Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of logic/archive1

History of logic

History of logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): From the other side (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/History of logic/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because

• The History of logic is an important subject that deserves FA status
• It has been peer-reviewed by editors who are expert in the subject matter (particularly User:chalst and User:KD Tries Again).
• It meets all the criteria for FA (so far as I am aware).
• I am nominating this in the absence of the main editor of the article User:Peter Damian who unfortunately has been banned for some time.

From the other side (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• What is your relationship with Peter Damian? Interesting to see that a new user immediately starts preparing an article for FAC.
  • He 'asked me' to nominate it for him. From the other side (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• The article has many links to dab pages, a few dead external links, and some problems in the alt text; please review WP:ALT, including WP:ALT#Proper names. Ucucha 14:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I will have a go at the ALT. For the dab pages, how do I detect and fix these? From the other side (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • They are listed when you click "disambig links" in the list to the right. You can then look for those links in the article. Ucucha 14:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks From the other side (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Done From the other side (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Unfortunately, the nominator of this article has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Peter Damian. Unless an established user can step up to co-nominate this article and address any remaining objections, this FAC will have to be archived. Classicalecon (talk)

Comments:

• Well-written but very sparsely referenced (1c). In the first paragraph alone: "the ancient Egyptians empirically discovered some truths of geometry...", "the great achievement of the ancient Greeks was to replace empirical methods...", "the three basic principles of geometry are...", and "the idea of a deductive system was probably known in the Pythagorean school..." all need reliable sources and inline citations. The article is riddled with similar examples.
• As noted on the talk page, the references need a bit of work. For example, why are most sources cited in short format but Logical Investigations is not? There a lots of typos and inconsistencies, as well.
• I am not sure the pyramid image adds anything to a History of Logic article. Nor does the Allegory of the Cave.
• The discussion of Plato seems out of place here. As you say, Plato had no formal logic and what you discuss here is really his metaphysics and epistemology. Do you need this section at all?
• The Aristotle discussion lists his works but does not discuss his main principles. Those would have to include logical form, opposition and conversion, and a better explanation of the syllogism. Given Aristotle's seminal importance, I think some discussion of his metalogic (noncontradiction, excluded middle, etc.) would be good to have, as would at least a mention of his non-formal logic e.g. the theory of fallacies).

* The medieval logic section is very thin. Abelard deserves much more than a mention. Supposition theory merits more discussion, as do Ockham and Buridan -- What was the theory? What did they say? None of main themes of the period are explained at all (syncategoremata, sophisms, insolubilia). This part needs quite a bit of expansion.

