This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Archive-1 created Charles Stewart 07:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing some of the older entries from before 2004, and the ones that were irrelevent to the article, in part to try and make this page less than 32 kb. This page could benefit greatly from an explanation of how logic relates to artificial languages, predicate, sentential and modal logic as prime examples. This would also naturally involve a small digression on how logic relates to natural languages and linguistics in general, including say informal versus formal methods, and how natural deduction can be used to infer rules of inference.
Why does compound sentence redirect to logic?
Who invented truth tables, Charles Pierce or Wittgenstein? Who should get the credit?
Shouldn't this page include the basic logic relationships? Why don't you add them to truth tables, connective, and quantifier?
Also the logic of relations, or polyadic quantification, which Quine said is what brought serious stature to logic as a field. It might also be nice if there were a striking & concise way to characterize the difference between formal or mathematical logic, & algebra (as the theory of calculation), i.e., the heart of the difference between formal reasoning & calculation, as opposed to lists of respective subfields.
Thinking about statistics and the frequentist formulation of confidence intervals ( The population parameter is "fixed but unknown") leads me to wonder if anyone has ever put the idea that something in a mathematical problem can be "given to be unknown" on a rigorous logical footing. Suppose we have an a symbol p representing a a "quantity" in a mathematical problem, be it a statistical problem or otherwise. Some examples of thethings that we might be "given" about p are:
1. p is an unknown number.
2. p is a normally distributed random variable with mean 0 and std. dev.= 1
3. p is a normally distributed random variable with unknown mean and std. dev.= 1
4. p is a normally distributed random variable with unknown mean and unknown std. dev.
5. p is selected by a person who has flipped a fair coin. If the coin landed heads then he chose p to be an unknown but fixed number. Otherwise p was chosen from a normal distribution with mean 0 and std. dev. 1. How the coin landed is unknown. (i.e. There is a 0.5 probability that p is "fixed but unknown" )
Lacking such a calculus, I , nevertheless attempt the following deductions:
If we are given 1) alone then an example of a valid conclusion is "The probability that p = 23.2 is either 1 or 0" (this follows famous textbook examples from statistics). If we are given 2) alone then the previous conclusion is invalid. If we are given 3) alone then we may say "The probability that {the probability that p = 23.2 is either 0 or 1} is 0". If we are given 5) alone then I don't think the previous conclusion is valid.
I'm sure these examples suggest even more mind boggling ones that make the frequentist assumption look like simplicity itself. Has some obscure branch of logic worked all this out for us? (I'm not talking about Bayesian statistics, which involves adding additional assumptions.)
Stephen Tashiro
Dana Scott's theory of domains should handle the above kinds of uncertainty to your satisfaction. The essential idea is that it is a kind of theory of types that is naturally related to a logic without the principle of excluded middle. Chalst 23:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Should not the logic page include the Law of Identity as one of the three laws of classical logic? That is: A is A or A = A. It seems to me that this law of Identity is crucial to the application of the Law of Non-Contracdictories and the Law of Excluded Middle in determining the truth or error of a proposition. Afterall, Logic really is the mechanism by which we pursue truth and distinguish it from error.
Perhaps the three laws of logic could be more understandable to those who are not aquainted with them as follows:
Law of Identity: A is A, or A = A. Something (a proposition or a thing) is what it is. Example: An apple is an apple. However, all apples are not identical, and any particular apple is not any other particular apple. Stating the law is not without difficulty. For example, a paricular apple is only a single example within the broad spectrum of the class concept of "apple-ness." In this case, the law of identity is valid in making the detemination that, "this particular apple is an example of what is subsummed under the class concept of "apple-ness.""
Law of Non Contradiction: A is not non-A. Something is what it is and not what it is not. Example: Applying the Law of Identity, an apple is an apple. Then applying the Law of Non-Contradiction, an apple is not anything an apple is not. The law does not preclude the possibility that an apple could become something else, applesauce, for instance, but that an apple cannot be an apple and applesauce at the same time.
Law of Excluded Middle: A is B or non-B. Usually, when considering propositions, the Law of Excluded Middle is applied by stating that the proposition P is either true or false, with no third possibility (tertium quid) allowed. However, in keeping with our "apple" example in explaining the first two laws, we could state that, "an apple is either a fruit or a non-fruit (a vegetable, or an animal)"
It seems that the application of the laws as given in the examples above have a direct bearing on what the could be considered "significant speech" and in resolving the ever present problem of communicating propositions "meaningfully" by addressing the "one within the many."
The communication of a proposition "meaningfully" from one person to another is absolutely dependent upon the definitions of the terms in the minds of both. Since we've been using "apples" in our other examples, I'll stick with apples here. Unless both have the same class concept of what an apple is, then applying the Law of Non-Contradictories is meaningless. For the term "apple" to have meaning and relevance, both the author of the proposition and the one to whom the proposition is communicated must have agreement about what consitutes the class concept of "apple-ness." The more agreement within the class concept, the more "meaningfullness" being communicated.
If both the author of the proposition and the one to whom it is communicated do not have a significant alignment on Identify, then applying the Law of Non-Contraditories is of no value in determining the "truth" or "error" of the proposition and neither is the application of the Law of Excluded Middle.
I have removed this, which I don't understand, from the formal logic section.
I don't see that it is consistent with the linked definitions, for one thing.
Charles Matthews 11:15, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The proof of non-contradiction in the Aristotelian Logic section contains the premise "it is only the law of non-contradiction that prevents " can be" from necessarily becoming "is"). ". This needs to be elaborated upon. "can be" has no translation in propositional logic as far as I know.
As someone who studied mathematics at the university level, I think the statement copied below, and the "proofs" that follow do not prove that the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle aren't axioms in a formal mathematical system:
The reasoning in the "proofs" which follow that statement belong to something that I would characterize as meta-mathematics. That is the "proofs" implicity assume that you know what is meant by the atoms "true" and "false". But if you consider Aristotelian logic as a mathematical system then the atoms are only defined by their use in the two axioms. In a mathematical system there is no way to define such basic terms as "true" and "false" without the use of axioms.
Since the "proofs" given are interesting on philisophical level, I don't think erasing them would be warrented, but I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to make it clear that the "proofs" given don't satisfy actual mathematical rigor. millerc 21:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
User:152.163.252.131 added:
There is perhaps something useful to be said about computer logic (e.g. TTL), but this is simply confusing (and non-wikified) as a first paragraph. Bovlb 12:35, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)
I'm just a curious beginner who found the logic article interesting, but would someone be kind enough to say whether Bill is a 'knight' or a 'knave' in example 3:
>Logician: Are you both knights? John: Yes or No. Logician: Are you both >knaves? John: Yes or No.
>Who is who?
I tried using the notation given for example 1, and went from
to
which seemed sensible as John is obviously a knight and there doesn't seem to be any information about Bill? ..Help :)
I suppose a point I'm trying to raise, is how beginner friendly should the wiki be. Should any rational thinking newbie be able to understand any given topic in the wiki by following enough links? ..or would this make the wiki too verbose?
This article needs more careful editing.
CSTAR 00:25, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've created a possible outline for the logic page, I believe it can provide an excellent general idea of what logic is, with enough specifics to distinguish topics for the reader, and lead him/her to appropriate topics. I also belive it provides a broad enough description of logic that it has the nature of an encyclopedia article. Please critique and make suggestions!
siroxo 15:03, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
I am in general agreement with the outline. However, my most cherished principle of writing is this:
which I learned in my Spanish Jesuit high school, meaning The good if brief twice good. This principle is particularly important in an article on logic!
CSTAR 16:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've seen the page in a number of versions - none of them really good. I really think it suffers every time it gets closer to the kind of computer science thinking (roughly speaking, you can have any kind of formal system you want and call it the XYZ logic, if you think you have an application).
I'm not an expert, but the history tells one something. There was an old meaning of formal or symbolic logic (already in Kant?). In the nineteenth century logic was formalised first for pedagogic reasons (Boole, Lewis Carroll) - because it was still considered a pedagogic subject. Only with Frege did it really become once more a research area (after 2000 years). I don't believe there really was a subject called mathematical logic, before Gödel. The need to write what he had done in a way that could be understood made for recursion theory first, and then model theory, as disciplines within mathematics. So basically one can say that the incompleteness theorem directly caused those developments. For example, for the Polish school at its foundation, logic was not 'inside' mathematics at all; but a separate subject. And before that the philosophers were sorting out philosophical logic, i.e. parts of the logic of natural language that are difficult to formalise.
After 1950 it really is all less clear ...
