The gold standard book, and books, on logic? +more

[Boblitico8]

Hello everyone nice to met you all,

I have found if you have perfect logic on your side you can defeat anyone’s argument in no time at all. Right now I’m reading an old book called ‘Arguing Well’ by John Shand of Routledge Press. I was wondering if it looks like a good book to you? Because I’m getting a lot out of it so far anyway. It’s more about reasoning and arguing well to get to the truth rather then logic per se. In any case I think I need something better, although he did give a good chapter on symbolic logic which I found very interesting ( I.e. breaking down your arguments down to just letters, like a mathematical equation) , but it’s short and I certainly would like to learn more about symbolic logic. Is there such a thing as mathematical logic by any chance? If so how does it work and is it effective? Also how can I disprove my opponent with math , or symbolic logic?

I find debate is like a game of chess if you lose, you can see how your opponent beat you and I usually just laugh and wonder “That was very clever how he or she beat me like that”. I love that , but I really want to be on the winning side from now on. I’m wondering if you guys and gals had any suggestions for a ‘Gold standard book on Logic’ and if not perhaps the best books you know on logic , and symbolic logic too. Im hoping these books will give me an edge that will help me win debates and virtually crush my oppents in real life and on-line.I hate to say the word “crush” because when philosophers speak of arguing and debate they mean two people coming together to get to a truth of a matter. But I’m so tired of losing that I’m ready to destroy my opponents, and I wouldn’t be the only one, Ben Shapiro likes to ‘destroy’ his oppents in debates as well...but maybe he’s wrong seeing debate and arguments this way?

Logical fallacies are great , but if you have a solid foundation in logic itself then one doesn’t really need them, do they? Perhaps they have some usefulness, but I find logically fallacies to be less relevant, what matters is your knowledge of how logic really works. It’s like this writer Bo Bennett Ph.D who said in one of his logical fallacies books:

“Expose an irrational belief keep a person rational for a day, expose irrational thinking keep a person rational for a lifetime.” Which basically means I could throw all kinds of logical fallacies at someone to win my argument, or I can completely bypass that and use cold hard rhetoric and logic to win.

Essentially I’m looking for some ammo, mostly books, or even a simple technique you know of that I can use to win debates and arguments, ( to gain knowledge of good logic and to win arguments and debates every time ) or maybe if you have an idea of a course that might help me, like maybe a Logic Certification Course perhaps, or something like that? Anyway what’s it really take to win an argument or debate? Just cold hard logic, or is there more to it? Logic, reasoning, critical thinking, arguing well, etc. is outside my field of study but now I am ready to learn enough to be a master at it. Sometimes I often find myself getting sucked into someone’s bad argument on television or YouTube for example, so it would be good to go threw the rest of my life as a logical person, that can tell when someone is giving me a bad argument whether that be on-line or off-line.

From what I understand so far in reading stuff on-line that , if the conclusion does follow from the premises then it’s a sound argument? Im most likely wrong here, it just goes to show how much of a beginner I am and you are all geniuses in comparison, literally. If I’m wrong what is a “sound argument”? You have a premise, then another premise and a conclusion. How are they supposed to work together I have no idea, but I bet it’s really simple. Can you tell me how a sound argument works?
I think it means you have a premise, and after that another premise and then a conclusion. If the premises make sense then the conclusion will too? Which is what a sound argument is? Please enlighten me, I’m here to learn. Thank you.

Also if you know of any good online YouTube videos on logic, especially symbolic logic which I find very interesting, or about debate, and even logical fallacies ( if you think they will help in a real hard argument) then please let me know and I will watch them. I know Yale and other Universities sometimes do free online courses, but I have yet to find one on logic or debate, but let me know if you find anything relevant for me. Also if you have any legally free PDF books on logic, symbolic logic, skepticism, critical thinking, reasoning and arguing well please by all mean send them to me, I’m eager to learn how to use logic to undermine anyone’s argument.

Thank you everyone for everything I appreciate your help very much

[Age]

Hello everyone nice to met you all,

I have found if you have perfect logic on your side you can defeat anyone’s argument in no time at all. Right now I’m reading an old book called ‘Arguing Well’ by John Shand of Routledge Press. I was wondering if it looks like a good book to you? Because I’m getting a lot out of it so far anyway. It’s more about reasoning and arguing well to get to the truth rather then logic per se. In any case I think I need something better, although he did give a good chapter on symbolic logic which I found very interesting ( I.e. breaking down your arguments down to just letters, like a mathematical equation) , but it’s short and I certainly would like to learn more about symbolic logic. Is there such a thing as mathematical logic by any chance? If so how does it work and is it effective? Also how can I disprove my opponent with math , or symbolic logic?

