Logic: A Complete Introduction: A step-by-step Teach Yourself guide to use at home, school or college

by Siu-Fan Lee

Understand Logic is a comprehensive introduction to this fascinating though sometimes challenging subject.

As well as looking at logic in theoretical terms the book considers its everyday uses and demonstrates how it has genuine practical applications.

It will take you step by step through the most difficult concepts and is packed with exercises to help you consolidate your learning at every stage.

Covering everything from syllogistic logic to logical paradoxes and even looking at logic in Alice in Wonderland, this is the only guide you will ever need.

Genres: Philosophy, Logic, Nonfiction, Science, Mathematics, Psychology, Reference

464 pages, Kindle Edition

Published January 12, 2017

Reviews

[Josh Siefert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is great for an initial formal introduction into the vast subject of logic. After reading, you will be capable of seamlessly constructing/deconstructing arguments, recognizing/understanding many logical fallacies, and utilizing many helpful mental models. The authors instruction allows for a deep understanding of logic without being overly pedantic. The exercises included in this book are excellent, they allow you to apply everything you learn to a plethora of contexts.

[path · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is pretty much what is written on the label. It is an introduction to the basics of logical argumentation, including categorical logic, propositional logic, and predicate logic. Each of those major sections provides some helpful elementary insights to understand how arguments are put together, why they are true or false, and why they sometimes appear to be true but aren’t. There are plenty of accessible examples. And yet I am left with a question that I can’t imagine was the author’s intended takeaway. What is the value of a complicated and unintuitive method of truth calculus? I am convinced that what we take to be logical and sound arguments CAN be modeled in logic but what is gained by doing so?

One response is that modeling propositions in logic allows us to achieve a degree of certainty about our claims. Yes, but only in so far as logic can be used to yield valid formulations of those truths. Is logic really the bedrock upon which all truth claims are built? Scientific truth, yes, and perhaps all truth if the Procrustean, normative discourse of science is really the only game in town. But even in science, what kind of truth do we need? An air-tight, totalizing Truth that seems possible to model in logic? Or is the truth what we typically operate from that which is sufficient and justifiable but operationally local and incomplete?

Another response is that modeling propositions in logic helps us become better thinkers. But is that really true either? This kind of instrumental value for logic only seems to hold if it is possible for me to internalize logic and make it a habit of mind in the way that counting on my fingers has been internalized as a meditational device for counting. Beyond the simple formulations of categorical logic and simple form of propositional and predicate logic, I just can’t believe the suggestion that anyone really internalizes these forms and can process truth tables or other proofs in the course of an argument.

A counter argument to what I am saying is that logic describes what we already understand intuitively about arguments. Within limits this is true. If someone were to argue (1) All X produces Y and (2) Y is present; therefore “X produced Y” I hardly need logical notation to discover the overstep. Intuition is probably reliable for most people up to even moderately complex arguments. But as soon as I need to get out a sheet of paper and a pencil to process an argument, I’m not longer in the argument.

Maybe another counter argument is that an analogous criticism is that there is no real reason to learn basic arithmetic because simple functions like 2+2 and 4-1 are intuitive — why learn notation that systematizes such observations? These simple formulations are intuitive because they are within the realm of the experiential. 10/2 and 3*3 are a little less intuitive but still also within the realm of experience. But our use for numbers quickly goes beyond the experiential. We regularly have need for processing absurdly large numbers that nobody can legitimately claim to have direct experience with. So, learning the basics of arithmetic notation and syntax is valuable because it scales up to the large and the absurd. But is the same true for argument and propositions? Is there an equivalent argument that exceeds the grasp of the experiential and requires an adjunct like logical calculus to yield a determination of “true” or “false” for which we have a distinct useful need? What kinds of arguments exist at this level? Perhaps arguments about an entire field or body of knowledge for which someone patient enough could sketch out the coherent logical structure of the arguments comprising that field — if that’s even what they would find.

I’m inclined to believe that the value of logic, as a formal endeavor, stops almost at the conceptual level. It is valuable to know that arguments are made up of propositions that derive from premises that themselves derive from what is accepted or established by prior arguments. It is helpful to distinguish between the referent of a word and its sense. It is also valuable to recognize how arguments can be made deductively and inductively. And it is valuable to keep in mind that arguments can be assessed in terms of their consistency, soundness, and persuasiveness. That feels like enough and difficult enough to put into practice.

It may be that this criticism is unfair and misguided and guilty of the logical pitfalls that the book warns against. The book is just an introduction after all and introduce is what it did. I am just not sure about where this road leads.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a great introduction to classical logic. Dr. Siu-Fan Lee introduces 3 kinds of classical logic: Categorical, Propositional and Predicate Logic. She does a great job at explaining concepts in a way that is easy to understand (and it also becomes clearer as you read through the book how each system builds upon the previous one).

I only had problems in section 5.7 where natural deduction is first introduced, which I felt could've been explained a little bit better as I had to consult outside sources to understand that section better. Other than that, everything was very clear, and the examples and exercises were incredibly helpful.

[Jonathan Ammon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well laid out and accessible, though I can't compare it to other logic textbooks as this is the only one I have read. You really can teach yourself logic with this book, but it requires diligence and doing and redoing the exercises. I did not have enough time to do that with the whole book, which means I got lost in predicate logic. I will be retreading this and finding the time to work through it again.

[Nathan Ormond · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough introductory overview.

[Rasheed Lewis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not every part of Michael Jackson's face is original.

Yeah, that's pretty much the best quote I could find for this one.

It took me a little while to get through this one, as I'd mostly only read and do the problems on flights. I took a discrete math course in college against my will, but I don't remember going over categorical logic that one. This gives you a look at propositional, categorical, and predicate logic, as well as a chapter on logical fallacies.

