Greg Restall's Logic provides concise introductions to propositional and first-order predicate logic while showing how formal logic intersects with substantial philosophical issues such as vagueness, conditionals, relevance, propositional attitudes, and opaque contents. The author also examines the ideas behind modal logic, free logic, and other non-standard logics and discusses the nature of logic itself. The book covers both natural deduction and tree methods for proving validity. Each chapter includes excellent suggestions for further reading and both elementary and more advanced exercises, with solutions provided on a website. It is flexibly designed to be useable for half or full-year courses, for courses focusing exclusively on formal logic, or for a variety of approaches that would integrate topics in philosophical logic. Restall examines many of the interesting issues raised by basic logical techniques and will undoubtedly stimulate further study in the discipline. This is a logic book designed principally for philosophers but which will also be of interest to students of computer science, cognitive science, and linguistics.
Deferring this for the time being. I love logic, and I need more time to wrap my head around the concepts of deductive logic.
The book explains these concepts in very simple terms, and very good for a novice like me, who love puzzles. So I am giving it a four-star rating anyway.
However, can anyone who has a strong grounding in logic tell me where I am going wrong with the following argument? The premises seem to be correct, but there seems to be something wrong with the conclusion.
Premise 1: In the USA, those who want to ban abortion call themselves "Pro-life".
Premise 2: In the USA, those who are "Pro-life" want to bring back capital punishment everywhere.
Conclusion: In the USA, "Pro-life" people want capital punishment.
Short textbooks of this length (~200 pages) are almost always good. This book was a perfect example. Enjoyable from start to finish. The chapter on the meaning of 'if' was my favorite.
read this for my logic class I’ve never read a book with more mistakes. Even the website that had the book’s corrections had mistakes. Very stressful experience for a girl like me
A good introduction and not a lot more. This book is just really for those who are trying to start with logic and have no previous knowledge of it. there are also videos that Restall has uploaded and are open to public access that can be of great help to the reader. it's not as wordy as Paul Tomassi's book nor is it that much detailed but I think it would be a good place to start maybe before moving to Tomassi's book.
A really interesting book, I can see how an understanding of formal logic can be an asset in verbal or written discourse. However, the latter half of the section on Propositional Logic becomes uncear when it begins to discuss 'truth trees', I'm still a little unclear as to how they work after reading the chapters regarding them.
This is surely among the most concise, yet discursive, introductory book on logic. And I'd like to have read it before some of the other logic books I read when I first became interested in the subject.