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 4 out of 5 by from Great Course for Teaching Logic to Children Thus far, my 10 and 13 year old boys and I have enjoyed this course thoroughly. Granted, we're only on lesson 3 at this time, but the quality of Dr G's presentation has kept everyone's interest and served to explain common fallacies very well. I'm looking forward to viewing more and more importantly, so are the youth!
Date published: 2016-06-24
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Generally Good for Abstract Thinkers Good. Recommended for those who love somewhat abstract thinking. (Of all the Great Courses I have bought over several years, including various ones in mathematics, this is the most abstract.) The professor is accomplished, his presentation is good and pleasant, and the course as a whole is satisfying for abstract thinkers. Good on-screen illustrations. Of course, there are always minor considerations. The first lecture is a bit dry, so don't be put off by it. The next several lectures deal with real world fallacies and not with a formalism, but they are also good. When it comes to formal logic itself, primarily symbolic, the professor might give a little more information on differences in symbolic systems, so that a viewer who later reads/views other writers or lecturers will not be confused by the differences. (The guide book only briefly touches on this.) Some viewers might find the exact symbolic system used here a little "spare" compared to those of other writers, so that the symbol combinations might occasionally be a little unclear. However, personal considerations may vary. In the matter of truth tables, a few short examples of having more than two atomic sentences would be useful. Also, the lecturer might show how it is possible in terms of pure formalism to reduce the set of logical connectives, although this would be more advanced material. The lectures on mathematical logic might be fleshed out a little more if there were more time. All in all, good brief summary at the end of the last lecture. Nevertheless, for people who like abstractions and, in the first lectures especially, those who want to be able to have clearer thinking in the real world, the course can be recommended heartily.
Date published: 2016-06-05
Rated 4 out of 5 by from More than I Bargained For For years, when TGC would ask for course suggestions, I would mention “logic,” because I thought it would be interesting to learn about logical fallacies and constructing valid arguments. And indeed, this course covers that material…in the first six lectures. I learned that this is “informal logic,” but that the real meaty stuff is “formal logic,” which is what the remaining 18 lectures deal with. And that’s where Prof. Gimbel lost me. The Prof is a very likeable guy, a good communicator and even a bit of a stand-up comic. He obviously knows the material. But once we reach the subject of formal logic, with truth tables, proofs, predicate logic, etc., my eyes glazed over. The trouble is: this material is too dense to be absorbed by watching a lecture and seeing the Prof run through some examples (as entertaining as the premises may be). Material like this, which is more mathematical in nature, requires spending time working through multiple examples in order to master the content. One good point is that the course guide DOES provide additional examples over and above the ones shown on the DVD. But they’re still not enough – at least, for someone like me who saw math classes as a necessary evil. Most of the 50+ courses I have taken have been in history/music/biography. These are subjects in which a lecture gives you new material to learn, in the form of facts and observations that can be absorbed easily and reinforced with notes from the guide. This logic course was more than I bargained for. I am not interested enough in the intricacies of proofs (something I hated in geometry class) to want to spend more time learning them. I did indeed watch and read ALL 24 lectures. There were a couple near the end which dealt with the history of mathematicians, which were kind of interesting. But only about 1/3 of the lectures were of any use to me. Unfortunately, this means that I will be returning this course, only the first out of dozens I have completed. The TGC production team continues its fine work, with good on-screen graphics, and some clever camera moves, including some crane shots toward the Prof as he starts the lecture. The Prof keeps moving on the set, followed capably by the camera crew, who almost never let us get a glimpse of Prof. Gimbel’s ponytail. I will continue my ongoing complaint about the course books, which now contain virtually NO end material (vocabulary, time lines, etc.). In addition, this book uses a very thin, faint font which is hard to read. I hope this will not become the norm. Times Roman may be boring, but at least it’s legible. So…thanks to TGC for producing a Logic course. Unfortunately, it was too much for me!
