Customer Reviews:
 A concise Intro t Logic September 4, 2007
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
Very specific definitions and a good text for review of a systematic approach to learning logic.
 Great book for intro to logic August 27, 2007
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
Easy to follow. Great when one does the excersizes. Book + Good teacher = success!
The Received Wisdom June 3, 2007
15 out of 21 found this review helpful
With the advent of mass scale personal computing in the early 1980's, Logic acquired a new aura of reverence from the lords and administrators of academia. After all, Logicians invented the computer, didn't they? And computer "languages" are second-order languages, aren't they? I mean to say - your computer thinks, talks, and breathes Logic. That's part of the reason why at some schools, undergrads can now fulfill their math requirement with an Intro Logic course, why it's a requirement for graduation at others, necessary transfer credit for others. More and more students are taking Logic than ever before.
But Logic's status in the cannon is not new. Back in the late middle ages, when that quintessentially occidental innovation - higher education - began, in places like Paris, Oxford, Cambridge, and Hiedlberg, Logicians ruled the roost. In those days, the students, male monks, would spend their afternoons engaged in the Disputatio, a marathon session of argument, in which the finer points in Aristotle's Prior and Posterior Analytics (which comprise a good deal of what is discussed in Hurley) were bounced back and forth, with verbal thrusts and parries, that went by names such as Tu Quo Que and Ad Ignoratum.
Today, we have progressed to a degree, and Logic is a vast and vibrant field and discipline. Hurley is the most used introductory Logic text in the USA, probably the world. It is thought of as the standard text, supplanting Copi, used for many years. I have taught Hurley, the text used at my school, through three editions, since 2001.
My conclusion (as Hurley is wont to call that part of the argument that we in America generally refer to as the "claim") is that the perfect introductory logic textbook has yet to be written and likely will never be. That being the case, on the positive side of the ledger, Hurley is as good as it gets. The basics, if somewhat obliquely, are set forth in reasonably ordered, digestible chunks. There are practice exercises at the end of each section (while not nearly enough in most instances, more than in any of the other texts I've perused). More or less successful attempts are made to explain the way in which logic works. A paucity of space is given "the whys and wherefores". The standard introductory material (comprising surprisingly only about 67% of this ambitious book) is presented in traditional fashion, according to the basic instances of necessity in formal logic: first, entailment, then equivalence, then consistency (proof). There is a brief and difficult section on informal logic early on in the text. The book is written from a pragmatic and empiricist perspective, characteristic of the Deweyian style pedagogy embraced by most of the educators of Hurley's generation. I will say, despite its many flaws, Hurley made me the Logic teacher I am today, far more than any of the courses I took as a student. I learned to teach Logic, teaching Hurley.
Now - I will briefly vent my copious frustrations. The book is of uneven quality. Certain facets are superb, like the "strategies" at the end of the sections on natural deduction, and the glossary of key terms at the end of the text. And Hurley has a real talent for constructing helpful charts, which is generally evident. Others, such the crucial and challenging section on translation syntax (the rules delineated in section 4.7), tacked onto the tail-end of the section on Categorical Logic as an afterthought, are hidden in the flow of the text, rather than boldly set off, in flashing neon, as they should be. Others, such as the chapter on informal logic, are dated and inept. And a few, such as the section on Sorities are elliptical, simply atrocious, and must be supplemented by other material in the classroom for a decent explanation. Hurley shares in that circumambulatory obfuscation of the language that seems peculiarly endemic to Logicians and Mathematicians, which is, to say in the words of W.H. Auden, "loquacious when the watercourse is dry". And Hurley's prose is dry - like shredded wheat, without the milk. Boring. More seriously, as mentioned, this breed of writer has always seemed to me elliptical or evasive at critical points in the exposition, perhaps indicative of that philosophical den of iniquity from which they emerge. Prime example: Hurley is asking questions in the homework exercises in the first chapter, on page 49, which require an explanation of validity in conditional forms. Nowhere is this basic explanation to be found until page 322! Thus, one must empathize with the student who, in his review, claimed that the book "stinks" and that one must have the guidance of a qualified teacher to understand the subject. Hurley does put a burden on the underpaid teacher. And, as another reviewer points out, there are numerous errors in the answer keys which have remained uncorrected through a number of editions. Also, I preferred the more compact size of the answer key - Wadsworth went nuts with these "workbook style" versions, which don't work in my briefcase.
However, at the end of the day, it must be conceded that, as introductory logic courses are forcing houses for a certain type intellectual acumen deemed desirable at this juncture in the development of civilization, Hurley is up to the task.
Logic February 8, 2007
4 out of 6 found this review helpful
This is an excellent book for students of logic. It covers all the essential material that would be presented in most college logic courses. I found the text to be very comprehensive and easy to understand.
 THIS BOOK STINKS!!! January 4, 2007
5 out of 16 found this review helpful
If you have to take a class that requires this text, drop the class. The only thing that can save you is an excellent teacher and good notes. Not only does the text contradict itself, but the professor's answer key isn't always correct. Even within the same edition, there were differences between books. I DO NOT recommend purchasing this book.
|