• You describe the periods of modern logic briefly in the numbered list, but then don't exactly follow that outline in what follows and fail to expand on many of the topic mentioned in the list. It is confusing to the reader, and highlights the places in which the discussion below it is incomplete. If you combined the list with the sections that follow and more fully discussed the things on which it now touches, it would be a big improvement.
• You mention the mathematical school, but it would be good to say a more about what they did. Set theory, for example.
• There is a big gap between the discussions of Frege and Goedel here. Where is Russell's Paradox? Principia Mathematica? In a "comprehensive" (1b) article on the topic, you have to at least describe them.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Aristotle and Medieval sections are much improved. I struck out the stuff that seems to be addressed now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Russell and Principia discussion also seems more complete. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Provisional support on the basis of 1a. This is fine work: there is much to be impressed by in the parts I've read. I'll be interested to see how Housecat's issues are dealt with. (Disclosure: I copy-edited the top part of the article last week.) Tony (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC) PS A few things I've noticed on a fly-over just now:
  • "that correct thinking is following out the connection between forms"—I changed the awkward passive to active before this, but I'm still not quite clear on the meaning (the "is"). Do you mean "equated c t with the forging of connections between forms"?
  • "an analysis of simple categorical propositions, into simple terms, nouns and verbs, negation, and signs of quantity"—I have category problems with this list: are not simple terms nouns/verbs? Perhaps I'm being daft. Comma after "Posterior Analytics".
  • Following the shifts between past and present tenses with interest. At this stage, it looks to be well handled. I'm thinking about the combination of present, simple past, recent past, here (my italics): "... has had an enormous influence in Western thought.... These works are of outstanding importance in the history of logic. Aristotle is the first logician to attempt a systematic analysis of logical syntax, into noun or term, and verb. In the Categories, he attempts to classify all the possible things that a term can refer to. This idea underpins his philosophical work, the Metaphysics, which also had a profound influence on Western thought. Aristotle was the first formal logician (i.e. he gives the principles of reasoning using variables to show the underlying logical form of arguments)." Difficult to manage, I concede.
  • Caption: "Aristotle's logic was still influential in the Renaissance". Needs a period (see MoS ... it's a full sentence). Also, the elephant in the living room is that since the Renaissance, it has not been influential. I guess the reader has to piece this together. Tony (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Tony, thanks. I changed some parts where clarification is needed. "correct thinking consists in following out ...". "simple terms, nouns and verbs" - remove 'nouns and verbs'. "Aristotle's logic was still influential in the Renaissance" - it was indeed - the invention of printing led to a huge spate of transcriptions from manuscript into print (the text from Brito on the right is an example of such a work - Johannes Rubeus Vercellensis and Albertinus Vercellensis, Venice c. 1499-1500]). The decline from the Renaissance onwards was slow, as the subsequent sections make clear (I hope). I will have a look at the tense problem shortly.
    • Re Housecat's comments: I have added more references (more to come), have expanded the section on medieval logic considerably, and on the lines s/he suggested. The only area I am not really competent to deal with is set theory. I have asked Charles Stewart and others to help. From the other side (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - mainly on the lack of citations for opinions. Also a lot of niggly little formatting glitches, but presentation is important, and they should be fixed if you're writing articles at this level.
• Pick one, either citations after the punctuation, or before the punctuation, right now, it's a mish-mash of either.
  • I ran a script on those, should be mostly fixed, but may need review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Statements of opinion uncited: "This is part of a protracted debate about truth and falsity." "and the idea of a deductive system was probably known in the Pythagorean school and the Platonic Academy." "The logic of Aristotle, and particularly his theory of the syllogism, has had an enormous influence in Western thought." "The three most important contributions of the Stoic school were (i) their account of modality, (ii) their theory of the Material conditional, and (iii) their account of meaning and truth." .. I could continue, but it's not well cited, especially on statements that could be challenged.
• Bare numbered links in the notes - current ref 10.
• We don't use ibidem or other such abbreviations in Wikipedia, because if a section moves, it is not longer clear what they are referring to.
• What's "El. philos. sect. I de corp 1.1.2"
• Other issues include lack of information on some editions used in the referencces (who's the publisher for the Epictetus and when was it published?) and formatting glitches in the references (Most titles are italicised, but some aren't..)
• http://public.ut.ac.ir/html/fac/lit/articles.html deadlinked

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi - these are easily fixed, although it may take a week or so. Can I take it this is a conditional oppose (or conditional support?) From the other side (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, if they get fixed, I'm more than happy to revisit the oppose, but the main problem is the lack of citations on things that are expressing opinions. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I have been working on the citations for the general statements. I wouldn't call them 'opinion'. For example, when it says that "the work of Muslim logicians was important in communicating the ideas of the ancient world to the medieval West." that is not an opinion. But it is important to have such statements in there, as it makes Wikipedia more than just a list of small facts (which it very often is). There should be no difficulty sourcing these, however. Take a look at what I have just done, and let me know of any more. From the other side (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Still sections completely unsourced and still the issues mentioned above about punctuation and the el philos issue are present. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note, someone needs to run a dash fixing script (hyphens instead of endashes in citations, at least). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I did yesterday but new cites have been added since then. Fixed again. Ucucha 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my fault. How do I edit a dash?From the other side (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Don't sweat it; those who have the script can easily fix those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
        • No, do sweat it: we don't want to encourage editors to go around wrongly adding hyphens. Windows cntrl plus minus sign top left of alphanumeric keyboard (full); Mac is option-hyphen. Otherwise, click on edit tool below the edit box. Tony (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
          • I believe I went through and fixed all dash issues yesterday. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Question/Temporary Oppose

