During my short time T.A.-ing for my logic prof., I have reformatted the square of opposition (a diagram designed to point out the immediate inferences of any logical statement, created by Aristotle and not updated since the 19th century) to require the memorization of fewer rules and to be more intuitive to new students of logic. In one day I have been able to take four students who absolutely BOMBED the quiz, and, through the use of my modified square of opposition (which I'm now calling 'The Dimo Calculator'), I was able to teach each student how to make immediate inferences without confusion, with a 100% success rate. This was achieved in no more than a half-hour per student (compare this to the many hours spent by the prof. with little to no results). I cannot stop thinking about it.
1. RAH!
2. Do we know you?
1. Indeed
2. You used to, my bad.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on February 25, 2014, 02:34:01 AM
1. Indeed
2. You used to, my bad.
:lulz:
Welcome back, spag.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 25, 2014, 02:38:21 AM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on February 25, 2014, 02:34:01 AM
1. Indeed
2. You used to, my bad.
:lulz:
Welcome back, spag.
To be fair, I never left in spirit.
Continuing in fairness, 'here in spirit' is pretty fuckin' useless. So, again, my bad.
But, as always, thanks for havin' me.
Please to present this new square to the group, please and thank you.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 25, 2014, 02:59:52 AM
Please to present this new square to the group, please and thank you.
THIS.
Well, I could explain it better in person, and I could draw it better by hand, but if you want to give me a bit, I can write something up on how it works and somehow come up with a graphic. Mind you, if this really is as cool as I think it may be, it's senior thesis material, and I'd rather be a little tight-lipped about it while I'm working on it.
But, I will tell you this: the old square over-simplifies everything. By abstracting out a second square (one for T statements only, and one for F statements only) you have no parts of the diagram doing double duty (True A statements go in the same place as False ones, etc., in the old diagram, which in many cases, leads to confusion regarding certain types of inferences). Further, if you stack the two squares in such a way, it highlights a third zone which automatically tells you which statements produce unknown inferences, thus eliminating the need to remember the rules of contraries, and allowing you to replace the rules of alteration/sub-alteration with a simpler rule, which gives you a total of only two rules, one universal to all instances on the diagram, and one conditional dependent on the zone in which you begin inferring.
Dude, I was thinking about you earlier. Good to see you!
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on February 25, 2014, 03:58:03 AM
Dude, I was thinking about you earlier. Good to see you!
yessir. when we meatup, yo?
U2, LMNO. Meatup.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on February 25, 2014, 04:31:29 AM
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on February 25, 2014, 03:58:03 AM
Dude, I was thinking about you earlier. Good to see you!
yessir. when we meatup, yo?
U2, LMNO. Meatup.
I've got 3 Biology related and 1 Math related class this semester. I have Spring Break the week of March 17. Note however, that Villager's birthday is the 21st.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on February 25, 2014, 03:51:33 AM
Well, I could explain it better in person, and I could draw it better by hand, but if you want to give me a bit, I can write something up on how it works and somehow come up with a graphic. Mind you, if this really is as cool as I think it may be, it's senior thesis material, and I'd rather be a little tight-lipped about it while I'm working on it.
But, I will tell you this: the old square over-simplifies everything. By abstracting out a second square (one for T statements only, and one for F statements only) you have no parts of the diagram doing double duty (True A statements go in the same place as False ones, etc., in the old diagram, which in many cases, leads to confusion regarding certain types of inferences). Further, if you stack the two squares in such a way, it highlights a third zone which automatically tells you which statements produce unknown inferences, thus eliminating the need to remember the rules of contraries, and allowing you to replace the rules of alteration/sub-alteration with a simpler rule, which gives you a total of only two rules, one universal to all instances on the diagram, and one conditional dependent on the zone in which you begin inferring.
I think I sort of understand the gist of what you're saying, maybe. It sounds like the cliffs notes version is a simpler way to teach people how to use logic? That's wicked fucking cool.
Dimo!
Write that shit up. Seriously, write it up formally. Get your name on it.
Quote from: Nigel on February 25, 2014, 07:30:49 PM
Dimo!
Write that shit up. Seriously, write it up formally. Get your name on it.
Very much thisness.
Quote from: :regret: on February 25, 2014, 08:40:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 25, 2014, 07:30:49 PM
Dimo!
Write that shit up. Seriously, write it up formally. Get your name on it.
Very much thisness.
And a third, because if nothing else I'd like to see it. Sounds excellent.
Don't worry, I WILL write on this, one way or another. Right now I'm trying to figure out a good test to try to measure the effectiveness of my diagram vs. the original. I'm figuring I should take two groups of non-philosophy students from various departments, group A and group B. Then, teach group A immediate inferences using the old diagram, and test them. Then, take group A again and reteach them with my diagram, and test them. Then compare scores to see if there are any improvements. Simultaneously, I would do the opposite with group B (start with my diagram, the reteach with the original).
