An Introduction to Formal Logic

Course No. 4215
Professor Steven Gimbel, Ph.D.
Gettysburg College
Share This Course
4.7 out of 5
50 Reviews
84% of reviewers would recommend this product
Course No. 4215
Video Streaming Included Free

What Will You Learn?

  • numbers Become familiar with common logical fallacies such as circular reasoning, slippery slope, and causal oversimplification.
  • numbers Examine what makes deductive arguments valid.
  • numbers Use truth tables to test the validity of famous forms of argument called modus ponens and affirming the consequent.
  • numbers Follow the work of Hilbert, Cantor, Frege, Russell, and Godel to prove that the logical consistency of mathematics can be reduced to basic arithmetic.

Course Overview

Flawed, misleading, and false arguments are everywhere. From advertisers trying to separate you from your money, to politicians trying to sway your vote, to friends who want you to agree with them, your belief structure is constantly under attack.

Logic is intellectual self-defense against such assaults on reason and also a method of quality control for checking the validity of your own views. But beyond these very practical benefits, informal logic—the kind we apply in daily life—is the gateway to an elegant and fascinating branch of philosophy known as formal logic, which is philosophy’s equivalent to calculus. Formal logic is a breathtakingly versatile tool. Much like a Swiss army knife for the incisive mind, it is a powerful mode of inquiry that can lead to surprising and worldview-shifting conclusions.

Award-winning Professor of Philosophy Steven Gimbel of Gettysburg College guides you with wit and charm through the full scope of this immensely rewarding subject in An Introduction to Formal Logic, 24 engaging half-hour lectures that teach you logic from the ground up—from the fallacies of everyday thinking to cutting edge ideas on the frontiers of the discipline. Professor Gimbel’s research explores the nature of scientific reasoning and the ways in which science and culture interact, which positions him perfectly to make advanced abstract concepts clear and concrete.

Packed with real-world examples and thought-provoking exercises, this course is suitable for everyone from beginners to veteran logicians. Plentiful on-screen graphics, together with abundant explanations of symbols and proofs, make the concepts crystal clear.

For the Logician in All of Us

You will find that the same rational skills that help you spot the weaknesses in a sales pitch or your child’s excuse for skipping homework will also put you on the road to some of the most profound discoveries of our times, such as Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which shook the foundations of philosophy and mathematics in the 20th century and can only be compared to revolutions in thought such as quantum mechanics. But Gödel didn’t need a lab to make his discovery—only logic.

A course with a surprising breadth and depth of applications, An Introduction to Formal Logic will appeal to:

  • critical thinkers who aspire to make better decisions, whether as doctors, lawyers, investors, managers, or others faced with the task of weighing conflicting options
  • lovers of intellectual history, who wish to trace one of the most influential and underappreciated currents of thought from antiquity to the present day
  • students of philosophy, for whom logic is the gold standard for evaluating philosophical arguments and a required course for mastery of the discipline
  • students of mathematics, who want to understand the foundations of their field and glimpse the machinery that drives every mathematical equation ever written
  • anyone curious about how computers work, for programs know nothing about words, sentences, or even numbers—they only comprehend logic
  • those fascinated with language, the brain, and other topics in cognitive science, since logic models grammar, meaning, and thought better than any other tool

Logic Is Your Ally

Professor Gimbel begins by noting that humans are wired to accept false beliefs. For example, we have a strong compulsion to change our view to match the opinion of a group, particularly if we are the lone holdout—even if we feel certain that we are right. From these and other cases of cognitive bias where our instincts work against sound reasoning, you begin to see how logic is a marvelous corrective that protects us from ourselves. With this intriguing start, An Introduction to Formal Logic unfolds as follows:

  • Logical concepts: You are introduced to deductive and inductive arguments and the criteria used to assess them—validity and well-groundedness. Then you learn that arguments have two parts: conclusions (that which is being argued for) and premises (the support given for the conclusion).
  • Informal logic: Often called critical thinking, this type of logical analysis looks at features other than the form of an argument—hence “informal.” Here, you focus on establishing the truth of the premises, as well as spotting standard rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies.
  • Inductive reasoning: Next you learn to assess the validity of an argument using induction, which examines different cases and then forms a general conclusion. Inductive arguments are typical of science, taking what we already know and giving us logical permission to believe something new.
  • Formal symbolic deductive logic: Known as “formal” logic because it focuses on the form of arguments, this family of techniques uses symbolic language to assess the validity of a wide range of deductive arguments, which infer particulars from general laws or principles.
  • Modal logic: After an intensive exploration of formal logic, you venture into modal logic, learning to handle sentences that deal with possibility and necessity—called modalities. Modal logic has been very influential in the philosophy of ethics.
  • Current advances: You close the course by looking at recent developments, such as three-valued logical systems and fuzzy logic, which extend our ability to reason by denying what seems to be the basis of all logic—that sentences must be either true or false.