Charles Matthews 18:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well I agree that specialized formal logics, particularly for reasoning about a specialized subjects such as concurrency or computer programs really should have a subordinate position in the article. I was trying to achieve that goal--- for this reason I introduced the section header highlighting the distinction between formal and informal logic. Apparently I didn't quite achieve that yet.
However, I would stress the following points:
I noticed that the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not have an entry on Logic pure and simple. It has lots of entries logic of XYZ.
CSTAR 20:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is there one? CSTAR 16:14, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I suggest: traditional logic discussed in general terms, up to the time of Boole and Mill (on induction) when things started to shift. Then mathematical logic Frege up to about 1940 (when the structure of the subject had become reasonably clear). Philosophical logic had a definite meaning for Russell, which then moved somewhat; but this is still a key area for analytic philosophers.
Charles Matthews 07:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I just reworked the intro a bit. Tried to make it flow better, as well as adding an idea or two. One note, I think the first sentance, as it is in the new version, is required. In common conversation, logic basically just refers to the reasoning used to reach a conclusion. I think we should allude to that, and then introduce the formal concept. This will even help to reinforce the formal view of logic to people who have not studied it, as well as easing people into the article.
I also resectionized the first couple sections, and dropped the deductive/inductive thing into there, I hope it fits better like that.
Regarding inference/argument, I'm not sure how to convey that in this page, but it might be an interesting addition.
— siro χ o 09:08, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
I made some small changes to the first paragraph.
CSTAR 14:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The most recent edit (Lorenzo Martelli) tries to clarify the situation in which the assumptions are inconsistent --- is this really necessary? If they are inconsistent, the premises will never hold and by the meaning of material impication, validity is vacuously true. Mainly I don't think this should be put into the introduction, maybe some other place. Otherwise the introduction is very rapidly going to get unwiedly. CSTAR 15:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Reply from Lorenzo: I agree in general with your comments CSTAR. Maybe then we should just leave in the qualification 'for most intents and purposes'? What I think would be wrong would be to have a statement beginning 'Validity means .....' in the introduction to an article on Logic, if that statement is not 100% accurate. After all, half of the reason behind formal logic was to get rid of the ambiguities...!I also think we should put somewhere in the article a strict definition of validity, of the form 'an argument is valid if and only if...' to ensure it is clear and referenceable, and that all that follows (the paradox of entailment etc, why truth tables are so important)can be explained through/referred back to the definition. Hope you agree and if so feel free to move my comments to a more appropriate place.
Could we collapse the sections on Multi-valued logic and Logic in Computer science into a single section, say specialized logics. Also I prefer to use inference instead of reasoning in the section currently titled deductive and inductive reasoning. For example. inference could be procedural, i.e., apply Matlab to infer something. I think also a sentence or two on the distinction (and also relations) between inference and logical argument is necessary. CSTAR 16:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I know we have beat this subject to death, but I am still unhappy with some of our characterizations of logic given in the 1st paragraph, particularly, since in the broad sense that logic traditionally has had in philosophy, it is concerned with the structure of inference. Thus I propose a change starting at the second sentence:
CSTAR 04:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the opposition of rhetoric (and dialectic) to logic. The relation between the is complex, that's clear, but to say it is one opposition is also misleading. CSTAR 14:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Any problem with me charging ahead and adding these? --- Chalst 23:55, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Intuitionism and relevantism probably deserve a mention. I'm not too familiar with the modern research you allude to. Everything else i'm not sure yet, might as well add some stuff and we'll see where it goes. Just remember that this is not the main article on any of those topics.
—
siro
χ
o 01:13, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
I've created two short articles semantics of logic and proof-theoretic semantics (among others) prior to editing the Logic page proper. Close readers may notice that there are some disagreements of fact between those articles and this one. Comments welcome. ---- Charles Stewart 23:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't like the current organisation of this section. It's possible to organise logic by its formal type, when one gets a list along the lines of:
Or one can organise it by motivation/application, and get:
Mixing the two axes, as is done now, though, seems like a recipe for confusion. The first list seems more important to me.
Furthermore, "Multi-valued logic" as a category of logic, is just wrong. It's an issue in the semantics of logic: one can give multi-valued semantics to FOL, and there are non-bivalent logics, such as intuitionistic logic, that are not commonly treated as being truth-valued at all. The existence of multi-valued logics is maybe appropriate in a semantics section, or in the section I proposed earlier on controversies in logic.
If there are no objections, I'm planning on applying a series of changes in the next few days, starting from tomorrow evening ---- Charles Stewart 14:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Now applied the restructring I've been threatening... Two issues:
Aristotelian logic is sometimes referred to as formal logic because it specifically deals with forms of reasoning, but is not formal in the sense we use it here or as is common in current usage. It can be considered as a precursor to formal logic.
Mathematical logic refers to two distinct areas of research: The first, primarily of historical interest, is the use of formal logic to study mathematical reasoning
Comments welcome on all changes ---- Charles Stewart 00:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
— siro χ o]] 05:03, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
— siro χ o]] 07:48, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
The article currently states:
Is model theory usually considered part of proof theory?
If so that's news to me. Model theory certainly is mathematics applied to logic.
These seem like fairly subjective evaluations. Are we sure it's four pillars and say not...sixty five pillars? (I'm being a little facetious here purposely to spice up the discussion) . I concede that these boundaries are really murky, but is set theory really logic?
And I think we should be less harsh on the logicist programme. Saying it was a failure really gives an erroneous impression. The logicist program did succeed in one way: As a result of the logicist programme it became abundantly clear that mathematical reasoning is in principle reducible to a formal calculus (if anybody has enough time or funding on their hands to do it)
I think the article still gives short-shrift to Dialectic and rhetoric. It ignores the work of Chaim Perelman and Tyteca-Olbrechts on argument. This is briefly mentioned in logical argument.
Or rather, to claim it is, is to take a psychologistic view of logic, one that is almost universally rejected by modern logicians, although one that was popular in the last half of the 19th century. The psychology of cognition is the study of reason. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and most of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 18 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 ( talk) 16:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that the article has a new, up-to-date reference for "Logic is the study of arguments", from the 2002 book by the Catholic philosopher, Harry Gensler, of the John Carroll University, a Jesuit theological college.
Modern Catholic teaching of logic has perhaps been unduly neglected in Wikiedpia's treatment of logic, but it is certainly not mainstream. What, precisely, is wrong with the definition in the Collins Encyclopedia, which was edited by the highly accomplished scholar, David Crystal? What is the attraction of this offbeat definition of logic, that we have to spend so much effort furnishing it with references? Is Harry Gensler really being held up as such a great authority that can tell us that Tarski's characterisation of logic as concerning non-subject specific consequence has been overturned?
Perhaps this article will attract attention from a competent editor who can see beyond their personal views on what logic is, and see how experts use the term. Until then, look out for my 3rd nonconstructive complaint. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the description of Logic should be fundamentally altered. To say that logic is 'the tool for distinguishing between the true and the falce' is to say that there is an observer who uses 'the tool' to judge what is true and what is falce. This does not say what that 'tool' is. That which is observed in the observers consciousness in the 'now' is a static picture. Using logic the observer, under the influence of motivation, alters that picture for another picture in the next 'now'. The change occurs in time. Both pictures are static at the time of observation. What is it that directed the alteration of the first picture to the second picture ? The observed picture in the first 'now' consists of parts. Each part is an independent truth defining the whole of the picture. The same applies to the picture in the second 'now', after change. Some of the truths of the description are common for pictures in both observations. The more of the truths of the description are common the stronger is the logical connection. Logic is like magnet. It has variable strength depending on how many truths about the two interacting pictures are common. KK ( 78.146.68.198 ( talk) 13:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC))
I think some of the comments have been moved I found an old contribution in the talk page of the disambiguation, but I amsure it was originally written on the main article. Can someone please explain, in their own words, the history of the article and what happened? Kathybramley ( talk) 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC) This is my text from the disambiguation talk page: What about logic in the more everyday use in speech? When someone, like a doctor, suggests you are not as logical as you think, what do they mean? What exactly? How can you challenge or assess that? I'm not sure the mere mention of cognitive psychology really covers it, not from a user-friendly way. I imagine people using this page to get ideas if the word 'logic' has come up as an accusation of lacking it. What about logic and logical structure in essay writing/general academic writing? (I was always getting comments 'could be more logically structured' through school up to degree, but never once did anyone describe 'logical'). It is in this case, logical structure is equating to outline structure - starting with a distilled strong central/over-arching idea and 'exploding' it into constituent parts in a step-by-step fashion. I want a link from this page to an appropriate page. I'd like it for both these instances of important areas of use that are not yet included. ...not sure I am brave enough to yet though (quite a new user I am). Ideas and help? Comments? Kathybramley (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Kathybramley ( talk) 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that in general, inductive reasoning is not considered logic; that is purely restricted to deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning commits the inductive fallacy and is illogical. To give an example of inductive reasoning and why it is flawed, consider the following example: a hen who is fed and taken care of by a farmer day after day. The hen could inductively conclude, that the farmer will continue to do so based on this observation, corresponding to a premise in deductive reasoning. However, one day the hen is butchered by the farmer and fed to the family. Clearly the conclusion the hen came to was flawed -- it assumed constancy in the universe. This is the flaw of induction and why it should not be compared so closely with deduction. This article should be edited to express that. MONODA ( talk) 10:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Dear MONODA...your hen pretended to know the future. Logic deals with the relationship between two static pictures in the 'now'. KK ( 78.146.69.242 ( talk) 22:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC))
There's plenty to do! Here are some resources to start:
Dan Cottrell ( talk) 00:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
A new user has added an intriguing picture of a so-called "logic garnet", claiming that it's an "early device used to determine the logical consistency of a given claim". We don't have any article directly on this, but we do have one on Shea Zellweger, who seems to be the inventor. Zellweger was born in 1925, so the thing can't be that "early" really.