However, I am not a scientist by trade, so any advice on experimentation conditions or setup would be helpful.
Also, fucking LOL at the discordian improving logic tools. The irony burns.
Quote from: Jet City Hustle on February 25, 2014, 07:09:49 AM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on February 25, 2014, 03:51:33 AM
Well, I could explain it better in person, and I could draw it better by hand, but if you want to give me a bit, I can write something up on how it works and somehow come up with a graphic. Mind you, if this really is as cool as I think it may be, it's senior thesis material, and I'd rather be a little tight-lipped about it while I'm working on it.
But, I will tell you this: the old square over-simplifies everything. By abstracting out a second square (one for T statements only, and one for F statements only) you have no parts of the diagram doing double duty (True A statements go in the same place as False ones, etc., in the old diagram, which in many cases, leads to confusion regarding certain types of inferences). Further, if you stack the two squares in such a way, it highlights a third zone which automatically tells you which statements produce unknown inferences, thus eliminating the need to remember the rules of contraries, and allowing you to replace the rules of alteration/sub-alteration with a simpler rule, which gives you a total of only two rules, one universal to all instances on the diagram, and one conditional dependent on the zone in which you begin inferring.
I think I sort of understand the gist of what you're saying, maybe. It sounds like the cliffs notes version is a simpler way to teach people how to use logic? That's wicked fucking cool.
The bolded bit, yes. At least that is the current hypothesis.
I would just compare group A(new diagram) to group B(old diagram).
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2014, 01:07:03 AM
I would just compare group A(new diagram) to group B(old diagram).
Yeah, while on paper the reteaching sounds like it might balance things out a bit, it sounds more likely to muddy the waters with regards to whether the subject's performance in their second test is based on their first or second teaching.
Agreed. Two groups, no prior knowledge, who can navigate classic logic better? For a control, don't teach group three, compare no teaching, old way of teaching, new way of teaching.
Just an update: I have presented my diagram to a member of the staff, and asked if this may be worthy of a senior thesis. I was told that I may, in fact, have found my Masters thesis. Now, the jury is still out, but if this is any indicator, I may have done something good and meaningful. I am anxious and exited. Let's see how it goes...
Excellent news man!
Quote from: Cuddlefish on February 26, 2014, 11:59:44 PM
Just an update: I have presented my diagram to a member of the staff, and asked if this may be worthy of a senior thesis. I was told that I may, in fact, have found my Masters thesis. Now, the jury is still out, but if this is any indicator, I may have done something good and meaningful. I am anxious and exited. Let's see how it goes...
:mittens:
Dimo, I am super excited for you! That's amazeballs awesome, dude.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on February 26, 2014, 11:59:44 PM
Just an update: I have presented my diagram to a member of the staff, and asked if this may be worthy of a senior thesis. I was told that I may, in fact, have found my Masters thesis. Now, the jury is still out, but if this is any indicator, I may have done something good and meaningful. I am anxious and exited. Let's see how it goes...
Excellent!
Quote from: Cuddlefish on February 26, 2014, 11:59:44 PM
Just an update: I have presented my diagram to a member of the staff, and asked if this may be worthy of a senior thesis. I was told that I may, in fact, have found my Masters thesis. Now, the jury is still out, but if this is any indicator, I may have done something good and meaningful. I am anxious and exited. Let's see how it goes...
That is awesome!!!
Thanks, dudes. I really appreciate all of your support.
The diagram is being forwarded to a prof. in the computer science department because there may not be anyone in the PHL department qualified to supervise a thesis...
So, it's almost official. Met up with the Prof. from the comp-sci dept. and he loved my model. All that's left to do before I get started is the paperwork to make it official. The classical Phl world is about to get really upset. They tend to not like it when people improve upon the classics...
Did you graduate this term? Or are you sticking around for a bit? I remember you also mentioning you were looking into heading up to Amherst.
It sure does.
Beats batting strays. :)
Quote from: Cuddlefish on June 09, 2014, 04:18:19 PM
So, it's almost official. Met up with the Prof. from the comp-sci dept. and he loved my model. All that's left to do before I get started is the paperwork to make it official. The classical Phl world is about to get really upset. They tend to not like it when people improve upon the classics...
Sweet!
Go Dimo!
Quote from: The Suu on June 09, 2014, 04:28:16 PM
Did you graduate this term? Or are you sticking around for a bit? I remember you also mentioning you were looking into heading up to Amherst.
Nah, one more semester. And, hopefully, I'll teach for a year before I need to look at other schools.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on June 09, 2014, 06:38:08 PM
Quote from: The Suu on June 09, 2014, 04:28:16 PM
Did you graduate this term? Or are you sticking around for a bit? I remember you also mentioning you were looking into heading up to Amherst.
Nah, one more semester. And, hopefully, I'll teach for a year before I need to look at other schools.
You rock the HOUSE, Dimo!
Nice job, Dimo!