my contention is that students should learn the art of reasoning and develop an ability to detect and analyse fallacious arguments. this skill is developed by solving problems that students can relate to - even if they do not know their formal definitions. for example: https://menlocoaching.com/gmat/official-gmat-practice-questions/critical-reasoning/ https://practice-questions.wizako.com/gmat/verbal/critical-reasoning/ https://www.hitbullseye.com/Critical-Reasoning-Practice-Questions.php https://www.cracksat.net/sat/passage-based-reading/test201.html --- https://magoosh.com/gmat/introduction-to-gmat-critical-reasoning/ the links are from a quick search to give you an idea. i stumbled on this link as well, with questions and answers. Reading Comprehension RC-1000 Sentence Correction SC-1000 Data Sufficiency DS-1000 Problem Solving PS-1000 https://gmatclub.com/forum/complete-reading-comprehension-rc-1000-series-358858.html https://gmatclub.com/forum/complete-1000-sentence-correction-series-sc-1000-series-312440.html https://gmatclub.com/forum/complete...y-series-ds-1000-series-questions-400555.html https://gmatclub.com/forum/complete...g-series-ps-1000-series-questions-402933.html ==== it doesn't matter which books you have studied - if you are not able to tackle these questions, it would be safe to assume that the books are not helping one to improve their abilities in critical reasoning. conversely, if you solve these questions - your critical reasoning will be far greater than reading books that only explain concepts without allowing your mind to work out. ---- Allah ta'ala knows best.
i think you have misunderstood my dissatisfaction with current teaching methods. perhaps, i am to blame for not articulating my position clearly. firstly, i have not advocated symbolic/mathematical logic as a learning method. even though it is convenient to use notations to explain propositions, and easier for people to understand. i am not a fan of teaching logic using notations and pure X, Y forms instead of examples from real life, which a learner can easily relate to. here, i meant the teaching method. given below is the quote from the post. ==== notational algebra is far easy to teach than rhetorical algebra. so yes, at times using notation will help the student understand the argument clearly. i have done that many times on this forum itself - one example from a recently published book. the description of mu'an'an in sharif jurjani's risalah: the literal translation is: That narration in whose chain of authority it is said: so-and-so [fulan] FROM fulan. The correct opinion is that it is considered as a continuous chain if meeting [between the two fulans] can be established, and is free from tadlīs. Both the şaĥīĥ collections abound with mu-ánán narrations. Ibn al-Şalāĥ has said: In our age and close to our times, it is often used to mean ‘permission’. If it is said fulan narrates from a man who narrators from fulan, it is closer to be deemed as interrupted and not as Mursal. ----- i chose notations X,Y instead of "so-and-so" or "fulan". ---- simple notations are useful in explaining things, using notations (especially, symbols of formal logic) to teach logic is not what i advocate.
any book that gives the reader/student the ability to analyse statements and identify a sound argument from a weak or a fallacious one. books of logic in darsi syllabi also include epistemology and terminology used in kalam. i had once downloaded a very good book with diagrams and tables that explain terms. i will presently locate it and share the link. in sha'Allah.
They running the online aalimiyah program first time with a recording option. But as the program is being run online they thinking to just offer it openly to the public as for those who haven't studied the subject. Hopefully next year, after this year being their trial year, things will be more organized. (The above is just my opinion) -----‐---------- I kind of love this approach as it allows students to study different subjects as short courses and adding the weekly fee to it will compel attendance for serious students or early drop outs.
my point is that the objective of teaching mantiq was to train a student to identify a sound argument from a fallacious one. so these books had their place. those of us old enough to remember know that we were not allowed to use calculators - and we had to use logarithm tables for calculations. one of the first things we learned in physics/chem class was how to use log-tables. i don't know how many even KNOW how to use one. clark's tables was a mandatory companion of all students entering college. ----- then they invented the calculator. what is the point of learning to use log tables? ----- reading, comprehension, critical analysis. there are better tools - in my opinion, and i may be wrong - than isagoge.
the book cover helpfully indicates that it is greek logic. the once magnificient building is now in ruins. just sayin.
The one thing I would say... Sometimes the notice for these courses is very short. Wouldn't hurt to advertise a month in advance although I appreciate there are recorded videos available too
Dive into the foundations of logic with *Isagoji*! Join us for a 5-6 week journey through the timeless text on *mantiq*, taught by Shaykh Sufyan Arshad. Perfect for beginners and anyone looking to deepen their understanding. **Classes**: Twice a week on **Wednesday & Thursday** **Time**: 8PM - 9PM **Cost**: £10 per week **Playback available** Sign up now to secure your spot: (HTTPS:/TINYURL.COM/ISAGOJI) Or contact: 07510847311