I don't mind the picture, and a mention, somewhere in the article, but I'm not sure that an idiosyncratic notation deserves to be placed so prominently at the top. There are lots of notational systems that have accumulated followings of devoted fans but never really caught on in the wider world (e.g. Sheffer stroke, Laws of Form). -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The first two sentences of this article are self-contradictory.
"Logic is the study of valid reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activities."
This is entirely wrong. The study of valid reasoning is most definitely NOT used in most intellectual activities.
Are you people okay with me changing it in a major way?
Another contradiction, still in the opening paragraph, is mention of "The study of logic". Since "logic" has been defined in the first sentence as "The study of valid reasoning" then "the study of logic" would be the study of the study of valid reasoning. This is ridiculous. Am I the only person who can see this?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ksolway (
talk •
contribs)
14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Should this topic be discussed ? https://school.carm.org/amember/files/demo3/2_logic/absolutes.htm i think that its something that could be included in this topic, otherwise maybe it should have its own page Aperseghin ( talk) 15:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Under Construction...
Science(knowledge), is acquired by all the entities in the diagram.
Philosophy (love of wisdom), I believe 'love of wisdom' is inherent in acquiring knowledge, as otherwise, there is no reason to want knowledge. To get knowledge, you must first, have wanted it, in the first-place. (the purpose/knowledge wanted is irrelevant)
In an abstract way, (although the concepts are already abstract...) to have knowledge, you must at least have be able to 'know' something...or, anything... What is something/anything? The/a universe - what makes up a universe? The universe is made up of, 'physics', and 'meta-physics'. (MST UPDATE)
Which I then class into two separate forms of base-logic. Rational-logic, and irrational-logic. or intelligence, or intellect... (MST UPDATE)
My source? Hopefully, the people of Wikipedia see it as credible...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickid123 ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
What are you tripping on?
How does this differ from Kant's boring old ancient analytic-synthetic distinction? Have you just changed some words around and added two differently spelled synonyms "intellect" and "intelligence" like you're bloody Derrida or summat? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
192.155.82.44 (
talk)
06:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Logic is how we humans think. If it is not logical, then it is questionable. Thanks.{{-- General concensus2012 ( talk) 03:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)}} 96.48.152.145 ( talk) 07:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I have to say I kind of disagree with some of the policies that wikipedia encourages for this article, verifiability in particular (not a fan of Popper). I have also, unintentionally overridden the discussion that has been going on behind the scenes here by just editing. So I am posting this to give yall a heads up and to say sorry, please edit my writing, but at least take it into account.
I was reading the bit at the end of Rejecting Logical Truths and I was really disappointed with the critiques given of Nietzsche. They were clearly partisan and I think the tone and content was pretty weak. Ive gone ahead and responded to each critique. I got quite angry with the Russell one in particular so that should probably be changed. But still i think this really needs to be looked at because the way it stood it seemed like some kind of definite rejection of the rejection but which is not convincing at all.
I also offered my kind of interpretation which I think would stem from a kind of positivistic attitude although i myself am really into the whole frankfurt critique of instrumental rationality and the positivists that are associated with that... So ye im also against imparciality. I think the article should vehemently argue for the competeing positions but allow them all up there! This may look contradictory but im all about paraconsistency!
Lots of love! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.155.82.44 ( talk) 06:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The first section under "The study of logic" divides logic into four categories: informal, formal, symbolic and mathematical, whereof all but the first links to mathematical logic, where they are listed as synonyms. It also seems to be more confusion over these three terms later in the article. I'm not sure exactly what are the most recognized relationship between these terms, but we need to try to make it more consistent. – St.nerol ( talk) 17:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Logic refers to Reason, Reason loops back to Logic. Right in the first sentence in both cases. I understand, these are hard to define. But someone have to try harder. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.176.240 ( talk) 11:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
the original article discuss logic from a non-scientific method of view which makes it hypothesis and as hypothesis its not suitable for practical purposes. if somebody interested in this article from a scientific method point of view please send me an email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2403:E989:9D97:9A63:C19E:C76D ( talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please simply consider to be published as article after "SO MANY YEARS of first publishing", would be more logical for what is considered as a TAG as "Original Work"! THANKS!
My facebook Authors page is: https://www.facebook.com/BookPureLogic ! First published Canada 2008; USA 2009. So plus 10 years would make it 2018 and 2019, before WIKIPEDIA could consider the article about my Book! IS THIS SENSIBLE? THANK AGAIN! ( General concensus2012 ( talk) 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC))
Most of the sources sited have been out dated, I believe it would be better to update some of its definitions from new books, to name a few:
"Logic- is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises of an argument adequately support its conclusion." "Sound Argument- a valid argument in which all of the premises are true." "Valid Argument- one in which is necessary that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true." Source: Santiago. LOGIC CUSTOM. McGraw-Hill Create (tm). p. 66. ISBN 9781308201979. 14:49, 9 February 2015 HalleyRoséM
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Main Entry: logic 1 : a science that deals with the rules and tests of sound thinking and proof by reasoning;
2 : sound reasoning
3 : the arrangement of circuit elements for arithmetical computation in a computer
http://dictionary.reference.com/
1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
What is first or of higher level as to which is needed first?
Is it the problem of the Hen and the Egg?
Can Science be without logic? Yes it can, though it should not happen!
Can logic be without Science? No and Yes! Logic and true "sound" reasoning, is Science!
But good reasoning logic can be by itself, and not be Academic recognized Science!
Though generally good sound reasoning logic, does proceed from much Science, theoretical and practical learning!
So half truths and half logic, or not complete logic, can or have been made Science in a few cases! But this does not happen to true complete(pure) logic!
Hence I would establish LOGIC and "complete/pure logic", thought, ideas, imagination, to be first, as the "software" and "hardware" of a computer! That then can be established in firm accepted Academia Science, with "strict" Rules and Laws developed(particular specific sciences) and that can be experimented and proven!
Much of Logic and "metaphysics", does not have to be proven as Science might apparently require! The power of Inference and Deduction enter into the game of sound reasoning or illogical reasoning!
If this is helpful, please feel free to use it! Thanks! (-- General concensus2012 ( talk) 04:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC))
I completely agree...! Back from exile 2013...! [[[User:GeorgeFThomson|GeorgeFThomson]] ( talk) 05:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes I am convinced this World does not take history records of what is "biased" as original work! When Original work should not be blocked as to making reference to it in a concise manner! GeorgeFThomson ( talk) 05:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Fuck David Kevin ( talk) 04:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
That section needs much better logic, in fact. I am surprised by its current state. Clearly, "Is logic empirical?" is not a type of logic, neither is "Rejection of logical truth". The basic concepts such as deductive vs inductive logic etc. are lost in a form of "spaghetti logic" in that section, I am afraid. SaundersLane ( talk) 21:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I want to put some energy into solving a number of issues with the article as it stands. The article has not impoved much since 2005 and has become weaker in a number of areas, so one of the things I will be doing is going over the differences in https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Logic&diff=cur&oldid=28701908 and restoring the older text where it is clearer or more correct than the current version. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Peter Damian's old plan for the article is at User:Peter Damian/logic. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thought disorder links here (probably unintentionally?) via a redirect through " illogicality" into "logic".
Illogicality as a symptom of a mental disorder is a relatively concrete and narrow thing that is *somewhat* related to high church "Logic", but it is also importantly distinct.
I think a better arrangement would to EITHER (1) have a full article for Illogicality as a symptom instead of the current redirect OR (2) there should be a subsection in this article about Illogicality as a symptom of thought disorder.
