Can anyone recommend a good logic/critical thinking book? I majored in Philosophy in college and have kept sharp by getting into computer programming, however, there is a lot of stuff I forgot from those college days. I remember how quick my reasoning had become and I want to get there again. I was hoping for a textbook/book that comes with a workbook or exercises. Can you recommend some good readings? Recommendations from a beginner to advanced level are welcome. Thanks.

Referring to propositional logic conditionals, if we say that an antecedent A is a necessary and sufficient condition for consequent B, can we say that A caused B?

If an intact window is broken, is it still a window, but a broken one, or starts to be (after the moment of fracture) a new thing?

What place does social welfare have within the larger context of the social contract? In other words, is there a philosophical connection (and/or basis) between social welfare and the ideas and principles inherent within the social contract? Stated in its most elementary form, the social contract requires human beings to give up some of their natural rights in order to receive certain protections that government provides under the social contract. The question therefore is whether or not social welfare constitutes one of these "protections"? Did John Locke, Rousseau, or Hobbes ever speak of social welfare as an inherent aspect of the social contract? Is it logical or illogical -- on a strictly philosophical basis -- to suppose that social welfare is a natural product of the social contract? Are there any other authors/works that might be cited that deal with this philosophical investigation?

There seem to be a number of posts on this website about the responsibility of philosophers - either to the public, or to their students, etc. Most of these posts seem only to get a single response by a panelist and are left there to be forgotten. Is this because the panelists feel there is little to say on this topic? Moreover, most of the responses seem to be of the "philosophers aren't responsible" variety. But isn't responsibility a huge topic in philosophy, and this, one of its applications - shouldn't this elicit more responses? Are philosophers actually motivated, then, the way ordinary people are - not by the truth as they claim, but by what they find enjoyable to banter about. Say, the origin of the universe, or the definition of pornography, but not something close to home, though it be in need of an answer, and though it be of utmost importance? Most people's troubles, and what causes crime and wars and terrorism, seem due to philosophical differences. Palestinians don't think Israel...

It's been stated at many places on this site that logical philosophical argument has the unique ability to garner universal recognition of its validity, whereas appeals to emotions, faith or the like presumably do not. If this is the case, why wouldn't a philosopher exercise his right to free speech in this country and make a serious political difference? Say a Professor of Logic doesn't like President George Bush. It would seem not such a time-consuming or difficult task for him to point out, perhaps in a NY Times Editorial article, the lack of logical connections in claims the President has made. Philosophers seem to me to be rather withdrawn by nature. They have the ability to refute prominent arguments out there in the world, but are too reclusive and anti-outspoken to do this. Perhaps this is to blame, more than anything else, for the low level of discourse, in terms of logical content, out there?

I am in the part-time military and I may be deployed to active service. Can I reasonably justify the deaths of any people I am required to kill during operations?

There is this field of philosophy called "social and political philosophy." I have a difficulty distinguishing "social" from "political." How does "social philosophy" differ from "political philosophy"? I think this is significant; otherwise, the field should be simply called either "social philosophy" or "political philosophy."

Why isn't Logic a topic of Psychology rather than Philosophy? Psychology studies the human mind and what has the power to move it. For example, I know Freud and Jung and others gave psychological explanations for why religion was appealing and convincing to people. Isn't logic, like religion, something that convinces people's minds, and therefore, by definition, an object of study for psychology? Perhaps someone might say that Logic is better than faith, since logic is actually true? But what standard of truth, other than logic, can we appeal to to verify this? Surely we can't defend logic with logic - that seems ridiculous. As to whether it has greater appeal than faith, which I doubt, wouldn't the jury still be out on this, and isn't that jury made up of anthropologists and/or psychologists. So what room do philosophers have with this topic?

If I am certain that p but another person is certain that ~p, does the bare fact of his certainty give me reason to doubt my own?