Skip to content

Author: George Wick

Logic Course …and Tutorial on Quadrivium: Arithmetic

George Wick
“The Amateur Logician”

A new course on traditional logic is approaching fast! Most videos have been filmed. This is a systematic course filled with optional exercise sets (and answer keys!).

I plan to release it around Christmas or shortly afterward.

Stay tuned!

Learn logic through ordinary language—not math. This verbal-style, practical approach helps you tackle everything from everyday arguments to deep philosophical questions.

(One of the Main References)

There will be a primary text that you’ll be able to download. The course will also include extra bonus exercises from Dr. Peter Kreeft’s classic Socratic Logic, reflecting my commitment to using the best source materials.

Logic is an instrument for thinking. This new course is about developing that instrument.

You’ll learn how to:

• Distinguish terms, propositions, and arguments
• Identify hidden assumptions in debates
• Recognize valid and invalid reasoning
• Master categorical logic and syllogisms
• Detect common (and not-so-common!) logical fallacies
• Analyze real-world arguments with precision and confidence
• And much more!

Once this is out, AmateurLogician.com will be in phase 2.0.

It’s the next “leap” forward. And I hope you join me.

“Triangular Numbers”

Another project under construction is mathematical.

Slowly I’ve been typing up Quadrivium tutorials.

Plato thought that studying arithmetic (number theory) and geometry, for example, are means to help the mind study higher things in philosophy – and even theology. Medieval minds like Boethius carried on this educational tradition.

In the Traditional Quadrivium. . .
◆ Arithmetic is the study of number in itself.
◆ Geometry studies size and shapes. Number in space.
◆ Music concerns itself with numbers found in sounds. Number in time.
◆ Astronomy studies heavenly bodies in motion. Number in space and time.

There’s something magical when diving into arithmetic.

It wasn’t an area of mathematics I was particularly interested in before. The more I’ve studied it, though, the more fascinating it has become. Don’t dismiss it!

(One of the Main References)

Nicomachus’ Introduction to Arithmetic (around 200 AD) is greatly philosophical. Within a Platonic context, studying number theory takes on added weight. These are eternal truths to be rigorously discovered.

Part of the tutorial is directly based on that reference.

Euclid’s Elements (around 300 BC), while mostly known for its geometry, contains important number theory insights. That’s another reference.

And this tutorial integrates modern number theory. For example, Carl Friedrich Gauss’ contributions (1777 – 1855) will be explored. We’ll sample a host of unresolved questions in the process.

It’s not a tutorial suck-in-the-past. It’s about moving forward from the greats, synthesizing deep insights from them. We’ll use our developing skills in logic to uncover these insights.

The tutorial assumes some knowledge of high school algebra but will teach you to construct proofs, equipping you to explore the richness of number theory. Some entries will be basic, others far more advanced.

Here’s a sample (all of which are drafts being worked upon):
✷ Even vs. Odd Numbers
✷ Plane Numbers
✷ Divisibility & Euclid’s Algorithm
✷ Prime Numbers

I’m here to learn with you. Thank you for your readership and viewership.

Getting closer to the new logic course, new videos will be added to The Amateur Logician YouTube channel. The new course is a major steppingstone for this online project. There will be several traditional logic videos. But also, I have lots of references to share when exploring the Quadrivium in both a classical and modern sense. I think you’ll enjoy looking through the references. (And the new course!)

The newsletter will get back in gear from a long hiatus.

Finally, note that I do regularly post content on X.

Consider following me and saying “hello.”

I hope you find these new endeavors valuable!

Ars Syllogistica

On X, thanks to @Le_Master, I just discovered a great app from @TimotheusKearns for studying Aristotelian–Scholastic Logic. It includes interactive exercises.

Ars Syllogistica (Latin for “The Art of the Syllogism“) is being developed by Dr. Timothy Kearns, who is professor at Legion of Christ College of Humanities.

What I’ve seen of it is excellent. It’s still a work-in-progress. Check it out.

It’s already pretty comprehensive! There are exercises on division and definition, diagramming propositions and syllogisms, evaluating validity and enthymemes, and more.

Not only that, it actually covers modal propositions and modal syllogisms. This interactive tutorial covers the broad scope of Scholastic Logic, which goes beyond just Aristotle.

I wondered how he created it. Professor Kearns’s response:

“I used Claude Fable 5 and just coached it exactly on what to do and then had it revise what it produced according to what I wanted changed. Sort of like I’m the architect and Fable is the civil engineer!