A good template for how Illogicality should look (whether as a section or a whole article) is the Alogia article which covers a related symptom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:903:506C:9E8:7BB4:79C5 ( talk) 22:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
"A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. " I remember saying something like this. Do any other textbooks mention this? The standard one is 'premises not true with conclusion false'. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
[edit] I wrote “A valid argument is one where there is a connection between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusions that is informally signified by words like 'therefore', 'hence', 'ergo' and so on.” ‘Connection’ was changed to ‘specific relation of logical support’. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Noting that User:Jbessie is Professor of Philosophy at University of Wisconsin-Stout whose interests include mathematical logic, the philosophy of science etc, so presumably knows what he is talking about! I think the intro reads fine. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd like us to get the article into shape to nominate it for good article status. There are a few things that need to be done before we nominate it:
1. The readability of several sections could do with improvement.
2. The article needs to be better referenced.
3. The article could use a few more illustrations.
I value all assistance with these.— Charles Stewart (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"According to the modern view, the fundamental form of a simple sentence is given by a recursive schema, involving logical connectives, such as a quantifier with its bound variable, which are joined by juxtaposition to other sentences, which in turn may have logical structure."
What does this mean? Peter Damian ( talk) 17:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
(I think what it is getting at is that instead of a fixed two-term + copula structure, we now have a flexible structure where sentences can embed other sentences etc. The trick is to explain this to the average reader such as myself). Peter Damian ( talk) 17:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it may be better to reverse the order of the bullet points, starting with 'the modern view is more complex', then showing how the simple predicate analysis of the Aristotelian sentence can expand outwards indefinitely. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please remove the photo of Confucius. He was NOT a logician. What is his contribution in logic study? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicmind7 ( talk • contribs)
Usually the term "personal logic" means differentiation from the norm supposedly positive for the believer as he/she claims. Personal logic thinkers usually have very low iq test performance because they don't try to understand the cosmos, even if they claim so, simply to simplify the cosmos in order it fits inside their small brains. Physicists for example might have different opinions, but they don't try to create a personal logic, but to understand the actual world. Neuroscientists and psychologists study the aspects of personal logic, not to believe in it, but in order they understand the brain. Personal pseudo-logicians claim that their views are rare and unique, because there are infinite ways to be wrong than try to be reasonable. Personal logic isn't something rare or unique statistically though, even if the quasi-thinkers claim so. Everyone has partially an apparent "personal logic", but the term means shallow causal and biased thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410D:7800:C87:6EB1:1B01:90D7 ( talk) 22:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Logic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Logic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
"A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion"
I don't think this explains much, because "logic" was previously defined in terms of inference. So, it ends up being circular. The best definition of logic I've heard is the study of "truth-preserving inference." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
There had been a german logician, who was able to explain logic good. (I don't know whether he is still alive. I don't think so.) I think he is not very famous, but I don't know why. The pitty for english-speaking people, who are accidently interested in his theory, is, that his book "Grundlagen der strengen Logik" is only available in german. So if you are interested, here is a part of his work: https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=842329272#Strict_syllogistic
I really think he is right with every single word, but i don't dare to change the article for logic. I am curious about your opinions.
-- 123qweasd ( talk) 17:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/logic/Logical-systems. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 18:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the Philosophical logic section doesn't display the title just below the citation box? - Theklan ( talk) 10:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Avicienna's Contribution to the study of logic, makes persia relevant. In fact, that makes all Muslim philosophers relevant. The main article unfairly makes no mention of any Muslim philosopher.
There are redundancy between chapter 1 and 4. May chapter 4 Types be combined to chapter 1 as below?
Chapter 1 Types of logic
-- Gluo88 ( talk) 00:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Charles Stewart, thank you very for your explanation. It looks to me that "Approaches to logic" is a better term too.
-- Gluo88 ( talk) 17:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Logic&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=1039487529&oldid=1032265705
It's been a long time since the article changed so much, so quickly. Could I have an explanation for where this is all going? — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The shortdesc for this page defines the subject as "The study of inference and truth," while the hatnote has "the systematic study of the form of arguments." These strike me as pretty different things, so I thought I'd point it out here in case any subject experts want to alter one. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:Botterweg14 and thanks for your efforts at improving this article earlier this year. I saw that you removed 2 full paragraphs from the section "Definition" in your recent series of edits. I'm not sure that this removal was intentional since it was not even mentioned in your edit summaries. If it was, I would ask you to explain your reasons for the full removal. The removed material talks about very general characteristics of logic, different approaches to defining it, and different ways the term is used. It is therefore clearly relevant to the section "Definition". The material is also well-sourced. The paragraphs in question are:
These general characterizations apply to logic in the widest sense since they are true both for formal and informal logic. [1] But many definitions of logic focus on formal logic because it is the paradigmatic form of logic. In this narrower sense, logic is a formal science that studies how conclusions follow from premises in a topic-neutral way. [2] [3] As a formal science, it contrasts with empirical sciences, like physics or biology, because it tries to characterize the inferential relations between premises and conclusions only based on how they are structured. [4] This means that the actual content of these propositions, i.e. their specific topic, is not important for whether the inference is valid or not. [2] [3] This can be expressed by distinguishing between logical and non-logical vocabulary: inferences are valid because of the logical terms used in them, independent of the meanings of the non-logical terms. [5] [6] Valid inferences are characterized by the fact that the truth of their premises ensures the truth of their conclusion. This means that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. [7] [8] The general logical structures characterizing valid inferences are called rules of inference. [9] In this sense, logic is often defined as the study of valid inference. [10] This contrasts with another prominent characterization of logic as the science of logical truths. [9] A proposition is logically true if its truth depends only on the logical vocabulary used in it. This means that it is true in all possible worlds and under all interpretations of its non-logical terms. [11] These two characterizations of logic are closely related to each other: an inference is valid if the material conditional from its premises to its conclusion is logically true. [9]
The term "logic" can also be used in a slightly different sense as a countable noun. In this sense, a logic is a logical formal system. Different logics differ from each other concerning the formal languages used to express them and, most importantly, concerning the rules of inference they accept as valid. [12] [9] [10] Starting in the 20th century, many new formal systems have been proposed. There is an ongoing debate about which of these systems should be considered logics in the strict sense instead of non-logical formal systems. [12] [10] Suggested criteria for this distinction include logical completeness and proximity to the intuitions governing classical logic. According to these criteria, it has been argued, for example, that higher-order logics and fuzzy logic should not be considered logics when understood in a strict sense. [10] [9]
Regards, Phlsph7 ( talk) 06:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I finished the draft of the section "Formal and informal logic". I used your example for the language-based distinction. For the context-dependence, I decided to expand the strawman example already present in the text. My suggestion is to use this section as a replacement for the current subsection "Formal and informal logic" but turn it again into a main section. The section "Definition" would then only have 3 paragraphs, for which a further subdivision wouldn't be necessary. But it would still profit from the changes to its introductory paragraph you proposed. Phlsph7 ( talk) 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the suggested changes. Feel free to let me know your thoughts once you have time again. Phlsph7 ( talk) 07:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Logika and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Logika until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
02:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 ( talk) 23:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page should apply. I generally don't think about it much, unless there are over three, and leave it up the article regulars. -- Otr500 ( talk) 22:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence ( talk · contribs) 04:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I will do this. Will take between 2 and even 4 weeks. Huge task. § Lingzhi ( talk) 06:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The four pramāṇas are perception, inference, analogical reasoning, and testimony.
Nyāya-sūtra 1.1.5 defines inference as follows.[An inferential cognition] is preceded by that [perception]. It's also covered by the following paragraph.
...is threefold: from cause to effect, from effect to cause or from that which is commonly seen.. An example is given later:
A paradigmatic act of inference to oneself is: “There is fire on that mountain, since there is smoke on it,”
An argument is a set of propositions advanced by a player (the proponent) in a game of dialogue. ... A game of dialogue is composed of two players, called the proponent and the respondent, a set of moves of the players, and a set of rules for the game. Each move is either a question or an answer. The players take turns making moves. There are different kinds of procedural rules which determine when various kinds of moves are allowed in the game. There are logical rules, defining what counts as a valid argument.Phlsph7 ( talk) 14:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The Pragma-dialectical theory stipulates a normative ideal of a critical discussion which serves both as a guide to the reconstruction of natural language argumentation, as well as a standard for the evaluation of the analysed product of reconstruction. ... The Pragma-dialectical theory proposes that each of the core fallacies can be assigned a place as a violation of one of the rules of a critical discussion.Phlsph7 ( talk) 15:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
PASS GA. I've been reading this article off and on for days. After considerable discussion and a few minor modifications, I am satisfied that it fulfills the criteria of WP:GAN § Lingzhi ( talk) 12:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Archive-1 created Charles Stewart 07:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing some of the older entries from before 2004, and the ones that were irrelevent to the article, in part to try and make this page less than 32 kb. This page could benefit greatly from an explanation of how logic relates to artificial languages, predicate, sentential and modal logic as prime examples. This would also naturally involve a small digression on how logic relates to natural languages and linguistics in general, including say informal versus formal methods, and how natural deduction can be used to infer rules of inference.