If one has an "opponent" then what is being presented by both "sides" are 'invalid or unsound arguments', or 'unsound, illogical reasoning'. See, once one is presenting and providing sound and valid arguments, then there is absolutely NO one who could, logically or soundly and validly 'oppose' those arguments.

So, I suggest instead of looking for or finding "opponents" that you just present sound and valid arguments, from which then there is NO one to 'disprove' and NO one who could 'disprove' you also.

I find debate is like a game of chess if you lose, you can see how your opponent beat you and I usually just laugh and wonder “That was very clever how he or she beat me like that”.

If you are in a 'debate', then you do not yet have actual proof, nor a sound and valid argument, for your view or belief.

Also, why would you even want to have or hold onto a view or belief, which was not even true, right, nor correct in the beginning?

If your views or beliefs could be so-called 'beat' and you end up so-called 'losing', then why maintain such views/beliefs anyway?

I love that , but I really want to be on the winning side from now on.

But there is NO so-called 'winning side" here. Unless, of course, you want to always be able to see and know the actual Truth of 'things', then just do NOT 'pick' a "side", and just become and remain Truly OPEN instead.

I’m wondering if you guys and gals had any suggestions for a ‘Gold standard book on Logic’

Once you have become Truly OPEN and remain that way, always, then you can and will SEE whether any statement/claim is True or Right, or NOT, almost instantaneously. If you want A 'lesson' on how to see 'things' from a Truly Logical perspective, then 'this' here may well be 'it'.

See, the way to do have a Truly Logical perspective of 'things', Accurately, is to just look at ALL 'things' from the Truly OPEN perspective, first, and then use the already obtain views, from past experiences, to see and verify what is actually True and Right. Whereas, what you and "others" do 'now' is look at 'things' from preexisting views, assumptions, beliefs, et cetera, first, which then distorts 'you' from being able to see and recognize what the actual Truth is, exactly.

and if not perhaps the best books you know on logic , and symbolic logic too.

But obviously there is NO one, so-called, 'golden standard' here in ANY books anyway, which have so far been written.

Im hoping these books will give me an edge that will help me win debates and virtually crush my oppents in real life and on-line.I hate to say the word “crush” because when philosophers speak of arguing and debate they mean two people coming together to get to a truth of a matter.

But when ANY one uses the 'debate' word they do NOT mean two people coming together to get to the truth of a matter. The very word 'debate' means or refers to 'picking' a "side" and fighting or arguing for "that side" ONLY. Also, in an attempt to have a 'win' OVER, or 'defeat', "another". The word 'argue', on the 'other hand' has two completely opposing meanings. So, when ANY uses the 'argue' word, they could be 'meaning' that they want to 'fight' and/or have a 'battle', and so 'winning' and 'losing' some 'thing' is also implied, OR, they could be 'meaning' that they want to arrive at the ACTUAL Truth of some 'thing' with 'logical reasoning' and/or through a 'logically reasoned' discussion.

But I’m so tired of losing that I’m ready to destroy my opponents, and I wouldn’t be the only one, Ben Shapiro likes to ‘destroy’ his oppents in debates as well...but maybe he’s wrong seeing debate and arguments this way?

Well most adult human beings much prefer to 'win', than to 'lose' and be 'destroyed' "themselves", right? But, creating "opponents", in the beginning, by having or holding onto one or another particular view or belief only causes a 'winning' or 'losing' situation from the outset. Which NEVER needed to be 'there' AT ALL anyway. So, if one does NOT like to even be in a position of where being 'destroyed', or being able to 'lose', then I suggest NOT making 'this' even a possibility, from the start.

However, some adult human beings have 'grown up' BELIEVING that 'competition' is a necessary part of Life and/or with the love-of-winning, so 'these people' like to create situations where 'debates' begin, so that 'they' can then 'try to' 'win' some 'thing'.

Logical fallacies are great , but if you have a solid foundation in logic itself then one doesn’t really need them, do they?

Why are 'logical fallacies', supposedly 'great', and 'great' in relation to 'what', exactly?

If one KNOWS an IRREFUTABLE Fact or an ACTUAL Truth, AND, KNOWS how to formulate a sound and valid argument, then 'this', to me, IS GREAT. So, having a 'solid foundation in logic', combined with KNOWING True Facts and with KNOWING how to formulate sound and valid arguments, then 'this' would be even GREATER, right?