Learn the Language of Logic

For many people, one of the most daunting aspects of formal logic is its use of symbols. You may have seen logical arguments expressed with these arrows, v’s, backwards E’s, upside down A’s, and other inscrutable signs, which can seem as bewildering as higher math or an ancient language. But An Introduction to Formal Logic shows that the symbols convey simple ideas compactly and become second nature with use. In case after case, Professor Gimbel explains how to analyze an ambiguous sentence in English into its component propositions, expressed in symbols. This makes what is being asserted transparently clear.

Consider these two sentences: (1) “A dog is a man’s best friend.” (2) “A dog is in the front yard.” Initially, they look very similar. Both say “A dog is x” and seem to differ only in the property ascribed to the dog. However, the noun phrase “a dog” means two completely different things in these two cases. In the first, it means dogs in general. In the second, it denotes a specific dog. These contrasting ideas are symbolized like so:

1. "x(Dx→Bx)

2. $x(Dx&Fx)

You will discover that many consequential arguments in daily life hinge on a similar ambiguity, which dissolves away when translated into the clear language of logic.

Professor Gimbel notes that logical thinking is like riding a bicycle; it takes skill and practice, and once you learn you can really go places! Logic is the key to philosophy, mathematics, and science. Without it, there would be no electronic computers or data processing. In social science, it identifies patterns of behavior and uncovers societal blind spots—assumptions we all make that are completely false. Logic can help you win an argument, run a meeting, draft a contract, raise a child, be a juror, or buy a shirt and keep from losing it at a casino. Logic says that you should take this course.