“Please let me know if you find any doctrinal problems or infelicities!”

https://gcrastinus.github.io/ars-syllogistica/

New Logic Course Coming! Updates…

Working on a New Logic Course!

It’s a slow process, to be sure, to create a new course complete with exercise sets. But I’m giving it a go! As I spend some of my weekends on this project, please consider supporting me or keeping me accountable.

My initial plan of a modern logic course has been scrapped in favor of traditional logic. That basically means I’m throwing away around 15 video recordings. But, hey, I already have a modern logic course on YouTube.

Aristotelian-Scholastic Logic is the most grounded and practical science to learn. Studying it will help anyone increase skills in the art of reasoning. Intellectual virtues will be cultivated and extended.

In my view, it’s more important than modern mathematical logic.

Logic is something you actively do or don’t do. Aristotle referred to it as “the instrument.” We have to practice it! I’m doing my best to compile exercise sets. Recently, I made an answer key for all 71 enthymeme problems from Peter Kreeft’s famous textbook Socratic Logic. Other textbooks are being utilized. The primary textbook will be out of copyright so everyone can view it online for free.

Of course it’s up to you if you want to work through all exercises.

But I promise you this: if you do just 10% of them, you’ll be better at reasoning and logic than most people.

***

Other than that, I want to let you know that my latest content has mostly been appearing on X. Follow me here! Drop me a line.

I’ve been posting some outlines of math history, puzzles, logic notes, updates, and more.

***

On YouTube, I have a video featuring Bishop Fulton Sheen on logic, a preview of abductive logic (which is about inference to the best explanation), and Toulmin’s model of argumentation.

We’re all, hopefully, learning – and growing! I make mistakes. There’s a lot I don’t know. Feel free to point out any errors I’ve made. For example, my video on abductive logic has a big typo that I only noticed after I uploaded it.

Logic and (Multiple) Religions

When thinking about philosophy and religion, it becomes clear that logic can only take one so far. For instance, a “perennial” view of the world religions, which I once attempted to entertain, rapidly falls apart on any serious investigation. Religions claim contradictive things vis-a-vis each other, and thus they cannot all be true. It is just a matter of logic that, if Islam is true, Christianity must be false (as Islam denies the divinity of Jesus), though it is logically possible that Islam and Christianity are both false. By analogy, in traditional logic with the square of opposition, “contraries” cannot both be true but both can be false.

Hence, either a “perennial” view embraces logical contradictions or must water down the major religions to such an extent that it must trivialize them all so as to attempt to rid all of the contradictions. Yet if it trivializes them all, that is just another way to infer that these religions are not really true after all. Or if it embraces logical contradictions, this is enough to claim that the “perennial” view is false. By analogy, in logic and pure mathematics, an “indirect proof” (aka reductio ad absurdum*) essentially shows that if a contradiction can be derived from a set of internally consistent premises, then the assumption that led to that contradiction must be false. It’s a common proof making move in number theory and abstract algebra, though it is a valid move when thinking about anything.

Nevertheless, logic alone cannot get us far. It cannot get us true premises. It’s only with true premises that we can then derive new true propositions via valid inferences in logic.

*BTW, you can read my page on Reductio ad Absurdum Arguments: https://amateurlogician.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-arguments/

*ALSO, for math proofs by contradiction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISjzxdg71rs


Boy… time doesn’t stop!

Add more responsibilities, you get more thinly spread out.

With serious health issues, job issues, and the genesis of new major projects (including a business project!), I just never seem to get the chance to add things to my website.

So, sorry about that.

In my defense, however, I have continued as “The Amateur Logician” mainly on my YouTube channel. Have you been following it? All the smart kids already do!

Though I’ve taken intermittent hiatuses, I am (very) slowly working on creating a new logic course. My thinking is to create multiple courses – and seeing if there’s a market to sell them. Education is so lacking today; it’s largely a joke. Alternatives are needed! And I do have a math degree and education degree.

For now, there’s lots on YouTube to watch! What have I been doing?

You will not find any videos like mine – this is not mere boasting.

Nobody else has covered traditional modal logic on YouTube.

Modal Logic Playlist

Also, the Philosophy of Rene Descartes Series is complete! If I may say so, I believe Part I and Part II are the best of the bunch. It goes in-depth with several references to great Thomist philosophers and those outside of that camp – like Sir Roger Scruton and Bertrand Russell.