As for having and/or presenting 'logical fallacies', this does NOT seem like a very great, nor even a good, idea, to me at all. But, being able to recognize and see 'logical fallacies' in "other's" words, almost instantaneously, I consider would be a 'good' and/or a 'great' skill to HAVE.

Perhaps they have some usefulness, but I find logically fallacies to be less relevant, what matters is your knowledge of how logic really works. It’s like this writer Bo Bennett Ph.D who said in one of his logical fallacies books:

“Expose an irrational belief keep a person rational for a day, expose irrational thinking keep a person rational for a lifetime.” Which basically means I could throw all kinds of logical fallacies at someone to win my argument, or I can completely bypass that and use cold hard rhetoric and logic to win.

But NO one is actually ever 'winning' with 'logical fallacies'. However, one IS deceiving and being deceptive when using, known, logical fallacies.

I would also suggest that if absolutely ANY one 'walked away' smiling, or being happy, knowing that they have supposedly 'won', with known logical fallacies, and thus 'won' through deception and deceit, then it would be 'better' for them to have and take what is sometimes referred to as, 'a good hard look at "oneself".

Essentially I’m looking for some ammo, mostly books, or even a simple technique you know of that I can use to win debates and arguments, ( to gain knowledge of good logic and to win arguments and debates every time )

Although NO one 'wins', nor 'loses', debates and arguments in an of themselves, it would NOT matter one iota how much so-called 'knowledge of good logic' one had. If the "others" has a more sound or more valid argument than you do, then all the ' knowledge in the world of so-called 'good logic' ' will never help you 'win' that 'argument'.

And, one can NOT just form a more sound and more valid argument with just 'good logic' if that one does NOT have the actual proof nor facts to back up and support 'their argument'.

or maybe if you have an idea of a course that might help me, like maybe a Logic Certification Course perhaps, or something like that?

Are you here joking?

Anyway what’s it really take to win an argument or debate?

A more sound and/or a more valid argument, and people to recognize and KNOW the difference.

Also, if you have ACTUAL Facts and/or PROOF, which backs up and supports your argument, then besides just 'one person' 'winning' LOTS of people 'win'. As 'you' ALL become more knowledge and/or more wiser.

Just cold hard logic, or is there more to it?

More to 'it'.

you could have perfect logic, but without actual proof or facts, for you claim, then you could never soundly and validly argue, absolutely, for 'it'. For example, that the Universe began and is expanding could never be argued, successfully, validly and soundly until actual proof has been provided.

Logic, reasoning, critical thinking, arguing well, etc. is outside my field of study but now I am ready to learn enough to be a master at it.

you only need to become and remain Truly OPEN, and then mastery of the 'things' here just come automatically, and naturally.

The 'key', by the way, to becoming and remaining Truly OPEN is by just being Truly Honest.

Sometimes I often find myself getting sucked into someone’s bad argument on television or YouTube for example, so it would be good to go threw the rest of my life as a logical person, that can tell when someone is giving me a bad argument whether that be on-line or off-line.

From what I understand so far in reading stuff on-line that , if the conclusion does follow from the premises then it’s a sound argument? Im most likely wrong here, it just goes to show how much of a beginner I am and you are all geniuses in comparison, literally.

'Trying to' flatter your prospective interlocutors, especially before you have even begun to converse with them, will NOT help you here.

NO one here is more of a so-called 'genius' than ANY "other" human being is. And, what you will also find here is a lot of the posters here think, or believe, that the "other posters' here are the very exact opposite of what entails being a 'genius' is.

If I’m wrong what is a “sound argument”? You have a premise, then another premise and a conclusion. How are they supposed to work together I have no idea, but I bet it’s really simple. Can you tell me how a sound argument works?
I think it means you have a premise, and after that another premise and then a conclusion. If the premises make sense then the conclusion will too? Which is what a sound argument is? Please enlighten me, I’m here to learn. Thank you.

Have you ever considered doing an internet search, and finding out that way?

Or, could you be looking for an 'argument', or a 'debate', here, to see if you could 'win' that?

Also if you know of any good online YouTube videos on logic, especially symbolic logic which I find very interesting, or about debate, and even logical fallacies ( if you think they will help in a real hard argument) then please let me know and I will watch them. I know Yale and other Universities sometimes do free online courses, but I have yet to find one on logic or debate, but let me know if you find anything relevant for me. Also if you have any legally free PDF books on logic, symbolic logic, skepticism, critical thinking, reasoning and arguing well please by all mean send them to me, I’m eager to learn how to use logic to undermine anyone’s argument.