In a slippery slope argument, a small concession is presented as having potentially catastrophic consequences. (p. 92)

Hmm... I've always been curious about that one.

I found a good number of typos, but that's understandable since a lot of the book is conveying information through symbols and not actual words. The editor probably just gave up trying to solve the problems themselves to make sure Siu-Fan is proofread well.

Not sure if I gained much out of it. I don't think I'll be translating Goodreads debates into characters I'd need to look up on a Unicode table to find. But I also never thought I'd buy an introductory logic workbook, and here we are.

[Sai]

Read and did all the exercises leading up to Chapter 4: Categorical Logic. I thought the author was able to explain the concepts very well, and I liked that the examples sometimes included references to pop culture.

[Oleg Dats · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title of the book truly represents its content. I would suggest only adding 'Basic' at the beginning )

This book explains in simple words: critical thinking and basic blocks of logic.

Highly recommend it as an entry point to the field.

[Amydee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bought to supplement and review for a class. Very well organized and easy to follow, with concise language and clear examples. No complaints.

[Domhnall · Rating 5 out of 5]

An extremely helpful and clear introduction to logic, with exercises to ensure that you are paying attention at the back. For a lot of people this may in practice be sufficient. It's certainly more than a lot of well known writers and influencers seem to have attempted.

[Tsinoy Foodies · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this book up because I encountered linguistic issues in drafting taxation regulations. Wondered why there’s so much ambiguity and incongruence with them.

Glad this book was exactly what I was looking for.
I ended up learning more

I can't believe logic wasn't included in my accounting undergraduate course and also in law school. Realized how much lawyers tend to use idiosyncrasy in their pleadings, how politicians utilize emotive words, how much the media uses slippery slope arguments, straw man argument and red herring.

Also realized that in issuing legal advisories, my superiors seem to adopted appeal to commonly practices as best practices just because it is commonly practiced by international counterparts without actually basing it on proven outcomes.

Overall, as my first encounter with logic and I found this book to be very easy to follow because of the examples and the concise chapter summaries are very helpful.
But, I skipped the half of it because its irrelevant to my life.

[Sam van der Leek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dit boek biedt een uitgebreide introductie op een van de belangrijkste takken van de filosofie, namelijk de logica. Drie systemen van logica worden in het boek diepgaand behandeld. Ook biedt de auteur opdrachten om de logica zelf toe te leren passen. In ons dagelijks spraakgebruik zeggen we snel dingen als: 'Dat is toch logisch', de vraag is echter of het concept logica hier goed wordt gebruikt. Dat maakt dat het waardevol is om deze sub-branche verder te ontdekken.


Hieronder een korte bespreking van de drie systemen:
In de predicatieve logica staat zoals de naam ook aanduidt het predicaat centraal. Vanuit het universele of het specifieke (existentie factor) worden redeneringen gemaakt aan de hand van formules met de verschillende predicaten en variabelen. De predicatieve logica poogt het beste van de categorische en van de propositionele logica samen te brengen. Categorische logica kan heel goed de interne logica, binnen zinsstructuren, aantonen en haar geldigheid bepalen. Propositionele logica kan juist heel goed de geldigheid aantonen tussen verschillende zinnen. Predicatieve logica brengt deze eigenschappen samen en kan dus via formules geldigheid bepalen binnen en tussen zinnen.

Ik vond het echter slodderig dat er best veel spel- of typfouten in het boek zaten. Maar ja, al met al is het een handzaam boek ter introductie van de logica.

[Griffith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Siu-Fan Lee, did a fantastic job in introducing the reader to the vast field of logic. She starts off with basic yet important concepts in Logic, then moves on to what would become the bulk of the book, namely, the three logical systems in classical logic used to evaluate arguments. They are (in order): Categorical, Propositional and Predicate logic. She meaningfully ordered them, starting from the least powerful method (in terms of its limited and specific application and scope) to the most powerful.

I will read and reread this book in order to master the material inside. The benefits awaiting anyone willing to spend time assimilating the resources in this book I believe to be great and applicable to all fields and spheres. Consider that logic is that which is ubiquitous.

Personal confession: the last chapter was the hardest to get through because of how difficult the material was (it is a synthesis of the two other systems with some novelty). Whereas, the other two systems were fairly simple and also interesting. To my horror the other two systems are somewhat obsolete today, and predicate logic not only the most used but also the only one that can capture complicated relations.

My favorite fact from the book: All inductive arguments are in fact invalid. Just wow!!!

[Rob Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great introduction to logic, I really enjoyed it.
It gets more difficult as the book goes and I had to read it with focus to be able to absorb certain areas.
This will be one of those books that is useful as a reference once its been read.

Its strange how much carry over reading logic has to the everyday, you really do start to spot errors in propositional reasoning in everyday language when you visit this topic regularly.

[Alexander Serban · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good concise introduction to logic. The Nook format suffered from some readability issues, mostly around connecting the sample problems and their solutions + explanations. This is one I will re-read every once in a while.

[Yvan Moses Levy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good for beginners

The text is easy to read. Everyone can read and understand it.
The kindle edition is perfect.
Explanations are precisely written.
The text is still a little too long. But this is to explain everything.
A very good book.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book, talks about three kinds of logic: categorical, propositional, predicate logic.

[Marty LaFleur · Rating 4 out of 5]

An introduction to the study of logic, including categorical, propositional, and predicate logic systems.

[Maria Tileva · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would use this book as an encyclopedia and reread it often.

[Jakob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book on Logic. However, some notation errors make it a little more confusing than need be.

[Allan N]

dry

[Hugh Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

rocks for the LSAT