Why does compound sentence redirect to logic?
Who invented truth tables, Charles Pierce or Wittgenstein? Who should get the credit?
Shouldn't this page include the basic logic relationships? Why don't you add them to truth tables, connective, and quantifier?
Also the logic of relations, or polyadic quantification, which Quine said is what brought serious stature to logic as a field. It might also be nice if there were a striking & concise way to characterize the difference between formal or mathematical logic, & algebra (as the theory of calculation), i.e., the heart of the difference between formal reasoning & calculation, as opposed to lists of respective subfields.
Thinking about statistics and the frequentist formulation of confidence intervals ( The population parameter is "fixed but unknown") leads me to wonder if anyone has ever put the idea that something in a mathematical problem can be "given to be unknown" on a rigorous logical footing. Suppose we have an a symbol p representing a a "quantity" in a mathematical problem, be it a statistical problem or otherwise. Some examples of thethings that we might be "given" about p are:
1. p is an unknown number.
2. p is a normally distributed random variable with mean 0 and std. dev.= 1
3. p is a normally distributed random variable with unknown mean and std. dev.= 1
4. p is a normally distributed random variable with unknown mean and unknown std. dev.
5. p is selected by a person who has flipped a fair coin. If the coin landed heads then he chose p to be an unknown but fixed number. Otherwise p was chosen from a normal distribution with mean 0 and std. dev. 1. How the coin landed is unknown. (i.e. There is a 0.5 probability that p is "fixed but unknown" )
Lacking such a calculus, I , nevertheless attempt the following deductions:
If we are given 1) alone then an example of a valid conclusion is "The probability that p = 23.2 is either 1 or 0" (this follows famous textbook examples from statistics). If we are given 2) alone then the previous conclusion is invalid. If we are given 3) alone then we may say "The probability that {the probability that p = 23.2 is either 0 or 1} is 0". If we are given 5) alone then I don't think the previous conclusion is valid.
I'm sure these examples suggest even more mind boggling ones that make the frequentist assumption look like simplicity itself. Has some obscure branch of logic worked all this out for us? (I'm not talking about Bayesian statistics, which involves adding additional assumptions.)
Stephen Tashiro
Dana Scott's theory of domains should handle the above kinds of uncertainty to your satisfaction. The essential idea is that it is a kind of theory of types that is naturally related to a logic without the principle of excluded middle. Chalst 23:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Should not the logic page include the Law of Identity as one of the three laws of classical logic? That is: A is A or A = A. It seems to me that this law of Identity is crucial to the application of the Law of Non-Contracdictories and the Law of Excluded Middle in determining the truth or error of a proposition. Afterall, Logic really is the mechanism by which we pursue truth and distinguish it from error.
Perhaps the three laws of logic could be more understandable to those who are not aquainted with them as follows:
Law of Identity: A is A, or A = A. Something (a proposition or a thing) is what it is. Example: An apple is an apple. However, all apples are not identical, and any particular apple is not any other particular apple. Stating the law is not without difficulty. For example, a paricular apple is only a single example within the broad spectrum of the class concept of "apple-ness." In this case, the law of identity is valid in making the detemination that, "this particular apple is an example of what is subsummed under the class concept of "apple-ness.""
Law of Non Contradiction: A is not non-A. Something is what it is and not what it is not. Example: Applying the Law of Identity, an apple is an apple. Then applying the Law of Non-Contradiction, an apple is not anything an apple is not. The law does not preclude the possibility that an apple could become something else, applesauce, for instance, but that an apple cannot be an apple and applesauce at the same time.
Law of Excluded Middle: A is B or non-B. Usually, when considering propositions, the Law of Excluded Middle is applied by stating that the proposition P is either true or false, with no third possibility (tertium quid) allowed. However, in keeping with our "apple" example in explaining the first two laws, we could state that, "an apple is either a fruit or a non-fruit (a vegetable, or an animal)"
It seems that the application of the laws as given in the examples above have a direct bearing on what the could be considered "significant speech" and in resolving the ever present problem of communicating propositions "meaningfully" by addressing the "one within the many."
The communication of a proposition "meaningfully" from one person to another is absolutely dependent upon the definitions of the terms in the minds of both. Since we've been using "apples" in our other examples, I'll stick with apples here. Unless both have the same class concept of what an apple is, then applying the Law of Non-Contradictories is meaningless. For the term "apple" to have meaning and relevance, both the author of the proposition and the one to whom the proposition is communicated must have agreement about what consitutes the class concept of "apple-ness." The more agreement within the class concept, the more "meaningfullness" being communicated.
If both the author of the proposition and the one to whom it is communicated do not have a significant alignment on Identify, then applying the Law of Non-Contraditories is of no value in determining the "truth" or "error" of the proposition and neither is the application of the Law of Excluded Middle.
I have removed this, which I don't understand, from the formal logic section.
I don't see that it is consistent with the linked definitions, for one thing.
Charles Matthews 11:15, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The proof of non-contradiction in the Aristotelian Logic section contains the premise "it is only the law of non-contradiction that prevents " can be" from necessarily becoming "is"). ". This needs to be elaborated upon. "can be" has no translation in propositional logic as far as I know.
As someone who studied mathematics at the university level, I think the statement copied below, and the "proofs" that follow do not prove that the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle aren't axioms in a formal mathematical system:
The reasoning in the "proofs" which follow that statement belong to something that I would characterize as meta-mathematics. That is the "proofs" implicity assume that you know what is meant by the atoms "true" and "false". But if you consider Aristotelian logic as a mathematical system then the atoms are only defined by their use in the two axioms. In a mathematical system there is no way to define such basic terms as "true" and "false" without the use of axioms.
Since the "proofs" given are interesting on philisophical level, I don't think erasing them would be warrented, but I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to make it clear that the "proofs" given don't satisfy actual mathematical rigor. millerc 21:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
User:152.163.252.131 added:
There is perhaps something useful to be said about computer logic (e.g. TTL), but this is simply confusing (and non-wikified) as a first paragraph. Bovlb 12:35, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)
I'm just a curious beginner who found the logic article interesting, but would someone be kind enough to say whether Bill is a 'knight' or a 'knave' in example 3:
>Logician: Are you both knights? John: Yes or No. Logician: Are you both >knaves? John: Yes or No.
>Who is who?
I tried using the notation given for example 1, and went from
to
which seemed sensible as John is obviously a knight and there doesn't seem to be any information about Bill? ..Help :)
I suppose a point I'm trying to raise, is how beginner friendly should the wiki be. Should any rational thinking newbie be able to understand any given topic in the wiki by following enough links? ..or would this make the wiki too verbose?
This article needs more careful editing.
CSTAR 00:25, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've created a possible outline for the logic page, I believe it can provide an excellent general idea of what logic is, with enough specifics to distinguish topics for the reader, and lead him/her to appropriate topics. I also belive it provides a broad enough description of logic that it has the nature of an encyclopedia article. Please critique and make suggestions!
siroxo 15:03, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
I am in general agreement with the outline. However, my most cherished principle of writing is this:
which I learned in my Spanish Jesuit high school, meaning The good if brief twice good. This principle is particularly important in an article on logic!
CSTAR 16:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've seen the page in a number of versions - none of them really good. I really think it suffers every time it gets closer to the kind of computer science thinking (roughly speaking, you can have any kind of formal system you want and call it the XYZ logic, if you think you have an application).
I'm not an expert, but the history tells one something. There was an old meaning of formal or symbolic logic (already in Kant?). In the nineteenth century logic was formalised first for pedagogic reasons (Boole, Lewis Carroll) - because it was still considered a pedagogic subject. Only with Frege did it really become once more a research area (after 2000 years). I don't believe there really was a subject called mathematical logic, before Gödel. The need to write what he had done in a way that could be understood made for recursion theory first, and then model theory, as disciplines within mathematics. So basically one can say that the incompleteness theorem directly caused those developments. For example, for the Polish school at its foundation, logic was not 'inside' mathematics at all; but a separate subject. And before that the philosophers were sorting out philosophical logic, i.e. parts of the logic of natural language that are difficult to formalise.
After 1950 it really is all less clear ...
Charles Matthews 18:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well I agree that specialized formal logics, particularly for reasoning about a specialized subjects such as concurrency or computer programs really should have a subordinate position in the article. I was trying to achieve that goal--- for this reason I introduced the section header highlighting the distinction between formal and informal logic. Apparently I didn't quite achieve that yet.
