The art of logic is like math or writing: you can't learn how to do them without actually doing them.
Most logic books are not logic books; they are books about logic. But doing logic and reading about logic are two very different things.
I noticed a post on a Christian apologetics blog the other day that referred to some logic classes at an online school. And I took a look at the books they were using in their class. One of them was Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide, by Tracy Bowell and Gary Kemp. It looks like a fine book about logic, and one that I will probably pick up for my own enrichment. It defines logic, divides it, and generally explains what logic is. Now that certainly is a part of actually learning logic, but just doing these things will not train you in how to actually use logic yourself.
Another is A Rulebook for Arguments, by Anthony Weston. I actually have this one in my library. Again, it is a useful book for someone who knows logic or generally how to argue. It has a lot of great tips about things you should do when you are actually engaged in argumentation, but it doesn't actually teach logic.
These are books about logic. They are not a logic books.
I would say the same thing about most books that try to teach fallacies. Of course, they do not really teach fallacies. There wouldn't be much use in having students learn how to commit fallacies, would there? All these books do is teach students how to identify certain bad argument forms. But students never really learn why these fallacies are mistakes in reasoning because they have not been taught how correct reasoning works.
Identifying something is the most basic step in understanding what something is, but it doesn't get you very far in the process of actually learning how to use it.
In order to be able to use logic, you have to spend time methodically learning a number of particular concepts and practice them repeatedly. You then have to practice applying these concepts to arguments, and know how to internally manipulate arguments.
The two most valuable drills in logic are
- Backing in to a missing premise; and
- Reducing 2nd, 3rd, and 4th figure categorical syllogisms to the 1st figure
If a student is able to do these things competently, then you know he knows all the important aspects of logic. If he can't, then you cannot say he knows how to "do" logic. The student will still be a spectator of the subject, and not an actual practitioner.
This kind of skill constitutes competence in basic logic. I would add that, if you want to determine whether a student is
It's interesting to note, by the way, that most modern logic programs pass these things over.
If a logic program doesn't incorporate these two drills, then it really isn't a good logic program. Again, it may be a great book about logic, but, as I said, that is a very different thing.