https://www.amazon.com/Art-Reasoning-Introduction-Critical-Thinking/dp/0393930785

In the logic classes I took (my professor always said he hated the textbooks), we used this book and this book. They weren't perfect, but they were a good start.

> Your idea of injustice is just what everyone else calls LIFE.

how cute

>Taxes pay for military bases and hardware. By your rationale, I should either be able to take the nearest nuclear sub out for a ride or I should get money for not being able to do that.

not for riding but you ought to be able to opt out of something like a nuclear weapon program. this is called direct democracy and it has been proven to work.

>The reason you shouldn't continue is not because I'm picking words. You shouldn't continue because you have a horseshit argument that you clearly cannot back up

i have backed up all my arguments.

you on the other hand is not making much sense

I suggest you read this book

>http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-J-Gensler/dp/0415996511/

[This is actually a great book] (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Propositional-Revised-3rd/dp/0130258490) and comes with software that you can use to test your new skills.

I would read up on it and use your new logic sword to slay those who try and argue with you while out on the town courting ladies at the bar. In your next politically charged conversation, whip out some logic and prove the tenants of your opponents arguements false, sit back and watch the ladies swoon.

https://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/1285196546/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504277214&sr=1-2&keywords=logic

As for your constant seeking of validation, i'll let life solve that for ya

Ok, so you just chose not to count all those previous CPUs, and built your argument on top of that.

You need one of these.

No. The argument is not a form of modus tollens. Also, we're not doing formal logic here, we're doing informal logic. There is a huge difference.

Alternatively, if you would like me to phrase my concerns in a deductive logical procedure unnatural to our everyday use of language and argumentation, by all means, ask.

That doesn't follow.

This introductory is used in many college courses: Deductive Logic

Here

I took that as a class, Not the textbook I used but looks similar on the inside.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0205820379

This is a classic logic text I used as an undergrad:

https://www.amazon.com/Methods-Logic-Willard-Orman-Quine/dp/0674571762/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2/144-3692070-4202828?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0674571762&pd_rd_r=d2bce5e1-7920-11e9-bee9-f381f43bc426&pd_rd_w=wECMX&pd_rd_wg=tpHvf&pf_rd_p=a2006322-0bc0-4db9-a08e-d168c18ce6f0&pf_rd_r=MAZ7WGR0JV0HZMV097EC&psc=1&refRID=MAZ7WGR0JV0HZMV097EC

read finite and infinite games

Not necessarily boolean logic.

Here are the books they use for the two classes I mentioned

The first one is logic for philosophy http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0205820379/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1463700116&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=copi+logic&dpPl=1&dpID=41gXn3dBTPL&ref=plSrch


The other one is specifically for programming logic and design

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1285776712/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1463700168&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=programming+logic+and+design&dpPl=1&dpID=51K7i7XT1cL&ref=plSrch

Here is the mobile version of your link

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0205820379

Know this back and forth, for starters. If there is any passage of this book that gives you any pause of understanding whatsoever, then you're not even ready to start thinking about maybe eventually contributing something to logic.

It doesn't and I didn't. I would recommend you to read this.

> I want the government and our national security teams to be worried about ISIS.

What makes you believe they aren't taking the domestic threat seriously?

> Your continuing to pretend that maybe this shooter wasn't inspired by Islam and ISIS is hilarious.

Even when I've said repeatedly it's a distinct possibility? There's a dozen different narratives out there, from pundits to self-interested politicians to family members. I have no proof personally so it's too early for me to say.

You mock people for not jumping to conclusions even though not all the facts are available. It's just not a rational way of thinking. I suspect if facts come in that do contradict your preferred take on the world you'll dismiss them. Perhaps I can suggest [a book to help you] (https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Developing-Effective/dp/0230285295).

Best of luck on the road back to rationality.

> their group doesn't need soldiers at all, they have plenty

then
> they don't have enough soldiers to fight the Saviours

ended with
> literally don't need soldiers for anything

Might I suggest https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0205820379 ?

It depends what you're trying to get out of it.

There are literally hundreds of introductory texts for first-order logic. Other posters can cover them. There's so much variety here that I would feel a bit silly recommending one.

For formal tools for philosophy, I would say David Papineau's Philosophical Devices. There's also Ted Sider's Logic for Philosophy but something about his style when it comes to formalism rubs me the wrong way, personally.