BUT, by definition, it is an absolute impossibility to 'undermine' an already sound and valid argument. So, you can NOT use 'logic' to undermine ANY one's argument.

Thank you everyone for everything I appreciate your help very much

[FlashDangerpants]

Also if you know of any good online YouTube videos on logic, especially symbolic logic which I find very interesting, or about debate, and even logical fallacies ( if you think they will help in a real hard argument) then please let me know and I will watch them.

Try Kane B on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/@KaneB/featured

You will never get to dance on the flayed skulls of your slain enemies by simply outwitting them with a syllogism or two. But we admire your thirst for conquest.

[marciabeard]

The only way to get good at understanding logic and at using logic is to practice. It is easy to watch someone explain a principle of logic, and easier yet to watch someone do a proof.dinosaur game

[celinedion]

"Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth" by Apostolos Doxiadis and Christos H. Papadimitriou: If you enjoy graphic novelsmapquest, "Logicomix" offers an engaging exploration of the history of logic and the quest for foundational truths.

[Philosphicalous]

Hello everyone nice to met you all,

I have found if you have perfect logic on your side you can defeat anyone’s argument in no time at all. Right now I’m reading an old book called ‘Arguing Well’ by John Shand of Routledge Press. I was wondering if it looks like a good book to you? Because I’m getting a lot out of it so far anyway. It’s more about reasoning and arguing well to get to the truth rather then logic per se. In any case I think I need something better, although he did give a good chapter on symbolic logic which I found very interesting ( I.e. breaking down your arguments down to just letters, like a mathematical equation) , but it’s short and I certainly would like to learn more about symbolic logic. Is there such a thing as mathematical logic by any chance? If so how does it work and is it effective? Also how can I disprove my opponent with math , or symbolic logic?

I find debate is like a game of chess if you lose, you can see how your opponent beat you and I usually just laugh and wonder “That was very clever how he or she beat me like that”. I love that , but I really want to be on the winning side from now on. I’m wondering if you guys and gals had any suggestions for a ‘Gold standard book on Logic’ and if not perhaps the best books you know on logic , and symbolic logic too. Im hoping these books will give me an edge that will help me win debates and virtually crush my oppents in real life and on-line.I hate to say the word “crush” because when philosophers speak of arguing and debate they mean two people coming together to get to a truth of a matter. But I’m so tired of losing that I’m ready to destroy my opponents, and I wouldn’t be the only one, Ben Shapiro likes to ‘destroy’ his oppents in debates as well...but maybe he’s wrong seeing debate and arguments this way?

Logical fallacies are great , but if you have a solid foundation in logic itself then one doesn’t really need them, do they? Perhaps they have some usefulness, but I find logically fallacies to be less relevant, what matters is your knowledge of how logic really works. It’s like this writer Bo Bennett Ph.D who said in one of his logical fallacies books:

“Expose an irrational belief keep a person rational for a day, expose irrational thinking keep a person rational for a lifetime.” Which basically means I could throw all kinds of logical fallacies at someone to win my argument, or I can completely bypass that and use cold hard rhetoric and logic to win.

Essentially I’m looking for some ammo, mostly books, or even a simple technique you know of that I can use to win debates and arguments, ( to gain knowledge of good logic and to win arguments and debates every time ) or maybe if you have an idea of a course that might help me, like maybe a Logic Certification Course perhaps, or something like that? Anyway what’s it really take to win an argument or debate? Just cold hard logic, or is there more to it? Logic, reasoning, critical thinking, arguing well, etc. is outside my field of study but now I am ready to learn enough to be a master at it. Sometimes I often find myself getting sucked into someone’s bad argument on television or YouTube for example, so it would be good to go threw the rest of my life as a logical person, that can tell when someone is giving me a bad argument whether that be on-line or off-line.

From what I understand so far in reading stuff on-line that , if the conclusion does follow from the premises then it’s a sound argument? Im most likely wrong here, it just goes to show how much of a beginner I am and you are all geniuses in comparison, literally. If I’m wrong what is a “sound argument”? You have a premise, then another premise and a conclusion. How are they supposed to work together I have no idea, but I bet it’s really simple. Can you tell me how a sound argument works?
I think it means you have a premise, and after that another premise and then a conclusion. If the premises make sense then the conclusion will too? Which is what a sound argument is? Please enlighten me, I’m here to learn. Thank you.

