(Part 3) Top products from r/Logic

> Unfortunately, since that last class, I've fallen out of it and I'm not entirely sure how to get back in. I'm not very good at teaching myself things.

I think that self-studying is a skill. And just like any other skill, you become better at it the more and the better you practice it. If you aren't very good at it yet, then you probably just haven't done it much, or perhaps you haven't done it properly.

If you don't know where to start developing the skill, I highly recommend reading the article The Making of an Expert (PDF) by K. Anders Ericsson, published in the Harvard Business Review. It is a concise introduction to Ericsson's research on acquiring expertise, full of valuable insights. Some of the more useful and relevant ones are the importance of deliberate practice in acquiring expertise, how long it actually takes to become proficient in a field of expertise, and the fact that the final stage in acquiring expertise involves no instructors (i.e. it is characterized by self-studying).

I also believe How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler to be useful in developing this skill. This book describes the difference between present teachers, like the ones you can interact with in an educational institution, and absent ones, such as the authors of books. It then lists a number of very useful general guidelines on how to approach learning from these absent teachers, followed by some more specific ones describing how to approach different kinds of reading matters. It is essentially a self-studying guide.

And since this is /r/logic and you expressed an interest in getting back into the subject, my final recommendation is A First Course in Mathematical Logic by Patrick Suppes and Shirley Hill, which is an exceedingly lucid, accessible, elementary and rigorous introduction to logic. It is very well-suited for self-studying and might be a useful refresher, although depending on the courses you've taken and how much you recall from them, it may be too elementary for you. I posted a more detailed description of the book in a different thread on here a few days ago.

I really liked Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic. I don't know if its the best for self-learners per se but over all its just a great logic textbook and really helped me out. Also, Irving Copi studied under Bertrand Russell while at the University of Chicago so there's some bonus points right here.

The best introductory logic text you will ever find: Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning, 2nd Edition Donald Kalish, Richard Montague.
This book is especially good if you have done any programming. The structure of main and sub-proofs corresponds to main program and subroutine calls. You can pick up a used copy for around $23 here: https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/author/kalish-montague-mar/ and you can see the table of contents here: https://www.powells.com/book/logic-techniques-of-formal-reasoning-9780195155044 (but, obviously, don't buy it for $133!)

For meta-theory, take a look at: Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First Order Logic by Geoffrey Hunter, https://www.amazon.com/Metalogic-Introduction-Metatheory-Standard-First/dp/0520023560. This book explains things in a clear way using ordinary English, before setting out the proofs.
And, if you are interested in model theory, take a look at Model Theory by C.C. Chang and H. Jerome Keisler, https://www.amazon.com/Model-Theory-Third-Dover-Mathematics/dp/0486488217 and you should get a good idea of what additional mathematics you might want to pursue.

Well there's Tennant's new book, Core Logic. I haven't read it, but I hope to convince a couple of my colleagues to join me in doing so this year.

Stoll's Set Theory and Logic is excellent (albeit a tad old). I particularly like that he devotes a whole chapter to Boolean algebra--an in-depth investigation of a complete axiomatic system with deep ties to the logics covered earlier in the book.

I can recommend two books which I have read recently.

1. An Introduction to Mathematical Logic is more structured and formal description of logic.
   
2. [Introduction to Logic] (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Methodology-Deductive-Mathematics/dp/048628462X/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1449702263&sr=8-7&keywords=mathematical+logic) gives more insights and helps to get a big picture of logic.
   I enjoyed both of them a lot and going to read them again.

This is how I learned logic, for computer science.

First chapter of this Discrete mathematics book in my discrete math class

https://www.amazon.ca/Discrete-Mathematics-Applications-Susanna-Epp/dp/0495391328


Then, using The Logic Book for a formal philosophy logic 1 course.
https://www.amazon.ca/Logic-Book-Merrie-Bergmann/product-reviews/0078038413/ref=dpx_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1


The second book was horrid on itself, luckily my professor's academic lineage goes back to Tarski. He's an amazing Professor and knows how to teach...that was a god send. Ironically, he dropped the text and I see that someone has posted his openbook project.