Hide Full Description
24 lectures
 |  Average 31 minutes each
  • 1
    Why Study Logic?
    Influential philosophers throughout history have argued that humans are purely rational beings. But cognitive studies show we are wired to accept false beliefs. Review some of our built-in biases, and discover that logic is the perfect corrective. Then survey what you will learn in the course. x
  • 2
    Introduction to Logical Concepts
    Practice finding the logical arguments hidden in statements by looking for indicator words that either appear explicitly or are implied-such as therefore" and "because." Then see how to identify the structure of an argument, focusing on whether it is deductive or inductive." x
  • 3
    Informal Logic and Fallacies
    Explore four common logical fallacies. Circular reasoning uses a conclusion as a premise. Begging the question invokes the connotative power of language as a substitute for evidence. Equivocation changes the meaning of terms in the middle of an argument. And distinction without a difference attempts to contrast two positions that are identical. x
  • 4
    Fallacies of Faulty Authority
    Deepen your understanding of the fallacies of informal logic by examining five additional reasoning errors: appeal to authority, appeal to common opinion, appeal to tradition, fallacy of novelty, and arguing by analogy. Then test yourself with a series of examples, and try to name that fallacy! x
  • 5
    Fallacies of Cause and Effect
    Consider five fallacies that often arise when trying to reason your way from cause to effect. Begin with the post hoc fallacy, which asserts cause and effect based on nothing more than time order. Continue with neglect of a common cause, causal oversimplification, confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions, and the slippery slope fallacy. x
  • 6
    Fallacies of Irrelevance
    Learn how to keep a discussion focused by recognizing common diversionary fallacies. Ad hominem attacks try to undermine the arguer instead of the argument. Straw man tactics substitute a weaker argument for a stronger one. And red herrings introduce an irrelevant subject. As in other lectures, examine fascinating cases of each. x
  • 7
    Inductive Reasoning
    Turn from informal fallacies, which are flaws in the premises of an argument, to questions of validity, or the logical integrity of an argument. In this lecture, focus on four fallacies to avoid in inductive reasoning: selective evidence, insufficient sample size, unrepresentative data, and the gambler's fallacy. x
  • 8
    Induction in Polls and Science
    Probe two activities that could not exist without induction: polling and scientific reasoning. Neither provides absolute proof in its field of analysis, but if faults such as those in Lecture 7 are avoided, the conclusions can be impressively reliable. x
  • 9
    Introduction to Formal Logic
    Having looked at validity in inductive arguments, now examine what makes deductive arguments valid. Learn that it all started with Aristotle, who devised rigorous methods for determining with absolute certainty whether a conclusion must be true given the truth of its premises. x
  • 10
    Truth-Functional Logic
    Take a step beyond Aristotle to evaluate sentences whose truth cannot be proved by his system. Learn about truth-functional logic, pioneered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by the German philosopher Gottlob Frege. This approach addresses the behavior of truth-functional connectives, such as not," "and," "or," and "if" —and that is the basis of computer logic, the way computers "think."" x
  • 11
    Truth Tables
    Truth-functional logic provides the tools to assess many of the conclusions we make about the world. In the previous lecture, you were introduced to truth tables, which map out the implications of an argument's premises. Deepen your proficiency with this technique, which has almost magical versatility. x
  • 12
    Truth Tables and Validity
    Using truth tables, test the validity of famous forms of argument called modus ponens and its fallacious twin, affirming the consequent. Then untangle the logic of increasingly more complex arguments, always remembering that the point of logic is to discover what it is rational to believe. x
  • 13
    Natural Deduction
    Truth tables are not consistently user-friendly, and some arguments defy their analytical power. Learn about another technique, natural deduction proofs, which mirrors the way we think. Treat this style of proof like a game-with a playing board, a defined goal, rules, and strategies for successful play. x
  • 14
    Logical Proofs with Equivalences
    Enlarge your ability to prove arguments with natural deduction by studying nine equivalences-sentences that are truth-functionally the same. For example, double negation asserts that a sentence and its double negation are equivalent. It is not the case that I didn't call my mother," means that I did call my mother." x
  • 15
    Conditional and Indirect Proofs
    Complete the system of natural deduction by adding a new category of justification-a justified assumption. Then see how this concept is used in conditional and indirect proofs. With these additions, you are now fully equipped to evaluate the validity of arguments from everyday life. x
  • 16
    First-Order Predicate Logic
    So far, you have learned two approaches to logic: Aristotle's categorical method and truth-functional logic. Now add a third, hybrid approach, first-order predicate logic, which allows you to get inside sentences to map the logical structure within them. x
  • 17
    Validity in First-Order Predicate Logic
    For all of their power, truth tables won't work to demonstrate validity in first-order predicate arguments. For that, you need natural deduction proofs-plus four additional rules of inference and one new equivalence. Review these procedures and then try several examples. x
  • 18
    Demonstrating Invalidity
    Study two techniques for demonstrating that an argument in first-order predicate logic is invalid. The method of counter-example involves scrupulous attention to the full meaning of the words in a sentence, which is an unusual requirement, given the symbolic nature of logic. The method of expansion has no such requirement. x
  • 19
    Relational Logic
    Hone your skill with first-order predicate logic by expanding into relations. An example: If I am taller than my son and my son is taller than my wife, then I am taller than my wife." This relation is obvious, but the techniques you learn allow you to prove subtler cases." x
  • 20
    Introducing Logical Identity
    Still missing from our logical toolkit is the ability to validate identity. Known as equivalence relations, these proofs have three important criteria: equivalence is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. Test the techniques by validating the identity of an unknown party in an office romance. x
  • 21
    Logic and Mathematics
    See how all that you have learned in the course relates to mathematics-and vice versa. Trace the origin of deductive logic to the ancient geometrician Euclid. Then consider the development of non-Euclidean geometries in the 19th century and the puzzle this posed for mathematicians. x
  • 22
    Proof and Paradox
    Delve deeper into the effort to prove that the logical consistency of mathematics can be reduced to basic arithmetic. Follow the work of David Hilbert, Georg Cantor, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and others. Learn how Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems sounded the death knell for this ambitious project. x
  • 23
    Modal Logic
    Add two new operators to your first-order predicate vocabulary: a symbol for possibility and another for necessity. These allow you to deal with modal concepts, which are contingent or necessary truths. See how philosophers have used modal logic to investigate ethical obligations. x
  • 24
    Three-Valued and Fuzzy Logic
    See what happens if we deny the central claim of classical logic, that a proposition is either true or false. This step leads to new and useful types of reasoning called multi-valued logic and fuzzy logic. Wind up the course by considering where you've been and what logic is ultimately about. x

Lecture Titles

Clone Content from Your Professor tab

What's Included

What Does Each Format Include?