However, I would stress the following points:
I noticed that the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not have an entry on Logic pure and simple. It has lots of entries logic of XYZ.
CSTAR 20:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is there one? CSTAR 16:14, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I suggest: traditional logic discussed in general terms, up to the time of Boole and Mill (on induction) when things started to shift. Then mathematical logic Frege up to about 1940 (when the structure of the subject had become reasonably clear). Philosophical logic had a definite meaning for Russell, which then moved somewhat; but this is still a key area for analytic philosophers.
Charles Matthews 07:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I just reworked the intro a bit. Tried to make it flow better, as well as adding an idea or two. One note, I think the first sentance, as it is in the new version, is required. In common conversation, logic basically just refers to the reasoning used to reach a conclusion. I think we should allude to that, and then introduce the formal concept. This will even help to reinforce the formal view of logic to people who have not studied it, as well as easing people into the article.
I also resectionized the first couple sections, and dropped the deductive/inductive thing into there, I hope it fits better like that.
Regarding inference/argument, I'm not sure how to convey that in this page, but it might be an interesting addition.
— siro χ o 09:08, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
I made some small changes to the first paragraph.
CSTAR 14:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The most recent edit (Lorenzo Martelli) tries to clarify the situation in which the assumptions are inconsistent --- is this really necessary? If they are inconsistent, the premises will never hold and by the meaning of material impication, validity is vacuously true. Mainly I don't think this should be put into the introduction, maybe some other place. Otherwise the introduction is very rapidly going to get unwiedly. CSTAR 15:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Reply from Lorenzo: I agree in general with your comments CSTAR. Maybe then we should just leave in the qualification 'for most intents and purposes'? What I think would be wrong would be to have a statement beginning 'Validity means .....' in the introduction to an article on Logic, if that statement is not 100% accurate. After all, half of the reason behind formal logic was to get rid of the ambiguities...!I also think we should put somewhere in the article a strict definition of validity, of the form 'an argument is valid if and only if...' to ensure it is clear and referenceable, and that all that follows (the paradox of entailment etc, why truth tables are so important)can be explained through/referred back to the definition. Hope you agree and if so feel free to move my comments to a more appropriate place.
Could we collapse the sections on Multi-valued logic and Logic in Computer science into a single section, say specialized logics. Also I prefer to use inference instead of reasoning in the section currently titled deductive and inductive reasoning. For example. inference could be procedural, i.e., apply Matlab to infer something. I think also a sentence or two on the distinction (and also relations) between inference and logical argument is necessary. CSTAR 16:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I know we have beat this subject to death, but I am still unhappy with some of our characterizations of logic given in the 1st paragraph, particularly, since in the broad sense that logic traditionally has had in philosophy, it is concerned with the structure of inference. Thus I propose a change starting at the second sentence:
CSTAR 04:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the opposition of rhetoric (and dialectic) to logic. The relation between the is complex, that's clear, but to say it is one opposition is also misleading. CSTAR 14:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Any problem with me charging ahead and adding these? --- Chalst 23:55, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Intuitionism and relevantism probably deserve a mention. I'm not too familiar with the modern research you allude to. Everything else i'm not sure yet, might as well add some stuff and we'll see where it goes. Just remember that this is not the main article on any of those topics.
—
siro
χ
o 01:13, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
I've created two short articles semantics of logic and proof-theoretic semantics (among others) prior to editing the Logic page proper. Close readers may notice that there are some disagreements of fact between those articles and this one. Comments welcome. ---- Charles Stewart 23:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't like the current organisation of this section. It's possible to organise logic by its formal type, when one gets a list along the lines of:
Or one can organise it by motivation/application, and get:
Mixing the two axes, as is done now, though, seems like a recipe for confusion. The first list seems more important to me.
Furthermore, "Multi-valued logic" as a category of logic, is just wrong. It's an issue in the semantics of logic: one can give multi-valued semantics to FOL, and there are non-bivalent logics, such as intuitionistic logic, that are not commonly treated as being truth-valued at all. The existence of multi-valued logics is maybe appropriate in a semantics section, or in the section I proposed earlier on controversies in logic.
If there are no objections, I'm planning on applying a series of changes in the next few days, starting from tomorrow evening ---- Charles Stewart 14:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Now applied the restructring I've been threatening... Two issues:
Aristotelian logic is sometimes referred to as formal logic because it specifically deals with forms of reasoning, but is not formal in the sense we use it here or as is common in current usage. It can be considered as a precursor to formal logic.
Mathematical logic refers to two distinct areas of research: The first, primarily of historical interest, is the use of formal logic to study mathematical reasoning
Comments welcome on all changes ---- Charles Stewart 00:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
— siro χ o]] 05:03, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
— siro χ o]] 07:48, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
The article currently states:
Is model theory usually considered part of proof theory?
If so that's news to me. Model theory certainly is mathematics applied to logic.
These seem like fairly subjective evaluations. Are we sure it's four pillars and say not...sixty five pillars? (I'm being a little facetious here purposely to spice up the discussion) . I concede that these boundaries are really murky, but is set theory really logic?
And I think we should be less harsh on the logicist programme. Saying it was a failure really gives an erroneous impression. The logicist program did succeed in one way: As a result of the logicist programme it became abundantly clear that mathematical reasoning is in principle reducible to a formal calculus (if anybody has enough time or funding on their hands to do it)
I think the article still gives short-shrift to Dialectic and rhetoric. It ignores the work of Chaim Perelman and Tyteca-Olbrechts on argument. This is briefly mentioned in logical argument.
Or rather, to claim it is, is to take a psychologistic view of logic, one that is almost universally rejected by modern logicians, although one that was popular in the last half of the 19th century. The psychology of cognition is the study of reason. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and most of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 18 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 ( talk) 16:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that the article has a new, up-to-date reference for "Logic is the study of arguments", from the 2002 book by the Catholic philosopher, Harry Gensler, of the John Carroll University, a Jesuit theological college.
Modern Catholic teaching of logic has perhaps been unduly neglected in Wikiedpia's treatment of logic, but it is certainly not mainstream. What, precisely, is wrong with the definition in the Collins Encyclopedia, which was edited by the highly accomplished scholar, David Crystal? What is the attraction of this offbeat definition of logic, that we have to spend so much effort furnishing it with references? Is Harry Gensler really being held up as such a great authority that can tell us that Tarski's characterisation of logic as concerning non-subject specific consequence has been overturned?
Perhaps this article will attract attention from a competent editor who can see beyond their personal views on what logic is, and see how experts use the term. Until then, look out for my 3rd nonconstructive complaint. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the description of Logic should be fundamentally altered. To say that logic is 'the tool for distinguishing between the true and the falce' is to say that there is an observer who uses 'the tool' to judge what is true and what is falce. This does not say what that 'tool' is. That which is observed in the observers consciousness in the 'now' is a static picture. Using logic the observer, under the influence of motivation, alters that picture for another picture in the next 'now'. The change occurs in time. Both pictures are static at the time of observation. What is it that directed the alteration of the first picture to the second picture ? The observed picture in the first 'now' consists of parts. Each part is an independent truth defining the whole of the picture. The same applies to the picture in the second 'now', after change. Some of the truths of the description are common for pictures in both observations. The more of the truths of the description are common the stronger is the logical connection. Logic is like magnet. It has variable strength depending on how many truths about the two interacting pictures are common. KK ( 78.146.68.198 ( talk) 13:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC))
I think some of the comments have been moved I found an old contribution in the talk page of the disambiguation, but I amsure it was originally written on the main article. Can someone please explain, in their own words, the history of the article and what happened? Kathybramley ( talk) 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC) This is my text from the disambiguation talk page: What about logic in the more everyday use in speech? When someone, like a doctor, suggests you are not as logical as you think, what do they mean? What exactly? How can you challenge or assess that? I'm not sure the mere mention of cognitive psychology really covers it, not from a user-friendly way. I imagine people using this page to get ideas if the word 'logic' has come up as an accusation of lacking it. What about logic and logical structure in essay writing/general academic writing? (I was always getting comments 'could be more logically structured' through school up to degree, but never once did anyone describe 'logical'). It is in this case, logical structure is equating to outline structure - starting with a distilled strong central/over-arching idea and 'exploding' it into constituent parts in a step-by-step fashion. I want a link from this page to an appropriate page. I'd like it for both these instances of important areas of use that are not yet included. ...not sure I am brave enough to yet though (quite a new user I am). Ideas and help? Comments? Kathybramley (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Kathybramley ( talk) 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that in general, inductive reasoning is not considered logic; that is purely restricted to deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning commits the inductive fallacy and is illogical. To give an example of inductive reasoning and why it is flawed, consider the following example: a hen who is fed and taken care of by a farmer day after day. The hen could inductively conclude, that the farmer will continue to do so based on this observation, corresponding to a premise in deductive reasoning. However, one day the hen is butchered by the farmer and fed to the family. Clearly the conclusion the hen came to was flawed -- it assumed constancy in the universe. This is the flaw of induction and why it should not be compared so closely with deduction. This article should be edited to express that. MONODA ( talk) 10:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Dear MONODA...your hen pretended to know the future. Logic deals with the relationship between two static pictures in the 'now'. KK ( 78.146.69.242 ( talk) 22:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC))
There's plenty to do! Here are some resources to start:
Dan Cottrell ( talk) 00:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
A new user has added an intriguing picture of a so-called "logic garnet", claiming that it's an "early device used to determine the logical consistency of a given claim". We don't have any article directly on this, but we do have one on Shea Zellweger, who seems to be the inventor. Zellweger was born in 1925, so the thing can't be that "early" really.
