Introduction to Philosophy: Logic

Reviewed by Eric Baker, Senior Lecturer/Adjunct Faculty, Metropolitan State University on 9/24/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

Overall comprehensiveness was ok; I would have like to see a chapter on biases and causality. Also, the glossary it seems to me could have been more comprehensive.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

I did not notice any outright factual errors.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Nothing seemed lacking in relevance or likely to require updates, as far as I could tell.

Clarity rating: 5

Clarity of exposition seemed in evidence throughout, perhaps less so with the chapter on Formal Logic, but that is largely a factor of the subject matter.

Consistency rating: 4

It seemed at times to jump from beginner material to more advanced, as when the topic of 'enthymemes' was introduced in chapter 1. This seems more advanced, because it presupposes the student has mastered all the basic elements of syllogisms, deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning, etc. Generally it seemed like there could be more exercises for this and other chapters.

Modularity rating: 5

The readings seemed relatively self-contained/modular.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

I would suggest ending with formal logic. Informal fallacies has a far greater claim on relevance that does formal logic, and changing the sequence of chapters to reflect that would help, I think.

Interface rating: 4

The text is free of distorted images and/or charts, but here it seems to be more could have been done to try to appeal to undergraduate readers. The lack of color, for example, or illustrations that were not entirely just logical substance--something to break up the dominance of text would almost certainly help make this more accessible to students.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No complaint here!

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

To the best of my knowledge there were no lapses in the domain of cultural sensitivity.

Comments

I enjoyed and appreciated the readings myself. The chapters are rigorous and clear.
My one main concern is that more could be done to engage younger readers--more anecdotes, asides, 'fun facts' (I hate that phrase, but you know what I mean). The other main point of criticism is that far more attention should be given over to specific exercises. Logic is a skill, not just information. In my own teaching experience, 90% of the real learning happens there.