Video DVD
DVD Includes:
  • 24 lectures on 4 DVDs
  • 240-page printed course guidebook
  • Downloadable PDF of the course guidebook
  • FREE video streaming of the course from our website and mobile apps
  • Closed captioning available

What Does The Course Guidebook Include?

Video DVD
Course Guidebook Details:
  • 240-page printed course guidebook
  • Illustrations, and Photographs
  • Suggested Reading
  • Questions to Consider

Enjoy This Course On-the-Go with Our Mobile Apps!*

  • App store App store iPhone + iPad
  • Google Play Google Play Android Devices
  • Kindle Fire Kindle Fire Kindle Fire Tablet + Firephone
*Courses can be streamed from anywhere you have an internet connection. Standard carrier data rates may apply in areas that do not have wifi connections pursuant to your carrier contract.

Your professor

Steven Gimbel

About Your Professor

Steven Gimbel, Ph.D.
Gettysburg College
Professor Steven Gimbel holds the Edwin T. Johnson and Cynthia Shearer Johnson Distinguished Teaching Chair in the Humanities at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, where he also serves as Chair of the Philosophy Department. He received his bachelor's degree in Physics and Philosophy from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and his doctoral degree in Philosophy from the Johns Hopkins University, where he wrote his...
Learn More About This Professor
Also By This Professor


