<p>for those who have taken the pre-requisite of "symbolic logic" what is the difference between "symbolic logic" and general "logic". Most of the community colleges in LA offer more courses in "logic" than "symbolic logic" yet UCLA states on assist that they want "symbolic logic"</p>
<p>Here are the descriptions from the PCC course catalog...</p>
<p>
[quote]
PHILO 30 LOGIC</p>
<p>Elementary thought processes, both deductive and inductive, emphasis on definition, verification, evidence, validity, forms of argument and of fallacious reasoning.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
PHILO 33 INTRODUCTION TO SYMBOLIC LOGIC</p>
<p>Elements of symbolic logic; sentential and quantificational; forms of reasoning; structure of language.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i don't really see the difference. I feel based on the defintion logic, seems to cover more? am i wrong? would ucla accept phil30 to fulfill that requirement?</p>
<p>the equivalent of UCLA Phil 31 (First Order Logic) is a symbolic logic course. yes, they touch on topics like fallacies and whatnot, but they also talk about universals, existentials and whatnot in the symbolic sense. It is vital that you know these things for classes that state Phil 31/32 as a pre-req. I must add that Phil 32 is Second Order Logic.</p>
<p>Logic and Symbolic Logic are different fields. I feel that at upper division phil classes, they EXPECT you to know all of the fallacies and things like "what's a proposition" (in the simplest sense, I make no reference to Russell) without really having to take a class on it (maybe phil 7 touches on these points). </p>
<p>When my class couldn't (or just didn't say anything, I think we were all too scared) give my professor the value of a conditional truth table, I think we gave him the impression that we're idiots.</p>
<p>I wouldn't enter a class not knowing how to do proofs. For example, we were SUPPOSED TO KNOW that in the case of typed lambda calculus, template 2 is an example of a conditional proof. Not b/c we're supposed to know typed lambda calculus, but b/c it should have been "painfully obvious" the moment we looked at it.</p>
<p>What it boils down to is if the classes are considered the same on assist.org. If they are not, then you should have taken the necessary course.</p>
<p>Also, general logic can be used to replace an extra lower division requirement. They ask for Phil 7, Phil 22 and Phil 31 (off the top of my head) as well as an additional lower division class.</p>
<p>Thanks xleper, I didn't really understand the difference, but if it's very specific than I guess I should take it.</p>