Also if you know of any good online YouTube videos on logic, especially symbolic logic which I find very interesting, or about debate, and even logical fallacies ( if you think they will help in a real hard argument) then please let me know and I will watch them. I know Yale and other Universities sometimes do free online courses, but I have yet to find one on logic or debate, but let me know if you find anything relevant for me. Also if you have any legally free PDF books on logic, symbolic logic, skepticism, critical thinking, reasoning and arguing well please by all mean send them to me, I’m eager to learn how to use logic to undermine anyone’s argument.

Thank you everyone for everything I appreciate your help very much

The first problem I strike is your choice to exploit the word argument. It is my belief that those who argue per say, have not made up their mind yet.

[Philosphicalous]

The only way to get good at understanding logic and at using logic is to practice. It is easy to watch someone explain a principle of logic, and easier yet to watch someone do a proof.

Give me an example of how you have improved your understanding and use of logic by providing me with a clear and easy to understand explanation as what you believe logic to be. I will accept an explanation in your own words and or a direct quote or definition from a source you have accepted please

[marciabeard]

The only way to get good at understanding logic and at using logic is to practice. It is easy to watch someone explain a principle of logic, and easier yet to watch someone do a proof.

The only way to get good at understanding logic and at using logic is to practice. It is easy to watch someone explain a principle of logic, and easier yet to watch someone do a proof. But you must understand a principle well enough to be able to apply it to new cases, and you must be able to do new proofs on your own.

[LuckyR]

The OP speaks of winning (and losing) what seem like formal, refereed debates. He also references logic and it's use in debates.

I have no experience in competitive debates yet quite an abundance in informal "debates" in truly competitive environments and in my experience psychology and rhetoric trump logic every time in Real Life.

[Walker]

The OP speaks of winning (and losing) what seem like formal, refereed debates. He also references logic and it's use in debates.

I have no experience in competitive debates yet quite an abundance in informal "debates" in truly competitive environments and in my experience psychology and rhetoric trump logic every time in Real Life.

Go to the one minute mark to see “modern formal debate” in action.
What do you think of that?

"Debate" American Style: Our Top Orators in Action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

*

Michigan State vs Berkeley (first ten seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8XXE1friM

[LuckyR]

The OP speaks of winning (and losing) what seem like formal, refereed debates. He also references logic and it's use in debates.

I have no experience in competitive debates yet quite an abundance in informal "debates" in truly competitive environments and in my experience psychology and rhetoric trump logic every time in Real Life.

Go to the one minute mark to see “modern formal debate” in action.
What do you think of that?

"Debate" American Style: Our Top Orators in Action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

*

Michigan State vs Berkeley (first ten seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8XXE1friM

Wow! Thanks for proving my point so emphatically!

I guess this sort of thing wins formal debates but is so offputting psychologically that if someone used that style in the office place they'd be escorted out by security. In other words no one in history has changed the mind of a verbal opponent or likely a third person observer, with that rhetorical style.

[Walker]

Did you see the size of that trophy?

Check out 3:50. That's modern "street" debate.

[Walker]

Wow! Thanks for proving my point so emphatically!

I guess this sort of thing wins formal debates but is so offputting psychologically that if someone used that style in the office place they'd be escorted out by security. In other words no one in history has changed the mind of a verbal opponent or likely a third person observer, with that rhetorical style.

That indicates that the intent of the performances is not to convince, explain or persuade.

[Age]

The OP speaks of winning (and losing) what seem like formal, refereed debates. He also references logic and it's use in debates.

I have no experience in competitive debates yet quite an abundance in informal "debates" in truly competitive environments and in my experience psychology and rhetoric trump logic every time in Real Life.

Go to the one minute mark to see “modern formal debate” in action.
What do you think of that?

"Debate" American Style: Our Top Orators in Action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

*

Michigan State vs Berkeley (first ten seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8XXE1friM

Wow! Thanks for proving my point so emphatically!

I guess this sort of thing wins formal debates but is so offputting psychologically that if someone used that style in the office place they'd be escorted out by security. In other words no one in history has changed the mind of a verbal opponent or likely a third person observer, with that rhetorical style.

These videos partly HELP in explaining WHY 'that country' has 'its', 'current' to today's writing, so-called "leader", and the preceding "one".

[Walker]

These videos partly HELP in explaining WHY 'that country' has 'its', 'current' to today's writing, so-called "leader", and the preceding "one".

The debate year in the history of the world was 2014 for the winners of the big trophy, when the so-called leader of the country was the Champion of Fundamental Change. Maybe the trophy was for who could most fundamentally change debate. Fast-talking nonsense with grunted breathing and other non-word sound effects is a fundamental change.