3/25/14 Orange

Ortho appt, oil change

Library trip

1.
Math- redo missed review problems.
Reading- almost finished Voyage to Alpha Centauri
Violin practice
Latin
Logic- started Logic to the Rescue
http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Rescue-Kris-Langman-ebook/dp/B001QTXLQ4

[Note this from amazon reviews:
(1) On single-blind experiments: "'It means that our test subjects can't know about the test. Or at least they can't know why we're doing it.'"

This wording is apt to mislead kids into thinking a single-blind experiment is one in which the subjects don't know the purpose of the experiment, but this isn't a necessary condition of a single-blind experiment -- it's fine if the subjects know the purpose of the experiment. And although some sources would consider it perfectly OK to regard mere purpose-ignorance as a form of single-blindness, other sources reserve the term for test/control experiments in which the subjects don't know whether they're in the test group or the control group.

(2) On the straw-man fallacy: "'Straw Man. It's a logical fallacy. It means that you acknowledge only the weakest part of an argument, while ignoring much stronger points.'"

That's one form of the straw-man fallacy, but the text implies it's the only form. In reality, a straw-man fallacy involves misrepresentation of a position. It's possible to misrepresent a position without even acknowledging its weakest part.

(3) On correlation and causation: "'Correlation means that two events occur close to the same time, but that they aren't really related. Causation means that one event causes an event which follows it.'"

Correlation doesn't imply causation, but causation implies correlation. This means that "they aren't really related" should be "they aren't necessarily related" (understanding the author to use 'related' in a causal sense).

(4) On proving a negative: "'There are no such things as ghosts' . . . 'Can you prove there aren't?' . . . 'She doesn't have to,' said Nikki. 'That's basic logic. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the person stating the positive side of the argument. If you say there are ghosts, then it's up to you to prove that they exist.'"

This one is particularly egregious, and I was surprised to discover it in a book on critical thinking and logic, for this is a very common and widely reported misconception about the burden of proof. In reality, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, whether that claim is positive or negative. A person asserting "There are such things as ghosts" bears the burden of proof for that positive claim. A person asserting "There are no such things as ghosts" bears the burden of proof for that negative claim. Make a positive or negative claim, the burden is on you.]

2.
Math- test, 98%
Copywork
History- reading and discussion
Drawing
Geography, map work on google maps yesterday
Violin and piano practice
Reading

3.
Lots of reading
Started history banner book, made banners for dinosaurs, nomads and ejypt (sic) :)