Log In
Log In
Led by Aristotle Logic Simulacrum
The architecture of argument from deductive and inductive reasoning through informal fallacies, argument mapping, and the paradoxes that reveal the boundaries of reason.
Led by Aristotle Logic Simulacrum
The question
A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises — if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false. This is the strongest form of reasoning, and the syllogism is its classical instrument. All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal. The conclusion is not probably true — it is necessarily true, given the premises. But validity (the form is correct) is not the same as soundness (the premises are also true).
Outcome
The student can distinguish validity from soundness, identify the three parts of a syllogism, test a syllogism against the distribution rules, translate ordinary-language claims into syllogistic form, and explain why deduction cannot generate new empirical knowledge. (Deductive reasoning)
Sub-units
Led by Aristotle Logic Simulacrum
The question
Induction is the reasoning we actually live by. Every time you conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow because it rose today and yesterday and every day before that, you are reasoning inductively — from specific observations to a general conclusion. Induction is less certain than deduction (the conclusion follows probably, not necessarily), but it is how all empirical knowledge is generated. The problem: induction can fail.
Outcome
The student can describe enumerative induction and the factors that strengthen it, describe analogical reasoning and the relevance criterion, state Hume's problem of induction, and explain statistics as formalised induction. (Inductive reasoning)
Sub-units
Led by Aristotle Logic Simulacrum
The question
A fallacy is an argument that appears to be valid but is not — it has the surface form of good reasoning but contains a structural defect. Informal fallacies are the most dangerous because they exploit psychological tendencies rather than logical rules — they feel right even when they are wrong. The student who can recognise a fallacy is inoculated against it. The student who cannot is persuaded by every confident speaker, every authoritative-sounding claim, every emotionally compelling but logically empty appeal.
Outcome
The student can identify and name the four most common fallacies of relevance, the four most common fallacies of presumption, and the three fallacies of ambiguity, and explain why fallacies are psychologically compelling despite being logically defective. (Informal fallacies)
Sub-units
Led by Dodgson Simulacrum
The question
The argument as spoken or written is linear — one sentence follows another. But the argument as a logical structure is not linear — it is a tree. The conclusion sits at the top. Below it are the premises that directly support it. Below those are the sub-premises that support the premises. And below those are the evidence and assumptions that support the sub-premises.
Outcome
The student can construct an argument map from a prose passage, identify implicit premises, distinguish convergent from linked premise structures, and incorporate objections and rebuttals into a dialectical map. (Argument mapping)
Sub-units
Led by Dodgson Simulacrum
The question
I am fond of paradoxes. A paradox is not a failure of logic — it is a place where logic reveals something surprising about itself. The Liar says "this sentence is false" — if it is true, then it is false; if it is false, then it is true. The logic is impeccable; the conclusion is impossible.
Outcome
The student can describe the Liar, Russell's, the Sorites, and Zeno's paradoxes, explain the logical mechanism that generates each, and explain why paradoxes are valuable (they mark the boundaries of logical systems and drive foundational advances). (Paradox and self-reference)
Sub-units