An Introduction to Formal Logic is rated 4.6 out of 5 by 50.
Rated 5 out of 5 by from This professor explains very clearly Just in lesson 16. Challenging for me. Love it. Professor's quirky humor and lucid explanations keep my head above water. Thanks Professor Gimbel.
Date published: 2019-07-20
Rated 2 out of 5 by from Beware! This course begins in a user-friendly fashion, but after about Lecture 7, it quickly becomes very challenging. The ordinary person without any background in logic, such as my husband and myself, simply cannot understand it.
Date published: 2019-07-19
Rated 5 out of 5 by from An Introduction to Formal Logic Professor Gimbel is knowledgable and concise in his presentations. Someone without basic knowledge in logic might not comprehend everything in lesson ten concerning truth-functional logic. Much difficult material was covered quickly. The advantage of the course is that one can stop the video and review the problematic parts.
Date published: 2019-07-07
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Having some fun will learning formal logic I like his reference to the wizard of oz and his jokes subtle and otherwise always got me laughing. The few commentaries on formalism, logicism, intuitionism, Hilbert and Godel were especially good, and even a moment of dark comedy related to Godel. Not for anyone who does not enjoy an half hour or so of syntactic detail, so be warned that reference to lines in a natural deductive proof that have scrolled off screen can often be annoying. One thing for sure, I learned a lot about truth functional combinations, fundamental form and then categorical or basic form, and that is certainly saying something, especially coming from a fuzzy prof with an inclination to tell fuzzy jokes while explaining fuzzy logic.
Date published: 2019-05-29
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Excellent Course! This course definitely lives up to its name -- it is truly a great one! Every new idea introduced is clearly illustrated by a thoughtfully chosen example. And the examples are just right -- as simple as they can get, without forfeiting any of the substance of what needs to be explained. (One example of many: DeMorgans identities can be thought of through a little story involving `Bob enjoying his coffee with cream and ...or... sugar by the coffee machine'; think through this example, and you will likely never forget what DeMorgans laws are all about. (And, incidentally, if you ever wondered what the real, real difference between Captain Morgan and DeMorgan is, be sure to watch the lectures on deductive validity.).) Moreover, the exercises are just as carefully chosen as the lecture examples. Be sure to spend time with those - working through them will ensure that you can confidently follow the subsequent lectures. (Finally, I should mention that Dr. Steve clearly has some serious acting talent. Not only is the content of the course right on the spot, but the presentation is also superb. But be glad that the Prof. didn't follow an acting career because that would be a huge loss to philosophy and logic.)
Date published: 2019-05-27
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Complex subject well explained Formal logic is a difficult subject for most of us, including myself with a science degree. Professor Gimbel made this subect overview, both interesting and entertaining. Building from a general description through the stages of logic using clear examples, interspersed with humor, it was of great benefit to me.
Date published: 2019-05-23
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Review #2? Not sure if more than one review is allowed, we shall see, but wish to conclude by saying that it was an absolute privilege and pleasure to observe Professor Gimbell's two dozen lectures on Formal Logic, providing "good rigorous ways of defining what it is that we should believe" and, by extension, "who we are." I was also pleasantly reminded of my college years where it was my experience that classes in the Philosophy Department (e.g. Logic, Linguistics and MetaLogic) were marked by humility and wisdom as opposed to the arrogance within the Computer Science Department, albeit the Department of my Major. Also totally enjoyed the Professor's priceless and ever front-and-center (East Coast?) sense of humor.
Date published: 2019-05-19
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Seemed more than an introduction I purchased this course based on the description. While Professor Gimbel introduced the various methods for proving or disproving arguments, I found the later lessons to be quite complex. Especially when defining parameters as all or some, and the addition of operators. I did enjoy some of his anecdotal arguments whereby he shared some humorous results and warnings. I will say some of what he defined as arguments that could be proved, were not the type I would bother with determining the proof. Unless I really disliked the person presenting the argument, and felt mean spirited. Having the DVD, I will be reviewing the lessons a few more times.
Date published: 2019-05-17
Rated 5 out of 5 by from I have purchased courses for the last 10 or so years and have been very satisfied and am very satisfied with our recent purchases that I sent to our daughter who is homeschooling 6 children. I only wish that I could have online access to the courses i have purchased in the past. before digital that possible?
Date published: 2019-04-22
Rated 5 out of 5 by from What a Great Teacher! This is the second Great Course I've purchased taught by Dr. Steven Gimbel (see also "Take My Course, Please, The Philosophy of Humor") and he continues to be my favorite teacher. Dr. Gimbel presents subject matter in a style that enables all viewers to understand the most abstract of academic principles. He's a brilliant academician who is also a spectacular performer!
Date published: 2019-02-11
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Wish I had a few Dr. Gimbel's when I was a student Dr. Gimbel is an excellent presenter. He keeps the lecture interesting and does an great job presenting the material. I found it easy to follow and most enjoyable. My one recommendation would be to suggest a workbook that would allow the student to work through an assortment of statements. There weren't enough in the course book.
Date published: 2018-12-11