I don't mind the picture, and a mention, somewhere in the article, but I'm not sure that an idiosyncratic notation deserves to be placed so prominently at the top. There are lots of notational systems that have accumulated followings of devoted fans but never really caught on in the wider world (e.g. Sheffer stroke, Laws of Form). -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The first two sentences of this article are self-contradictory.
"Logic is the study of valid reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activities."
This is entirely wrong. The study of valid reasoning is most definitely NOT used in most intellectual activities.
Are you people okay with me changing it in a major way?
Another contradiction, still in the opening paragraph, is mention of "The study of logic". Since "logic" has been defined in the first sentence as "The study of valid reasoning" then "the study of logic" would be the study of the study of valid reasoning. This is ridiculous. Am I the only person who can see this?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ksolway (
talk •
contribs)
14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Should this topic be discussed ? https://school.carm.org/amember/files/demo3/2_logic/absolutes.htm i think that its something that could be included in this topic, otherwise maybe it should have its own page Aperseghin ( talk) 15:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Under Construction...
Science(knowledge), is acquired by all the entities in the diagram.
Philosophy (love of wisdom), I believe 'love of wisdom' is inherent in acquiring knowledge, as otherwise, there is no reason to want knowledge. To get knowledge, you must first, have wanted it, in the first-place. (the purpose/knowledge wanted is irrelevant)
In an abstract way, (although the concepts are already abstract...) to have knowledge, you must at least have be able to 'know' something...or, anything... What is something/anything? The/a universe - what makes up a universe? The universe is made up of, 'physics', and 'meta-physics'. (MST UPDATE)
Which I then class into two separate forms of base-logic. Rational-logic, and irrational-logic. or intelligence, or intellect... (MST UPDATE)
My source? Hopefully, the people of Wikipedia see it as credible...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickid123 ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
What are you tripping on?
How does this differ from Kant's boring old ancient analytic-synthetic distinction? Have you just changed some words around and added two differently spelled synonyms "intellect" and "intelligence" like you're bloody Derrida or summat? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
192.155.82.44 (
talk)
06:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Logic is how we humans think. If it is not logical, then it is questionable. Thanks.{{-- General concensus2012 ( talk) 03:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)}} 96.48.152.145 ( talk) 07:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I have to say I kind of disagree with some of the policies that wikipedia encourages for this article, verifiability in particular (not a fan of Popper). I have also, unintentionally overridden the discussion that has been going on behind the scenes here by just editing. So I am posting this to give yall a heads up and to say sorry, please edit my writing, but at least take it into account.
I was reading the bit at the end of Rejecting Logical Truths and I was really disappointed with the critiques given of Nietzsche. They were clearly partisan and I think the tone and content was pretty weak. Ive gone ahead and responded to each critique. I got quite angry with the Russell one in particular so that should probably be changed. But still i think this really needs to be looked at because the way it stood it seemed like some kind of definite rejection of the rejection but which is not convincing at all.
I also offered my kind of interpretation which I think would stem from a kind of positivistic attitude although i myself am really into the whole frankfurt critique of instrumental rationality and the positivists that are associated with that... So ye im also against imparciality. I think the article should vehemently argue for the competeing positions but allow them all up there! This may look contradictory but im all about paraconsistency!
Lots of love! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.155.82.44 ( talk) 06:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The first section under "The study of logic" divides logic into four categories: informal, formal, symbolic and mathematical, whereof all but the first links to mathematical logic, where they are listed as synonyms. It also seems to be more confusion over these three terms later in the article. I'm not sure exactly what are the most recognized relationship between these terms, but we need to try to make it more consistent. – St.nerol ( talk) 17:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Logic refers to Reason, Reason loops back to Logic. Right in the first sentence in both cases. I understand, these are hard to define. But someone have to try harder. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.176.240 ( talk) 11:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
the original article discuss logic from a non-scientific method of view which makes it hypothesis and as hypothesis its not suitable for practical purposes. if somebody interested in this article from a scientific method point of view please send me an email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2403:E989:9D97:9A63:C19E:C76D ( talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please simply consider to be published as article after "SO MANY YEARS of first publishing", would be more logical for what is considered as a TAG as "Original Work"! THANKS!
My facebook Authors page is: https://www.facebook.com/BookPureLogic ! First published Canada 2008; USA 2009. So plus 10 years would make it 2018 and 2019, before WIKIPEDIA could consider the article about my Book! IS THIS SENSIBLE? THANK AGAIN! ( General concensus2012 ( talk) 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC))
Most of the sources sited have been out dated, I believe it would be better to update some of its definitions from new books, to name a few:
"Logic- is the study of methods for evaluating whether the premises of an argument adequately support its conclusion." "Sound Argument- a valid argument in which all of the premises are true." "Valid Argument- one in which is necessary that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true." Source: Santiago. LOGIC CUSTOM. McGraw-Hill Create (tm). p. 66. ISBN 9781308201979. 14:49, 9 February 2015 HalleyRoséM
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Main Entry: logic 1 : a science that deals with the rules and tests of sound thinking and proof by reasoning;
2 : sound reasoning
3 : the arrangement of circuit elements for arithmetical computation in a computer
http://dictionary.reference.com/
1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
What is first or of higher level as to which is needed first?
Is it the problem of the Hen and the Egg?
Can Science be without logic? Yes it can, though it should not happen!
Can logic be without Science? No and Yes! Logic and true "sound" reasoning, is Science!
But good reasoning logic can be by itself, and not be Academic recognized Science!
Though generally good sound reasoning logic, does proceed from much Science, theoretical and practical learning!
So half truths and half logic, or not complete logic, can or have been made Science in a few cases! But this does not happen to true complete(pure) logic!
Hence I would establish LOGIC and "complete/pure logic", thought, ideas, imagination, to be first, as the "software" and "hardware" of a computer! That then can be established in firm accepted Academia Science, with "strict" Rules and Laws developed(particular specific sciences) and that can be experimented and proven!
Much of Logic and "metaphysics", does not have to be proven as Science might apparently require! The power of Inference and Deduction enter into the game of sound reasoning or illogical reasoning!
If this is helpful, please feel free to use it! Thanks! (-- General concensus2012 ( talk) 04:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC))
I completely agree...! Back from exile 2013...! [[[User:GeorgeFThomson|GeorgeFThomson]] ( talk) 05:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes I am convinced this World does not take history records of what is "biased" as original work! When Original work should not be blocked as to making reference to it in a concise manner! GeorgeFThomson ( talk) 05:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Fuck David Kevin ( talk) 04:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
That section needs much better logic, in fact. I am surprised by its current state. Clearly, "Is logic empirical?" is not a type of logic, neither is "Rejection of logical truth". The basic concepts such as deductive vs inductive logic etc. are lost in a form of "spaghetti logic" in that section, I am afraid. SaundersLane ( talk) 21:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I want to put some energy into solving a number of issues with the article as it stands. The article has not impoved much since 2005 and has become weaker in a number of areas, so one of the things I will be doing is going over the differences in https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Logic&diff=cur&oldid=28701908 and restoring the older text where it is clearer or more correct than the current version. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Peter Damian's old plan for the article is at User:Peter Damian/logic. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thought disorder links here (probably unintentionally?) via a redirect through " illogicality" into "logic".
Illogicality as a symptom of a mental disorder is a relatively concrete and narrow thing that is *somewhat* related to high church "Logic", but it is also importantly distinct.
I think a better arrangement would to EITHER (1) have a full article for Illogicality as a symptom instead of the current redirect OR (2) there should be a subsection in this article about Illogicality as a symptom of thought disorder.