The first book (first chapter), is too applied I imagine for your needs. It would also only be economically feasible if well, you disregarded copyright law and got a "free" PDF of it.

This is not an online resource, but this book is good if you can find it.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Trees-Introduction-Symbolic/dp/0415133424

Well, to answer the question "is it logical that both can be correct?" Sure! There are logics that allows contradictions to be designated, so it's "logical" in that it's perfectly acceptable within the rules of at least one logic that "p ^ ~p" is true.

As far as the applicability of those logics to reality, which might be another aspect to the question rather than a new question, the Liar Sentence and phenomena in the boundary area of vague predicates have been put forth as examples of things that actually are contradictory, and so would be accurately modeled by logics that tolerate contradictions.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Non-Contradiction-Graham-Priest/dp/0199204195

That book there is highly relevant.

yeahhh i've been trying to do the same i've always been good at picking at fallacies within debates and arguments but never known the names and whatnot. i think my two favourite books i've read on it so far have been: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crimes-Against-Logic-Politicians-Journalists/dp/0071446435/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=1OUX7ZNGSEQQY&coliid=I7NZTFCGW8PUC

and
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fundamentals-Critical-Argumentation-Reasoning/dp/0521530202/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=1OUX7ZNGSEQQY&coliid=I2KQKKH9GW8FG2
managed to borrow both from my university library!

This is a question about rhetoric. Rhetoric is generally based on logic, ethics and emotion.

Rhetoric is less related to pure logic then many think. Even a fully 'logical' argument would be damn hard to break down into propositional logic for example. NLTK has some discourse semantics engines if you are a programmer and interested in this area.

In terms of actual argument a book like 'thank you for arguing' might be of more help then a fully logical textbook. If you do want to study logic there are many threads on this sub asking for book advise.

check this guy out
http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316010669?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

For anyone else, I assume the specific book is Goldblatt's "Topoi: The Categorical Analysis of Logic"

https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Theory-Second-Dover-Mathematics/dp/0486490734

Algorithmic Puzzles

How about "Mathematical Logic: A first course" by Joel Robbin (https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Logic-First-Course-Mathematics/dp/048645018X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541650359&sr=8-1&keywords=joel+robbin+mathematical+logic)

He covers axiomatic symbolic logic in a system that just has F and material implication. He covers some axiomatic systems in a pretty basic way that I've not seen before.

Also, Smullyan's "Beginner's Guide to Mathematical Logic", and it's sequel, "Beginner's further guide to mathematical logic". Smullyan is obsessed with the idea of primitives representable by other primitives, and vice versa, it shows in "To Mock A Mockingbird" and these beginner's guides.

The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes: Fifty Tantalizing Problems of Chess Detection, by Ray Smullyan (philosopher and logician)

>Join the master sleuth as he and Dr. Watson examine interrupted chess matches at clubs and country homes, examining the pieces' current positions to identify previous moves. Rather than predicting the outcome of these games, the Baker Street duo focus on past events, using the same variety of logical reasoning that unlocks the secrets to their ever-popular mysteries. Holmes instructs Watson (and us) in the intricacies of retrograde analysis in order to deduce on which square the white queen was captured, whether a pawn has been promoted, and which piece has been replaced by a coin. The mysteries grow increasingly complex, culminating in a double murder perpetrated by the devious Professor Moriarty.
Philosopher and logician Raymond Smullyan brilliantly recaptures the mood of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's tales. Readers need only a knowledge of how the pieces move; the first puzzles explain all of the concepts that arise later on. These witty and challenging problems will captivate chess aficionados, puzzle enthusiasts, Sherlock Holmes fans, and everyone who relishes mysteries, crime stories, and tales of detection.