Intro to Logic, in college, using Copi or Hurley or one of those texts, which department does it fall in? I figure a majority of the time it is in Philosophy, a minority in Math, right? Are they the same intro courses?

Some schools offer a strictly math logic course, but that would use a completely different text/curriculum/syllabus, right?

Is there the equivalent in philosophy, a course or courses in logic that have no math at all? What would they be like?

March 22, 2009 pm31 8:10 pm 8:10 pm

An Intro to Logic class such as you describe would probably often be cross-listed under both philosophy and math, but if it was just in one department, it would probably be Philosophy.

Looking at the tables of contents of those books, yes, a strictly math logic course would use very different texts and syllabi (for example, Enderton’s “Mathematical Introduction to Logic”); the books you mentioned seem to have a lot of applications to philosophy, law, etc., whereas you can go very deep into formal mathematical logic for its own sake, and you can also come at it from the point of view of computer science, where there are tons of fruitful connections.

I have no idea what a course in logic with no math at all would be like, sounds like an oxymoron to me. =)

2. March 23, 2009 pm31 4:07 pm 4:07 pm

i haven’t looked into the matter so i’ll guess anyway:
usually there is at least *some* p-and-q style
*symbolic* logic along with the “names of argument forms”
(and of “fallacies”) and so forth… but probably they’ll hold back,
say, looking into the roles of, say, quantifiers at the symbolic level
(until, to continue my wild fantasy, graduate level…
anyway one *does* encounter work by philosophers
seeming to have understood ’em perfectly well…).

now that i say it, *math* departments do a pretty lousy job
of introducing quantifiers… if only a few weeks of logic
could be *required*–and *as early as possible*
(freshman year typically in other words)…

one *could* set up a course without the p’s and q’s.
anybody with the slightest mathematical tendencies
should take notes in the usual code.

logic is also of course a perfect topic for the “math for poets” classes.

3. March 23, 2009 pm31 4:12 pm 4:12 pm

my copy of copi was my sister’s (he PS’ed);
she took it in a philosophy department
in the mid-70’s. they got well into the quantifiers.

can’t name a logic-sans-math book. yet.

4. March 23, 2009 pm31 4:39 pm 4:39 pm

a quick scan of logic by p. tomassi
shows it to be very much the kind of thing i had vaguely in mind:
p and q are used quick enough as *names of propositions*.
one even has signs for “and” and “implies’ (and presumably others;
i’m reporting on what i saw)… but these are considered
simply as *abbreviations*. evidently some math-phobia
prevents certain writers (and readers of course) from
wishing to work with, to continue my example, “&” and “$\rightarrow$
as *operations*. so instead of nailing things down
with the most convenient notations, one then goes on and on
considering the forms of certain simple proofs without
ever quite displaying them in their *ultimate* simplicity.
it seems to be the feeling that by refusing to *calculate*
explicitly with the symbols themselves, one might preserve
a certain flavor of reasoning *about things in the world*.

i’ve always considered this seriously misguided.
which explains my ignorance to some extent no doubt.
the old invulnerable “contempt prior to investigation”.
it’s slipped into statistics classes as i’ve complained before.

5. March 24, 2009 am31 1:55 am 1:55 am

I totally don’t know, but I WILL say that there needs to be exposure to logic for students in middle school and high school. I used to use logic problems during advisement time when I taught in the middle school, and the kids absolutely ATE IT UP.

6. March 24, 2009 am31 3:49 am 3:49 am

I’d assume you’d find a logic course in the Computer Science Department too, no?

7. March 24, 2009 am31 6:45 am 6:45 am

The logic class I took in college was cross-listed under Computer Science, Math and Philosophy.