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Thick, but delectable Prof. Guelzo is animated, and very long-winded. At first I found it too hard to keep up, and so I started over, re-hearing the beginning of the first "class" numerous times until I started to feel I had actually heard and understood what he was saying. Once I got to that point, then I found that not only is he setting forth a fundamental definition of history and using the history of history to illustrate the various stages of its development, but he is also inviting us to swoon at the delectable details of this magnificent thing, this human thing, history. And he is profoundly prosaic, and at times I have to stop and do something else. But I love this class, and I have only studied the first class. I give it only four stars because, for me, without digging in deeply, I was not enjoying the surface of his presentation. It was too challenging to follow, at first. Here's a tip: Prof. Guelzo is actually a lot of fun, and is quite funny. But you have to listen closely to catch it...
Date published: 2018-12-05
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Dr. Gimbel is Awesome I found that Dr. Gimbel's combination of subject knowledge and humour made for a very enlightening course which held my attention at all times. I will definitely watch it many times.
Date published: 2018-07-27
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Great examples! Gimbel's presentation is lucid and keeps you interested! There are certainly places where it gets a little dense, but I'm not sure how you'd avoid that in a course this short. Possibly there should be more lessons in the sections toward the end -- that is, they should be covered more slowly.
Date published: 2018-06-04
Rated 5 out of 5 by from This course is superb! With his flawless presentation Professor Gimbel takes you through – step by step – the basics , first of informal logic and then the intricacies of formal logic. This course provides a very accessible introduction for the first time student of logic and is also a great review for the more experienced. I especially enjoyed his two later lectures on logic and mathematics. This course is excellent! Professor Gimbel’s other philosophy course called Redefining Reality is equally as well done.
Date published: 2018-02-19
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Stop the Madness! STOP THE MADNESS! This is really a bad course, I had to stop before the 11th minute mark! Let me start at the very beginning. "IN the beginning God created heaven, and earth." (Genesis 1:1) God created all things. Things didn't evolve themselves from nothing by their own effort. The Bible REJECTS evolution. "You shall be as Gods, knowing (gnostically deciding) good and evil." (Genesis 3:5) "And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labor and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life." (Genesis 3:17) "LET every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1) In other words, the individuals, states and governments legislated laws are subjected to Christ. The allegation that "from the people" or the "consent of the governed" is a claim of authority, is a refusal of being subject to Christ. Psychology doesn't mean the study of human behavior and psychology isn't a science, it is more like a religion with different sects. Psychology: Greek - Psyche and logos Psyche means soul. Logos generally means, any organized body of knowledge contains logos in its name. Hegelian dialectics: Thesis meets antithesis to produce a new thesis (synthesis) which, in turn, will meet another antithesis, and so on. Bertrand Russell's first cause argument fails! God is independent of causes and is independent of the LIMITATION which causes impose. Therefore, God the first cause is FREE from limitation; in other words, God is infinite. There can be only ONE NECESSARY BEING, because a necessary being is infinite. Therefore, the necessary first cause MUST be ONE and INFINITE. (RT. REV. MSGR. PAUL J. GLENN, Ph.D., S.T.D.) LOGIC: is the science and art of correct reasoning. THE TWO MAIN BRANCHES OF LOGIC: FORMAL (minor Logic) and MATERIAL (major logic). In formal logic, the purpose is not to discover truth, but to lead us from one truth to another. THREE KINDS of LOGICAL PROCESSES (Formal Logic): MENTAL ACT: 1) Simple Apprehension VERBAL EXPRESSION: 1) Term MENTAL ACT: 2) Judgment VERBAL EXPRESSION: 2) Proposition MENTAL ACT: 3) Deductive Inference VERBAL EXPRESSION: 3) Syllogism ARGUMENT: 1) Premise 2) Premise 3) Conclusion What is man? A substance that is material, living, sentient and rational. What is the extension of man? All the men who have ever lived, who are now living and who will live in the future. What is an animal? A substance that is material, living and sentient. What is the extension of animal? All the animals (including men, lions, dogs, fish, insects, etc.) that have ever lived, are now living, and that ever will live. It is called the Porphrian Tree because it was invented by the 3rd-century logician Porphyry.
Date published: 2018-02-13
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Informative and convincing presentation I am just a few lessons into the course but so far am very pleased with it.
Date published: 2017-12-17
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Well Presented... Anyone considering a career in law or debate should watch the first 8 lectures. As a high school mathematics instructor who teaches discrete math, I enjoyed the formal aspects of the course and found parts that I could incorporate in my lessons. Formal proofs can be followed if you focus on the flow of the logic; you may have to pause now and then.
Date published: 2017-11-23
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Good logic course Very good course and instructor. Subtracted one star for 2 reasons : 1) the course guidebook cries out for an index at back to quickly find items for review, and 2) imho the last few lectures go beyond what I consider intro to formal logic material, and this time could have been better spent on review on previous covered material.
Date published: 2017-11-02
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Well Presented Excellent course, I purchased the transcript as I prefer to 'read' the course material and write notes in margins.
Date published: 2017-09-22
Rated 5 out of 5 by from A Powerful Tool for Life One of the best courses I have ever seen. The professor is hilarious, the explanations relatable, and the ideas clear. This course is exactly what he promises: powerful.
Date published: 2017-09-21
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Comprehensive It was an excellent adjunct/aid for college logic class.
Date published: 2017-08-11