For a more mathematical approach to first-order logic, Peter Hinman's Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic springs to mind.

For a semi-mathematical text that is intermediate rather than introductory, Boolos, Burgess, and Jeffrey's Computability and Logic is the gold standard.

Finally, if you want to see some different ways of doing things, check out Graham Priest's An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic.

Your question is flawed. There is no end. A good perspective on this can be found in a great tiny book, "Finite and Infinite Games".

A finite game exists to achieve some sort of end. Getting DJT elected was a finite game, and next election, we'll play a repeated version of that same game. An infinite game exists for the purpose that we keep playing the game. MAGA! is an infinite game--we MAGA! so that we can continue to MAGA!

An infinite game can contain other infinite games and finite games. By its nature a finite game cannot contain an infinite game.

The SJW "movement" is an infinite game of increasingly stratified and divided population groups claiming victimhood status and unearned social superiority from other groups. The SJW infinite game will employ numerous finite games such as "every pet a 'service animal'", "Never question my pronouns", you get the picture. Those are battles launched in order to continue a war on human unity that's sole purpose is to continue and deepen the wounds of that war.

You're a fucking idiot for taking the discussion into an irrelevant tangent (theft), putting words in my mouth, and using a strawman tactic (ie, you need to learn to argue your point effectively).

So let's cut out all the bullshit you added to convolute the original point. Quote to me where I said I was okay with theft? The debate was over whether $200 would be missed by most businesses, yeah? You brought up theft, and also doing anything not approved by company management. Your original question was, and I quote:

>I'm curious what brewery you work at where the company is okay with just blowing 200 or so dollars worth of profit so that you all can embarrass a newbie and get free beer. One of the big ones?

Let's see that again:
>I'm curious what brewery you work at where the company is okay with just blowing 200 or so dollars

You establish here that we are assuming that the company approves of this practice in order to embarrass new people.

My response:
>For most businesses, even small ones, $200 is nothing. Chump change.

A direct response indicating why a company might be okay with this practice. And my later point that a company is not going to worry about $200 going missing is not the same as the company being okay with $200 going missing.

Back to your overestimation of a business's concern over a few hundred dollars turning up missing. At some point you are talking about investing more resources into finding the resources that went missing than the original worth of the resources in question - when this is a small amount of money, you are talking literally hours worth of someone's salary before this happens, unless it is a dedicated position such as an LP meant for reducing loss over a long period of time. Unaccounted for loss is a part of doing business, and much of this unaccounted for loss is either stolen or due to erroneous accounting - the difference between the two is irrelevant when it comes to the overall effect on the business. Unless, as I said earlier, the loss becomes a pattern. This is obviously a problem situation that should be dealt with no matter what it is causing it.

Recommended reading for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Developing-Effective/dp/0230285295

>Your rule says that the exception shouldn't happen, period. If it does, then the rule needs heavy revision.
Ron Paul hired Amway spokesperson and author Doug Wead to serve as senior campaign adviser for $8,000 a month. Wead continues to run similar schemes to this very day with other members of Ron Paul's family, and Rand Paul himself recently hired Doug Wead as senior adviser as well.

No it doesn't. I don't subscribe to a philosophy that advocates for a utopian society. You throw up straw men like nothing I've ever seen before. Also, why are you so obsessed with Amway?

>Irrelevant. People are also voluntary voting for Donald Trump, in far higher number than they are for Rand.

Not irrelevant. You said that people can become billionaires by selling a product that 99% of people think is bullshit. Which is still completely false and you've yet to back up that claim. Also, Donald Trump has nothing to do with this argument. Please focus on defending the claim that a billionaire can make a product that 99% of people think are bullshit and still be a billionaire.

>Bernie Madoff.

He's serving 150 years in a federal prison. Let's keep it to billionaires that played within the law because in a free market economy he would still be rotting in prison.

>Estimated minimum wage effects on employment from a meta-study of 64 studies showed insignificant employment effect (both practically and statistically) from the minimum-wage raises supporting the Keynesian model. The most precise estimates were heavily clustered at or near zero employment effects (elasticity = 0).
47% of respected economics professors agree with the following statement, vs. only 14% who disagree: "The distortionary costs of raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour and indexing it to inflation are sufficiently small compared with the benefits to low-skilled workers who can find employment that this would be a desirable policy."
Mind you, 14% is the number of professors who claim that the costs outweigh the benefits. The number of professors who claim zero benefits in the first place is going to be far less than that.
And before you claim bias: This economic survey was conducted by the Chicago school, which is the most libertarian branch of economics out of the ones that use actual math.