Philosophy of Rene Descartes Series Playlist
Venn & Euler Diagrams

And. . . wait . . . there’s more! (to borrow that expression)

It’s the holiday season. That’s why it seems like a good idea to do more book reviews. I’m just about to upload a review and study of Boolean Algebra by R. L. Goodstein.

Look below for some notes from that book; it’s just a preview, though!

Other recent videos include one on the passions: there you’ll get the traditional perspective with input from Plato and C. S. Lewis. Another video looks into relations (with the logic of reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc.). There’s a video on a fortiori arguments and oblique syllogisms – with also a review of Jacques Maritain’s classic book Formal Logic. And I have something on biases (cognitive, memory-related, social-and-behavioral biases, philosophical biases, etc., etc.).

Bad Etiquette. . .

It’s rightly said to be bad etiquette to type on the Internet with ALL CAPS. Not only is to do so ungrammatical, it is an unsightly thing to do. Who wants to read that? Maybe the message has gotten out. In my own experience, I don’t see it often these day.

Now I’m well aware that my own experience rounds to 0% of the Internet experience, but I can still talk about it. It’s an experience, at the very least, that means something to me. Only others can judge if my encounters parallels theirs.

There actually may be something worse than typing in ALL CAPS. That’s having lots and lots of sentences crammed into a single paragraph. Talk about a reader’s nightmare! Heck, I think I could stand reading an ALL CAPS message, as long as it was nicely broken into smaller paragraphs.

In my own small online corner, I observe a greater number of people engaging in this example of bad etiquette. They write a wall of text. It has no breaks, no breathers. It’s just one sentence after another. It’s frankly a horrible sight.

People could learn a lot by reading a good newspaper column. The writer often will have an entire paragraph be only a single sentence. The thing is, it totally works! Things flow in readability with the breaks between paragraphs. Imagine if the column’s paragraphs decreased in number. Rather than making it a better read, it would become far worse.

Want a good example? Dr. Thomas Sowell! Read his shorter essays… Concise. Flawless word choices. Paragraph size is perfect. Educational. And packed with info!

New Videos on Induction

Anybody can learn the basics!
Subscribe to The Amateur Logician YouTube channel.

Basic Symbolic Logic Course

Wow! It’s been a while since the last blog post, right?

Excuses can be given, but are they good excuses?

Hey, I do have over 200 videos on my YouTube channel. It’s not like I haven’t been productive as “The Amateur Logician!” The playlist for the series on Basic Symbolic Logic has been completed with around 50 videos. Anyone wanting to learn the basics of Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic can avail themselves of it.

More is to come! I’m in the process of creating a Traditional Logic Course. A series on the philosophy of Rene Descartes is to come. Also, a series on David Gordon’s textbook on economics is in the works.

Please Consider Supporting My Work!

Basic Symbolic Logic Course!
Around 50 Videos to Master Logic.
  1. Easiest Book on Symbolic Logic
  2. Symbolic Logic I: Sentences & Sentential Connectives
  3. Symbolic Logic I: Form of Molecular Sentences
  4. Symbolic Logic I: Symbolizing Sentences
  5. Symbolic Logic I: Sentential Connectives & Symbols
  6. Symbolic Logic I: Grouping & Parentheses
  7. Symbolic Logic I: Elimination of Some Parentheses
  8. Symbolic Logic II: Logical Inference
  9. Symbolic Logic II: Rules of Inference (part a)
  10. Symbolic Logic II: More Logical Inferences (part b)
  11. Symbolic Logic II: “Real” Arguments and Proofs
  12. Symbolic Logic II: More About Parentheses
  13. Symbolic Logic II: Hypothetical Syllogism, Constructive Dilemma
  14. Symbolic Logic II: Types of Inferences & De Morgan’s Laws
  15. Symbolic Logic II: Biconditional Sentences w/ Many Proofs!
  16. Chapter 3 of “First Course in Mathematical Logic”
  17. Symbolic Logic III: Truth Values in Propositional Logic
  18. Symbolic Logic III: Diagrams of Truth Value
  19. Symbolic Logic III: Discovering Invalid Conclusions!
  20. Symbolic Logic III: Conditional Proofs w/ “Real World” Examples
  21. Symbolic Logic III: Inconsistent Premises Entail Contradictions!
  22. Symbolic Logic III: Making Indirect Proofs (part a)
  23. Symbolic Logic III: Reductio ad Absurdum Examples (part b)
  24. STUDY & LEARN LOGIC – Continuing Symbolic Logic Series
  25. Symbolic Logic IV: Truth Tables
  26. Symbolic Logic IV: Tautologies
  27. Symbolic Logic IV: Tautological Implications & Equivalence
  28. Studying Symbolic Logic Continued. . .
  29. Symbolic Logic V: Limitation of Propositional Logic
  30. Symbolic Logic V: Intro to Predicate Logic
  31. Symbolic Logic V: Basic Formulas in Predicate Logic
  32. Symbolic Logic V: Quantifiers & Predicates
  33. Symbolic Logic V: Predicate Logic Textbook Exam
  34. Studying Predicate Logic with Textbook…
  35. Symbolic Logic VI: Beginner Proofs!
  36. Symbolic Logic VI: Universal Instantiation & Generalization
  37. Symbolic Logic VI: Existential Instantiation & Generalization
  38. Symbolic Logic VI: Change of Quantifier Rule
  39. Symbolic Logic VI: Two(+) Universal Quantifiers
  40. Symbolic Logic VI: Logical Arguments w/ Multiple Universal Quantifiers
  41. Symbolic Logic VI: Careful Look @ Relational Predicate Logic
  42. Symbolic Logic VI: Showing an Argument is INVALID
  43. Symbolic Logic VI: Intro to Identity!
  44. Symbolic Logic VI: Truths of Logic
  45. Completing Logic Book; Future of Channel
  46. Symbolic Logic VII: Simple Mathematical System; Commutative Axiom
  47. Symbolic Logic VII: Become an Amateur Algebraist! Associative Axiom
  48. Symbolic Logic VII: Be an Amateur Algebraist! Axioms for ZERO
  49. Symbolic Logic VII: Amateur Algebraist w/ Simple Abelian Group
  50. Symbolic Logic VIII: Finishing Suppes & Hill Textbook!
  51. Update & Thank You

