The Logic Manual - Volker Halbach

>>7693233
Thanks.

Believe me, read this: http://www.logicmatters.net/tyl/

Peter Smith was a Professor in Cambridge and now maintains this blog and helps students to start learning logic. This is the best available guide you can find.

I've been studying (and self-studying) logic for 2 to 3 years now, so maybe I can help you with some elementary stuff.

>>7693263
got any consolidated guide that leads up to modal logic and analytic philosophy?

>>7693339
Believe me, you can start reading analytic philosophy right away.


And I would not recommend studying modal logic before you have a full grasp of Propositional Logic (this is the absolute basic requirement) and First-Order Logic.

Before moving to modal logic of any kind, you should really know the syntactic and semantic properties of standard PL. You should also know some proof systems apart from the usual tableaux and truth table methods. Most books will also contain a primer on either natural deduction or the sequent calculus (or both).

Then you can decide where to go next. A nice little book to read while you start studying propositional logic and FOL is 'Philosophy of logics' by Susan Haack. You can easily find it on Libgen.

>>7693385
To add to your point about proofs, there's a nifty little known program called Logic 2010, that teaches you the proper semantics and syntax of doing derivations. I used in my formal logic class and it was immensely helpful in understanding how to set up proofs. You unlock more inference rules by proving theorems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzF11I7EJj0

https://logiclx.humnet.ucla.edu/

The below wiki is a very good intro to mathematical logic and the notions of truth tables, truth functions, etc in two-valued (EITHER true OR false) logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_function

Because modern logic is a very young area of inquiry (about 100-150 years), they (the people who developed it) haven't fully standardized their notation, which can cause confusion for a noob. The above link is great for internalizing a bunch of (variously used) notations /which all mean the same things/. This problem has (in my view) in a sense been multiplied by the proliferation of computer languages, which have their own notations/syntax which variously effect the same things.

>>7693385
>truth table methods
>proof system
Pick one

>'Philosophy of logics' by Susan Haack
Outdated and idiosyncratic take on logic. See Tennant's review where he does a good demolition job of the book.

>Before moving to modal logic of any kind, you should really know the syntactic and semantic properties of standard PL.
Daily reminder that knowing your syntactic and semantic properties won't make you a good mathematician in general; a mathematician that is able to prove theorems on his own, without much hand-holding. Working with the object language of pretty much any logic is a walk in the park in comparison to the metatheory of that logic (unless the logic is really, really trivial). Daily reminder that if you haven't taken your Mathematical Analysis and Abstract Algebra classes your chances of being something greater than your typical 'erudite' hobbyist in logic (= knowing trivia and being able to recall interesting facts about the subject without being a good problem-solver) are small.

>>7693732
can one's natural ability to problem solve be improved without recourse to syntactic and semantic properties for assistance (i.e. without learning the rules and tricks of the game, so to speak)?

>>7693778

At a glance, I want to say that the short answer to your question is "No". And the reason why I say that, is because what your thing amounts to is looking for a shortcut to "just generally doing things faster/knowing what to do." In other words, you're literally describing intelligence itself, and last I checked, intelligence is (pretty much) fixed in individual adults. I'm not aware of a pill that you can take which will permanently raise your IQ by 20 points (nor do I wish to get bogged down in semantics about IQ itself. My meaning should be plain by now).

The thing comes down to raw intelligence versus learning the tricks, as you say. In my experience, a person has whatever intelligence they are gifted or cursed with, and from there they can decide whether they want to work on actually learning the tricks. Just grind on the tricks until you become familiar with whatever patterns in trains of thought are relevant to your thing. What left to you, to us, is to Git Gud with whatever g it is you've got.

>>7693877
I expected that that would be your answer, and it's a fair response. The question I've been wondering is whether the premise, as you say, that intelligence (usually fluid intelligence, the sort of 'raw' problem solving ability when faced with a novel task), is fixed in adults.

I'm not familiar with all the literature on the subject, but I suspect that the main basis for this assertion is empirical evidence from IQ tests showing similar results in fluid intelligence throughout a person's life. That's pretty good evidence that fluid intelligence is fixed. But, the important question is whether fixed fluid intelligence is by necessity or not. I imagine anyone who's engaged in a mental problem that was difficult or near impossible for them to solve would agree that it is a very uncomfortable experience. It seems to me, therefore, that the average person's fluid intelligence is 'fixed' not out of physical necessity, but because they are painfully averse to engaging in problems that seriously strain their mental capacities. Hence, why we see no fluctuation in fluid intelligence throughout their lifetimes.

If this explanation is correct (it may not be), then you could imagine that if a person were willing to push through the discomfort and practice novel problem solving, their fluid intelligence would actually increase. I'm not a smart man myself so hopefully you understand what I'm saying because I couldn't make it any clearer.

>>7693943

I did lose you around "fixed fluid intelligence" and the variants of that phrase, but what you're describing just sounds to me like whatever grinding/leveling a given person is capable of. So your thing doesn't sound to me to be substantively different from what I was getting at.