Logic Question

[Unregistered]

I organize a co-op and we are considering adding Logic to our schedule. Yesterday, we tested out the chapter 4 lesson to see how receptive/able our children were at the subject. The children did well....the parents had a few questions.

Are the "subject" and the "subject-term" two different concepts? Can we use those terms synonomously?

Also, do you ask your students to memorize the obvious vocabulary words?

Finally, we will have a younger group of students. We are considering starting with chapter 4 and completing chapters 1-3 at the end of the year. Could you explain any disadvantages to this plan?

Holly K in N NV

[Martin Cothran]

Holly,

The first question is whether the terms 'subject' and 'subject-term' are synonymous. The answer is that, technically speaking they are not, but I often use them synonymously. The technical difference between them is this:

The term 'subject' can and often does refer to the subject as it exists in the world. For example, if I say "The horse is gray", the subject of the sentence is the horse I am refering to. In other words, the sentence is about a horse--the one that actually exists in the real world.

But when I refer to that same sentence and say that the 'subject-term' is 'horse', I am not referring to the horse as it actually exists, but the grammatical term 'horse', which signifies the horse as it actually exists.

The "subject" is an animal; the "subject-term" is a word. And an animal and a word are two different things.

What is confusing is that often you find the term 'subject' used to mean 'subject-term'. You just have to keep the distinction in mind, and the context should tell you what is being referred to.

Does that make sense?

Martin Cothran

[Martin Cothran]

Holly,

Your second question has to do with whether I ask students to memorize the obvious vocabulary words. The answer is, No, I don't. But I think it is a very good idea.

In fact, I'm going to put that down as something to include in the next major revision. Thanks for bringing it up.

In regard to your third question, which is what the disadvantages might be of starting with the fourth chapter, I would say that there are no major ones, since nothing taught in the later chapters is contingent on knowledge gained in the first three chapters.

I do think, however, that the material is important in its own right. The only reason I suggest that there may be some cases in which this might be done is that the material is more abstract, and some younger children are not used to dealing in abstractions.

I do begin at the beginning, and I think that if it is done right, students have no problem with it.

Martin Cothran

[Holly in N NV]

That makes perfect sense.
Holly in N NV

The "subject" is an animal; the "subject-term" is a word. And an animal and a word are two different things.

[Holly in N NV]

I do think, however, that the material is important in its own right. The only reason I suggest that there may be some cases in which this might be done is that the material is more abstract, and some younger children are not used to dealing in abstractions.

My reply:
We do plan to cover chapters 1-3. It seemed that the students might be better prepared to deal with it at the end of the course, rather than the beginning. As we are "newbie" logic teachers, we can't be totally certain that we will present the material in the best manner possible. However we found our experience teaching chapter four to be pleasant and the students were intrigued by the study of logic. Thank you for the clear, sequentially presented course.
Holly