I said the minimum wage causes unemployment, which you "disproved" in your first wikipedia article (with studies that showed absolutely no details regarding how the study was done) then you sent me the second article that has the majority of economists saying the exact opposite of what you first posted. The one's who disagree seem to be focusing on the word "noticeably" because a 9$ increase in minimum wage (as opposed to $7.25, now) would cause subtle increases in unemployment.

Regarding the "benefits of raising minimum wage" article. I never made a claim that it provided no benefits and I never made a claim about a $9 an hour minimum wage. All throughout history there have been slight increases in the minimum wage with fairly unnoticeable distortionary effects, but there are distortionary effects none the less including an increase in unemployment which you proved in your second article.

Again, more straw men.

>My argument is that you can be a billionaire even if 99% of the population thinks your product is bull shit. I've presented examples of this happening.

No you've said "amway" over, and over, and over again. Evil, Capitalist Amway provides over 21,000 people with decent enough paying jobs and sells nutritional supplements and different types of personal health care products. They don't "steal" money. Bernie Madoff is sitting in prison right now. Keep trying.

>I'm citing actual data and empirical examples. Meanwhile, you're claiming something that less than 14% of economics professors believe as a universal truth in economics circles, and you want to accuse me of living in an echo chamber.

I made no such claim. I made a claim that the minimum wage increases unemployment, which as you proved with your second article that it does.

Please stay on topic.

Also, read this when you get the chance and maybe we can keep this discussion from drifting off into 90 different directions with straw men whenever you can't prove a point you made.

> A FINITE GAME is defined as KNOWN PLAYERS, FIXED RULES, and AN AGREED UPON OBJECTIVE TO WIN; like a football/soccer match.

The rules are fixed, the objective is fixed, and the players are known. You could argue the last point and say the players aren't known in pubs due to smurfing, multiple accounts, and shit like that - but for the sake of argument consider competitive leagues where the players are absolutely known.

The rules frequently change (patches) but during each point the rules are static. Other games update and change rules in sports and e-sports. The objective has never once changed in the history of the game (which is true of almost all games) in Dota it is to destroy the enemy ancient while yours is still alive.

I googled your term to see what in the fuck you're on about with infinite games because I've never heard of that concept in relation to game theory and came up with only one possible source for the term and idea: Finite and Infinite Games by James P Carse. https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713

James' book goes on to list examples and elaborate on what in the fuck an infinite game is. In his own words an infinite game is something without an end - something without a clear objective and that other players can join with ever changing rules. This is a kind of metaphor for life and human relationships. He uses motherhood as an example.

You trying to call Dota an infinite game under this definition is cute, but a complete troll. You argue there are always more Dota games, but that is true of any active sport or game. That logic would imply every single game is infinite which is wrong by the authors own definitions. Claiming that because Dota's rules change it is infinite is equally misrepresented and wrong because they never ever change mid game. Nearly all sports and games have rule changes over time which means that using your own logic any game that has had one rule change is infinite which is wrong again.

If you're not trolling you might have some substance abuse problems (legally obtained or otherwise) or some mental health complications (diagnosed or not). I don't mean that to be an insult either - just an observation that could be helpful but almost certainly won't due to the nature of... lots of things.

Here let me show you how a conversation works.

Person 1: This is that way

Person 2: No, this appears to be that way, but you're very statement contradicted what you said in the first place:

Person 1: Okay I'll show you why it's not a contradiction (OR) hmm maybe I was wrong.

You stated that Iran is an Islamic state that implements Sharia.

You said "Iran has executed women for attacking their rapist why can't you admit that Islam if not encourages but influences these actions"

I said: This can't be true, because the woman would not be able to attack her rapist if the Sharia was implemented, because the rapist would already be dead!

At this point you either: admit that Iran isn't practicing the Sharia properly, or you point to evidence that the rapist was put to death and thus never assaulted.

You're just jumping from topic to topic. How do you expect a conversation to ever end then?

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-J-Gensler/dp/0415996511