Viewer Tells Me: Good Spelling is “Oppressive!”

Sometimes you need to be “educated” to be this stupid.

Two viewers of the YouTube video “Language & Reality in the Liberal Arts” informed me that correct spelling and grammar is “elitist” and “oppressive.”

My initial reaction?

Kiel;w, bnpwl opie;a ie;’’a  b’io/ioehj.

Often, as I see it, individuals take a partial truth but then stretch it out of proportion turning it into an untruth. There’s no reason why cat absolutely must have the spelling “cat.” The sign “cat” is an English convention.

As the brilliant essayist Theodore Dalrymple writes in his book Life at the Bottom, throwing away the supposed “oppressive” forms of conventional language standards, based on an egalitarian worldview, will entrap a poor family into remaining poor: “Linguistic and educational relativism helps to transform a class into a caste – a caste, almost, of Untouchables.”

It’s difficult to think of a better way to destroy someone’s social, intellectual, and economic mobility. Isn’t it ironic?

Of course, language is not a static thing. It changes! And a good writer sometimes does play fast-and-lose with the standard rules.

Shakespeare’s English is not our English.

Grammar can be better or worse in a time and place, and that surely affects the quality of someone’s speech or writing. There’s a kind of underlying logic in simply understanding the subject-predicate relationship. We can definitely write incoherently!

While there are borderline disputes in “higher” grammar or spelling, there are traditional conventions that everyone accepts – and these conventions allow you and me to talk to each other.

Let’s stick with a traditional educator like Sister Miriam Joseph. Her book The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric will prevent us from being that stupid.

***

I’ve uploaded a few other YouTube videos that reference Sister Jospeh’s outstanding text:

Vocabulary

A good vocabulary increases successful communication. It makes it more efficient and sophisticated. Picking the right word cuts down on wordiness. It is thus economical. Things read more authoritatively and thereby it psychologically adds persuasive ethos to your writings. It adds precision and depth.

How, though, do we increase our vocabulary?

Without having a sufficient size, we don’t have much to draw from. My answer is to write down unfamiliar words in a notebook. I’m admittedly not always consistent, but I have begun to do this while reading. When I see a word I don’t know, I look it up, and then write it down. It doesn’t have to be a word I don’t know, actually, just something unfamiliar or unusual. Such a word sometimes gives the air of familiarity when an expert writer places it into a flawless context, yet alone it is actually unfamiliar or unusual. So look it up and write it down.

A thesaurus is a useful tool, though it’s inadequate. Like randomly searching a dictionary, a thesaurus unlikely will help you find a word that represents a complex idea you want to convey but which you cannot simplify to a specific word. That’s why you need to build your mind’s vocabulary.

© Copyright 2026. AmateurLogician.com. All Rights Reserved.
AmateurLogician.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.