Date published: 2016-06-03
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Great stuff - but have a pen and paper handy I did a basic logic course during my undergrad mathematics course aeons in the past and have always had an interest in philosophy so this course seemed a good way to review some known material and also check out some unfamiliar topics. Positives: (A) The course has a very clear structure (1) informal, "everyday" logic including common fallacies; (2) "classical" formal, symbolic logic (propositional and 1st order predicate); (3) some non-classical logic (modal and multivalued). (B) The professor is very clear in his presentation with a good sense of humour. (C) The visuals are excellent (although there are a couple of mistakes), especially when they are used to show how to translate a verbal argument into its symbolic equivalent. Negatives: (A) As one reviewer has mentioned the longer proofs scroll off the screen - hence the need for the pen and paper! (B) The modal logic lecture seemed a bit rushed and think two lectures would have been more useful for this challenging topic; (C) There was no mention of the tableau (truth tree) method which is often much faster than natural deduction methods. This could have been a very dry course but the production and presenter made this overall a very stimulating lecture set. But beware, most of the lectures require a high degree of focus and to get full benefit I think most viewers will need to use the pause and repeat frequently - I did!
Date published: 2016-05-31
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Lectures are Very Good but Course Guidebook is Not Several decades ago as an undergraduate, I had a sampling of formal logic in my classes but not to the extents provided in this course. This course is a nice refresher of the portions of formal logic I knew as well as covering the more advanced aspects of formal logic. The lectures by Professor Gimbel are very good. Professor Gimbel explains the concepts of each principle of formal logic. Professor Gimbel then takes common everyday like sentences and paragraphs, translates them into formal logic and then applies the principles of formal logic to prove or disprove the argument in the paragraph. Seeing these principles being applied “in action” is very beneficial to learn these concepts. Professor Gimbel also makes these lecture entertaining as well as informative. He adds amusing side comments and short anecdotes to liven up the lecture. My favorite is his rendition of the Tin Man of the Wizard of Oz singing “If I only had a kidney” instead of “If I only had a brain”. There is a typographical error in the presentation of lecture 10. When Professor Gimbel is defining the term “function”, he is using the mathematical equation of y = x +2. However, the graphs that are shown are the screen are y = x +1. Consequently, the commentary does not align with the figures. Unfortunately, the course has a serious deficiency in the form of the guidebook. The guidebook does not provide the supportive material that it should to assist the student. Specifically: 1. In some of the later lectures, the proofs can have 20 or more steps. In order for these steps to be visible to the student, especially from tablets or smartphones, only 8 or 9 lines are shown on the screen. During the proof, Professor Gimbel says something like we now combine step 20 with step 5. The problem is that step 5 has scrolled off the screen. However, the simple solution would be to print the entire proof in the guidebook so that the student can follow along. The guidebook does not include the example proofs from Professor Gimbel’s lecture. 2. Some of the proofs in the later lectures are quite complex and can be longer than what is displayed on the screen. It is difficult to follow Professor Gimbel’s example proofs without have these proofs in the guidebook so that the student can follow along and pause the lecture as necessary. 3. The formal logic being presented by Professor Gimbel contains numerous rules that can be used to solve the proofs. To be able to follow the proofs being given by Professor Gimbel, all of the rules need to be summarized in one location such as an appendix in the guidebook. The guidebook for this course does not include any such summary or appendix. The Great Courses has provided supportive appendices in some of their other courses but unfortunately not for this course. I wanted to give this course a 5 star ratings but the guidebook deficiencies are to significant to justify such a rating. However, I still recommend this course to get a good overview of formal logic.
Date published: 2016-05-25
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Great Introductory Course The course is fairly comprehensive for an Introductory Course in Logic, lacking only a Chapter on Truth-Trees. The lecturer has a sense of humor and a clear presentation. There are recommended readings in the Course Book for those who want further treatment of a covered subject, although most of the material is explained quite well by the Professor. A good course, well worth the money!
Date published: 2016-05-16
  • y_2020, m_10, d_27, h_16
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_3.0.12
  • cp_3, 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, 64.1ms

Questions & Answers

Customers Who Bought This Course Also Bought