What are good books about logic? I feel like school doesn't

>the process of logic
this is a spook, but you won't realise until you've been studying logic for several years.

begin with a simple youtube playlist on boolean logic/algebra. this part is more mathematics than humanities. it's simply to get you comfortable with manipulating symbols and playing formal "games". learn what a proof, axiom, inference rule, etc. is.

then look up any philosophy textbook on logic for a brief overview of the history of the thing, and meta-logical considerations. anything recent should do fine. don't go for some enormous, arcane tomb; the point of this is breadth over depth. learn what constitutes a "sound" and "valid" argument, what soundness and completeness properties of logic are, etc.

Introduction to Logic by Irving Copi
Essentials of Symbolic Logic by R. L. Simpson
Computability and Logic by Boolos, Jeffrey and Burgess

>pic unrelated
you really think we're stupid huh?

>>8954908
>this is a spook, but you won't realise until you've been studying logic for several years.

Just curious, how is logic a spook exactly? Like isn't being logical inescapable?

>>8954963
>THE process of logic

>>8954981
how is the process of logic different from logic itself

and how is the process of logic a spook then?

>>8954888
What a coincidence!
As a matter of fact, i am actually currently taking "Introduction to Logic" as a philosophy class over the winter session.
Ama?

>>8954982
There isn't a unified logic in one-to-one correspondence with truth (or at least, nobody will seriously make that claim without a few reservations). That people generally think there is, can be put down to aftershocks from logical positivism. As an exercise, think of how many thousands of years it took to formulate the present incarnation of first-order predicate logic, and look at previous systems from Aristotle, Buridan, etc.

Tarski's truth-conditional theory of meaning is somewhat unsatisfactory (though obviously gives rise to an incredibly useful system). It essentially boils down to: "P is true because it is made true in some meta-logic". Not particularly convincing as a theory of truth.

Some of these issues aren't to do with logic exactly, but few people outside of the relevant areas will demarcate them as such, and even fewer will think of them at all.

>>8954988
Thanks that was interesting. Do you have any writings that go into my detail?

>>8955006
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is a good starting point, as always. Unfortunately a lot of what I know is straight from the mouth of a philosophy lecturer I had. I think the best approach is to do this: >>8954908

You'll invariably miss/skip/gloss over a bunch of things but that's fine, nobody learns every aspect of a topic from one resource.

Tarski's theory of truth is the most important, and Russell was also influential.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

The main body of opposition to them would be the intuitionists/verificationalists, but this is a wide group of philosophers, often with little in common. Looking at a bunch of these different systems that have propped up can be enlightening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Types

There are equivalent dichotomies in mathematics (with which logic shares a lot of scholarship--at least in the 20th century):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Platonism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)

File: 1481845691600.jpg (104KB, 485x687px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 485x687px

The Science of Logic

imo "thinking logically" in the common sense is completely different to formal logic. if you show normal people the problems logicians deal with they won't think "yeah, that's logicial".

I had to do formal logic 101 as part of my degree and we all thought we'd learn some sick logical argumentative skills and instead we'd have to endlessly fill out truth tables and shit..

>>8955067
STEMfags are autistic

More at 8

>>8955067
I agree to a point. There's this old joke that a logician is a person that when asked if he wants either coffee or tea says "yes"
>we'd have to endlessly fill out truth tables
You only dipped your feet in formal logic then

>>8955082
obviously, since it was just a 101 course. it wasn't just truth tables but I forgot the rest (I barely passed since i'm a math cripple). keep in mind this was a european conty department but the guy doing logic had a physics degree and almost took some kind of sadistic pleasure in seeing us struggle with this crap.

>>8955094
This is is honestly a big failing in teaching departments (not of you). Philosophy students should not be afraid of basic, mindless symbol manipulation, which is almost what intro to formal logic is when taught by STEM.

>>8954888
I did a intro to logic course last semester and it was pretty good. Got an HD.

File: 493576.jpg (38KB, 260x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 260x400px

>>8954888