Y1: Logic

"...discrepancies are just what logicians, like accountants, are paid to find out." -Peter Geach (Logic Matters, p. 96)

This is an introduction to logic, based on the Kalish-Montague system of derivation as presented by Terence Parsons in An Exposition of Symbolic Logic (2013). It's designed with two goals in mind: to help students improve their ability to recognize valid patterns of argumentation, and to acquaint them with a framework for more advanced courses in philosophy (especially Philosophy of Language, Metaphysics, and Philosophy of Mathematics). Valid argumentation is relevant to every branch of learning, but the  traditional framework of logic (its concepts, principles, aims — even its history) are more relevant to certain areas of philosophy. Please consult the Course Guide for more information.

NOTES

Week 1: Lecture 1; Lecture 2; Lecture 3 

Week 2: Lecture 4; Lecture 5; Lecture 6 

Week 3: Lecture 7; Lecture 8; Lecture 9

Week 4: Lecture 10; Lecture 11; Lecture 12

Week 5: Lecture 13; Lecture 14; midterm practice 

Week 6: Lecture 15; Lecture 16; Lecture 17 

Week 7: Lecture 18; Lecture 19; Lecture 20 

Week 8: Lecture 21; Lecture 22; Lecture 23

Week 9: Lecture 24; Lecture 25; Lecture 26

Week 10: Lecture 27; review (no new content; consult the Final Study Guide below for questions and discussion topics); complete system of rules and derivation strategies for L1-L4

EXERCISES

Practice Problem Set 1 (unassessed)

Practice Problem Set 2 (unassessed)

Practice Problem Set 3 (unassessed)

Official Homework

Final Study Guide (unassessed) and Answer Sheet

TRIFLES

Aulus Gellius was a second-century Roman grammarian. In his book, Attic Nights, he reports that the famous Greek philosopher Protagoras signed a contract with his rhetoric student Euathlus. The terms specified that half the fee would be paid upfront and the other half would be paid if and only if Euathlus won his first court case. Some time passed and Euathlus didn't appear in court. So, Protagoras sued him for the remaining sum. "If I win", Euathlus argued, "then by the court's decision I don't owe you anything; if I lose, then by the terms of our contract I don't owe you anything." Protagorus argued similarly: "If I win, then by the court's decision you owe me; if I lose, then by the terms of our contract you owe me." No verdict was rendered; the case was indefinitely postponed.