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Very Helpful I purchased this as a companion to watch along with a symbolic logic class I was taking at the local community college. Very helpful, the lectures helped me to grasp what I missed in the classroom. Sometimes 2 instructors are better than one. The professor is easy to understand and seems to really enjoy logic. I would recommend the video version (assuming there is an audio only option.)
Date published: 2017-06-22
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Money Well Spent I am ecstatic with my initial purchase and know this will not be my last. The course is professionally presented in a layman's format that allows for easy comprehension, but with adequate 'in-depth' information to make one feel educated on the topic.
Date published: 2017-05-03
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Introduction to formal logic Good course , well presented. Too much "Junk Mail" after purchase. Also I wanted to buy another course; however the $29.95 sale price listed was always $49.95 at the checkout. So I dropped the issue.
Date published: 2017-04-29
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Excellent presentation I bought this course to complement "Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning" and particularly enjoyed its scope and sequence. Together, these courses give me a one-two punch. I like debating with my friends, and "Formal Logic," in particular, has helped me look at subjects with a new eye, allowing me to zero in on dubious claims with a laser like accuracy which helps me score points. Highly recommended!
Date published: 2017-04-12
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Informal to Fuzzy or Aristotle to Russell & Godel Professor Gimbel, begins this course simply, asking why we should study logic and then moving to discussing Informal Logic (All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal). Things go along smoothly for several lectures, as we learn about logical fallacies and move from deductive to inductive reasoning. The course material provided thankfully includes some exercise in the form of questions at to be answered at the conclusion of each lecture. While the first few are easy, being able to be answered without much thought, they become increasingly more difficult and by the end of the course require (at least for me) a great deal of though and also some review of the presented material. The second third of the course begins an excursion into Formal Logic, Professor Gimbel once again starting with some easy ‘Truth Table” concepts and Natural Deduction to the more difficult to grasp equivalences and indirect proofs. For me, the later lectures beginning with “First Order Predicate Logic” is where the course takes off. At least for me these lectures required quite a bit of thought and some considerable review in order to grasp the concepts. All along Professor Gimbel adds new operators to First Order Predicate Logic, so be the time he reaches the penultimate lecture on Modal Logic, we have a very large set of operators and conditions that are available to be used in solving logic problems. The final lecture introduces “Fuzzy Logic”, a relatively new construct. Along the way Professor Gimble introduces various logicians, philosophers and mathematicians who have been instrumental in developing informal and formal logic. For example we get Aristotle and Bertrand Russell, Euclid and his geometry and non-Euclidian geometry. All-in-all, a treat, albeit one requiring a deal of consideration. Dr. Gimbel (normally he refers to himself as ‘Steve’) has a rapid-fire delivery style, especially when going through a proof. He is much more measure when introducing a new concept. I agree with other reviewers that it was bothersome to have sections of a proof scroll off the screen, but I suppose that is a limitation of the technology. ‘Steve’ has a very dry sense of humor, usually just making a quip in the same tone of voice and style of delivery that he uses when discussing ‘Invalidity’, leaving it up to the student to get the joke or not. An excellent, though difficult course.
Date published: 2017-03-21
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Engaging Lecturer & Thought-Provoking Topic I really enjoyed this course, the most challenging one that I've taken from The Great Courses. Dr. Gimbel is humorous and obviously a subject matter expert in logic, but the course guidebook seems to contain many errors (as does the video in a couple of places). This was frustrating while proceeding through the at-times difficult material, since I didn't know if the errors were really in the guidebook or were as a result of my misunderstanding. Despite that, I look forward to taking other Great Courses taught by Dr. Gimbel and reading some of his books.
Date published: 2017-03-15
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Excellent Presentation Dynamic presentation, informed instructor and great moments of humor at times. I am actually excited as I watch each next video, better than I thought it would be. I recommend this series on Logic!
Date published: 2017-03-11
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Intro to Formal Logic I bought this course for two reasons. First, I loved Professor Gimbels course titled Redefining Reality. Second, I’ve tried to self-study logic in the past with little success. Well, I may have been unsuccessful in the past, but this course set me straight. Professor Gimbel is absolutely outstanding. He’s funny, brilliant, and a very good teacher. I unexpectedly fell in love with logic. It was not an easy course; in fact it was very difficult for me. I had to watch most lessons 2 or 3 times and take a lot of notes to make the material gel. But, the further I went, the easier it became in a way as there is a lot of repetition from lesson to lesson. The course is replete with examples. An Introduction to Formal Logic has set a new high bar for The Great Courses as far as I’m concerned. I honestly feel like I just took a college level course in logic. The bottom line here is that this course is probably not something you just sit back and watch. You really should have a desire to learn logic and be prepared to work. The proofs are very similar to high school geometry. My final words…please, please, please…more Professor Gimbal.
Date published: 2016-10-06
  • y_2020, m_9, d_28, h_16
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_3.0.12
  • cp_2, bvpage2n
  • co_hasreviews, tv_6, tr_44
  • loc_en_US, sid_4215, prod, sort_[SortEntry(order=SUBMISSION_TIME, direction=DESCENDING)]
  • clientName_teachco
  • bvseo_sdk, p_sdk, 3.2.0
  • CLOUD, getContent, 37.63ms

Questions & Answers

Customers Who Bought This Course Also Bought