A good template for how Illogicality should look (whether as a section or a whole article) is the Alogia article which covers a related symptom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:903:506C:9E8:7BB4:79C5 ( talk) 22:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
"A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. " I remember saying something like this. Do any other textbooks mention this? The standard one is 'premises not true with conclusion false'. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
[edit] I wrote “A valid argument is one where there is a connection between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusions that is informally signified by words like 'therefore', 'hence', 'ergo' and so on.” ‘Connection’ was changed to ‘specific relation of logical support’. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Noting that User:Jbessie is Professor of Philosophy at University of Wisconsin-Stout whose interests include mathematical logic, the philosophy of science etc, so presumably knows what he is talking about! I think the intro reads fine. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd like us to get the article into shape to nominate it for good article status. There are a few things that need to be done before we nominate it:
1. The readability of several sections could do with improvement.
2. The article needs to be better referenced.
3. The article could use a few more illustrations.
I value all assistance with these.— Charles Stewart (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"According to the modern view, the fundamental form of a simple sentence is given by a recursive schema, involving logical connectives, such as a quantifier with its bound variable, which are joined by juxtaposition to other sentences, which in turn may have logical structure."
What does this mean? Peter Damian ( talk) 17:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
(I think what it is getting at is that instead of a fixed two-term + copula structure, we now have a flexible structure where sentences can embed other sentences etc. The trick is to explain this to the average reader such as myself). Peter Damian ( talk) 17:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it may be better to reverse the order of the bullet points, starting with 'the modern view is more complex', then showing how the simple predicate analysis of the Aristotelian sentence can expand outwards indefinitely. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please remove the photo of Confucius. He was NOT a logician. What is his contribution in logic study? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicmind7 ( talk • contribs)
Usually the term "personal logic" means differentiation from the norm supposedly positive for the believer as he/she claims. Personal logic thinkers usually have very low iq test performance because they don't try to understand the cosmos, even if they claim so, simply to simplify the cosmos in order it fits inside their small brains. Physicists for example might have different opinions, but they don't try to create a personal logic, but to understand the actual world. Neuroscientists and psychologists study the aspects of personal logic, not to believe in it, but in order they understand the brain. Personal pseudo-logicians claim that their views are rare and unique, because there are infinite ways to be wrong than try to be reasonable. Personal logic isn't something rare or unique statistically though, even if the quasi-thinkers claim so. Everyone has partially an apparent "personal logic", but the term means shallow causal and biased thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410D:7800:C87:6EB1:1B01:90D7 ( talk) 22:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Logic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Logic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
"A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion"
I don't think this explains much, because "logic" was previously defined in terms of inference. So, it ends up being circular. The best definition of logic I've heard is the study of "truth-preserving inference." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
There had been a german logician, who was able to explain logic good. (I don't know whether he is still alive. I don't think so.) I think he is not very famous, but I don't know why. The pitty for english-speaking people, who are accidently interested in his theory, is, that his book "Grundlagen der strengen Logik" is only available in german. So if you are interested, here is a part of his work: https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=842329272#Strict_syllogistic
I really think he is right with every single word, but i don't dare to change the article for logic. I am curious about your opinions.
-- 123qweasd ( talk) 17:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/logic/Logical-systems. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 18:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the Philosophical logic section doesn't display the title just below the citation box? - Theklan ( talk) 10:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Avicienna's Contribution to the study of logic, makes persia relevant. In fact, that makes all Muslim philosophers relevant. The main article unfairly makes no mention of any Muslim philosopher.
There are redundancy between chapter 1 and 4. May chapter 4 Types be combined to chapter 1 as below?
Chapter 1 Types of logic
-- Gluo88 ( talk) 00:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Charles Stewart, thank you very for your explanation. It looks to me that "Approaches to logic" is a better term too.
-- Gluo88 ( talk) 17:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Logic&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=1039487529&oldid=1032265705
It's been a long time since the article changed so much, so quickly. Could I have an explanation for where this is all going? — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The shortdesc for this page defines the subject as "The study of inference and truth," while the hatnote has "the systematic study of the form of arguments." These strike me as pretty different things, so I thought I'd point it out here in case any subject experts want to alter one. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:Botterweg14 and thanks for your efforts at improving this article earlier this year. I saw that you removed 2 full paragraphs from the section "Definition" in your recent series of edits. I'm not sure that this removal was intentional since it was not even mentioned in your edit summaries. If it was, I would ask you to explain your reasons for the full removal. The removed material talks about very general characteristics of logic, different approaches to defining it, and different ways the term is used. It is therefore clearly relevant to the section "Definition". The material is also well-sourced. The paragraphs in question are:
These general characterizations apply to logic in the widest sense since they are true both for formal and informal logic. [1] But many definitions of logic focus on formal logic because it is the paradigmatic form of logic. In this narrower sense, logic is a formal science that studies how conclusions follow from premises in a topic-neutral way. [2] [3] As a formal science, it contrasts with empirical sciences, like physics or biology, because it tries to characterize the inferential relations between premises and conclusions only based on how they are structured. [4] This means that the actual content of these propositions, i.e. their specific topic, is not important for whether the inference is valid or not. [2] [3] This can be expressed by distinguishing between logical and non-logical vocabulary: inferences are valid because of the logical terms used in them, independent of the meanings of the non-logical terms. [5] [6] Valid inferences are characterized by the fact that the truth of their premises ensures the truth of their conclusion. This means that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. [7] [8] The general logical structures characterizing valid inferences are called rules of inference. [9] In this sense, logic is often defined as the study of valid inference. [10] This contrasts with another prominent characterization of logic as the science of logical truths. [9] A proposition is logically true if its truth depends only on the logical vocabulary used in it. This means that it is true in all possible worlds and under all interpretations of its non-logical terms. [11] These two characterizations of logic are closely related to each other: an inference is valid if the material conditional from its premises to its conclusion is logically true. [9]
The term "logic" can also be used in a slightly different sense as a countable noun. In this sense, a logic is a logical formal system. Different logics differ from each other concerning the formal languages used to express them and, most importantly, concerning the rules of inference they accept as valid. [12] [9] [10] Starting in the 20th century, many new formal systems have been proposed. There is an ongoing debate about which of these systems should be considered logics in the strict sense instead of non-logical formal systems. [12] [10] Suggested criteria for this distinction include logical completeness and proximity to the intuitions governing classical logic. According to these criteria, it has been argued, for example, that higher-order logics and fuzzy logic should not be considered logics when understood in a strict sense. [10] [9]
Regards, Phlsph7 ( talk) 06:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I finished the draft of the section "Formal and informal logic". I used your example for the language-based distinction. For the context-dependence, I decided to expand the strawman example already present in the text. My suggestion is to use this section as a replacement for the current subsection "Formal and informal logic" but turn it again into a main section. The section "Definition" would then only have 3 paragraphs, for which a further subdivision wouldn't be necessary. But it would still profit from the changes to its introductory paragraph you proposed. Phlsph7 ( talk) 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the suggested changes. Feel free to let me know your thoughts once you have time again. Phlsph7 ( talk) 07:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Logika and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Logika until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
02:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 ( talk) 23:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page should apply. I generally don't think about it much, unless there are over three, and leave it up the article regulars. -- Otr500 ( talk) 22:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence ( talk · contribs) 04:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I will do this. Will take between 2 and even 4 weeks. Huge task. § Lingzhi ( talk) 06:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The four pramāṇas are perception, inference, analogical reasoning, and testimony.
Nyāya-sūtra 1.1.5 defines inference as follows.[An inferential cognition] is preceded by that [perception]. It's also covered by the following paragraph.
...is threefold: from cause to effect, from effect to cause or from that which is commonly seen.. An example is given later:
A paradigmatic act of inference to oneself is: “There is fire on that mountain, since there is smoke on it,”
An argument is a set of propositions advanced by a player (the proponent) in a game of dialogue. ... A game of dialogue is composed of two players, called the proponent and the respondent, a set of moves of the players, and a set of rules for the game. Each move is either a question or an answer. The players take turns making moves. There are different kinds of procedural rules which determine when various kinds of moves are allowed in the game. There are logical rules, defining what counts as a valid argument.Phlsph7 ( talk) 14:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The Pragma-dialectical theory stipulates a normative ideal of a critical discussion which serves both as a guide to the reconstruction of natural language argumentation, as well as a standard for the evaluation of the analysed product of reconstruction. ... The Pragma-dialectical theory proposes that each of the core fallacies can be assigned a place as a violation of one of the rules of a critical discussion.Phlsph7 ( talk) 15:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
PASS GA. I've been reading this article off and on for days. After considerable discussion and a few minor modifications, I am satisfied that it fulfills the criteria of WP:GAN § Lingzhi ( talk) 12:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)