• what is the difference in the citations to Kneale (forex, 4, 6,8), and to Kneale and Kneale (3, 7, 10)? There is only one Kneale i found in the bibliography, but it refers to two people as authors, so I'm trying to figure out if this is the same book. If it is, what is the logic behind the different name? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• On a separate vein, I do agree that the History of Logic is an important topic that deserves an FA quality article. I do have questions, though. Has this article been peer reviewed by the Philosophy project (it doesn't look like it) or an ACR from History (it also doesn't look like it)? The issues I have with the article (some of which have also been raised above) would have been addressed at these reviews. Just a point to make.
• Below I've raised some of my issues with the article. (a) Clarity of Content. (b) Prose. Generally, the prose of this article is good, although surely there are more elegant ways of expression, such as the following:
  • that have come down to modern times .... have endured in (to?) the modern era....?
  • probable order of writing of Aristotle's logical works is: ... Although it is difficult to determine, Aristotle probably wrote the treatises that constitute the Organon in the following order: ...
  • things included in a library, such as that at York, would be in a collection...not simply there
  • (lead) Logic was revived in the mid-nineteenth century, at the beginning of a revolutionary period where the subject developed into a rigorous... when the subject...or when it acquired its rigorous... What made the mid-19th century period revolutionary? I don't see where we get to that.
  • Plato strongly suggests that correct thinking consists in following out the connection between forms. I don't even know what this means. Does it mean correct thinking? Or following out the connection between forms? Or something else????
  • premisses .... I'll need to have this defined using wiktionary. (Was I asleep in my philosophy classes, so I don't know this stuff?)
  • The third question involves the nature of definition. You lose me here. Plato was preoccupied with definition. Not the nature of it. Didn't definition provide the nature of something else (the thing/idea/whatever) being defined?
• just some of my issues.... Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • • Thanks. I have fixed the 'when'. On the nineteenth-century: the lead summarises what unfolds in the body of the article. Several times the 19C is mentioned as the period of important changes in logic. On your point about Plato, several people have mentioned this needs some help. Thanks From the other side (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "Alcuin, who taught at York in the eighth century AD, mentions that the library there contained Aristotle". the library there means 'the library in York'. Does anyone else have a problem with this? I can't see it. From the other side (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "that have come down to modern times". Google [1] suggests this is a satisfactory turn of phrase. From the other side (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Then you (or who ever wrote this) uses "there" again, and it isn't clear to me where there is.
      • I think overall, the article is still too confusing, and I'm questioning the content. I'd be happier if there had been a History ACR and/or a Philosophy Peer review for this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The lead doesn't so much "summarise", User:From the other side. It quotes, or lifts, bits from the article; some of them are much too long for such treatment. A lead isn't supposed to use the actual phrasing of the article proper, as for instance this passage does:
  • at the beginning of a revolutionary period where the subject developed into a rigorous and formalistic discipline whose exemplar was the exact method of proof used in mathematics. The development of the modern so-called "symbolic" or "mathematical" logic during this period is the most significant in the two-thousand-year history of logic, and is arguably one of the most important and remarkable events in human intellectual history.
  • (This passage appears word for word in the lead as well as in the section "Rise of modern logic".) There's more, much of it from the "Rise of modern logic" section. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
    • You set me a difficult challenge. The section you are referring to is itself a summary of the post-Aristotelian phase. If we delete the version lower done, we are left with a long article about a big subject, without intervening summaries. If we keep it, then we have the repetition you find problematic. I don't see an easy way to solve this, apart from paraphrasis. From the other side (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, paraphrase would be better than blatant repetition, especially considering that it's the first paragraph of "Rise of modern logic" that's completely repetitious, not the second; while the second paragraph constitutes the "summary of the post-Aristotelian phase" that you mention. So, if you paraphrase the section's first paragraph, keep the second as is, and glue both together, you will have a long article about a big subject, but with an intervening summary. Right? Something like this:
        • "A long period of decline followed the important developments in logic in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Logic was revived in the mid-nineteenth century, starting a revolutionary period where the subject grew into a rigorous discipline whose model was the exactness of mathematics. The development of the modern "symbolic" or "mathematical" logic during this period is the most significant in the two thousand-year history of logic, and is by many considered one of the most important and remarkable events in human intellectual history."
      • Or you could join up the sections "Rise of modern logic" and "Periods of modern logic", to produce a heftier summary of post-Aristotelian logic. Assuming, per Nasty Housecat above, that the list of the kinds of logic is complete—I'm no expert on this stuff. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC).
• Comment: The 'Logic after WWII sect is more or less bullet pointed - should be rewritten so that the para structure is not so repetitive. Small issue. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Assuming the points of detail raised above can be met, this is unusually strong article by the general standards of philosophy articles on WP. Interested in the question of it being peer-reviewed by the Philosophy Project - is that still functioning in any active sense? (I am looking at pages needing attention and open tasks, scarcely edited any more, but I don't mean to raise that as a topic for discussion here.)KD Tries Again (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
• Question to which I want an honest answer; I'm asking here rather than privately both to avoid anyone else asking the same, and to get an "on record" answer. In the past I've caught Peter Damian slipping easter eggs into articles. Are there any joke links, deliberate misinformation, falsified references or other breaching experiments in this article? – iridescent 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked Damian, and he said definitely not. He said to speak to Kohs about 'Easter eggs'. Damian is very serious about the logic stuff. From the other side (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There are statements above that User:KD Tries Again is a subject matter expert; it would be helpful to have his/her specific review of and comments on this issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The section about logic after WWII looks strange to me, but that might be because of the philosophical POV, to which I am not used. I don't have much time for this FAC, but I work three office doors from a big mathematical logic library that also has some philosophical stuff. Therefore I may be able to summarise an overview from one of the books available here, if someone has a recommendation. Hans Adler 15:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That is because I wrote that section, without much knowledge of the mathematical logic side of things. It is true that mathematical logic had a great influence on philosophical logic of that period, and I can vouch for the philosophical stuff. But it really needs an expert to deal with this section. I have some books on mathematical logic - if you can point me to the main themes, I could fill them in, and you could comment. Thanks From the other side (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstood me. I am not complaining about the philosophical POV. In this article I would consider it as a feature rather than a bug. I really meant it at face value. If you say that's what philosophers consider important in post-WWII logic I will simply believe you. It's just that from a mathematical POV what I saw was an odd bag consisting of one paragraph about very interesting and relatively deep mathematics, and a few exotic, shallow and irrelevant things. But I see that CBM got involved, and suddenly it all looks much more familiar. I wonder if it's still acceptable from a philosophical POV. Hans Adler 21:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now: The section on logic post-WWII is very thin and makes no mention of the interaction between logic and computer science (including AI research). There's little or no mention of developments in proof theory and type thory, including intuitionistic, linear and substructural logics. Classicalecon (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • See remarks above. It really needs the attention of an expert. From the other side (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question: A featured article should apparently have as broad an appeal as possible. The accomplishments of model theory from the second half of the 20th century satisfy both criteria of being (a) significant developments and (b) at least in part easily explainable to a larger mathematical audience. Is there any interest in including them here? Tkuvho (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. Please see my remarks above. We are seeking an expert contributor on this subject. I would only ask that it be easily understandable to the kind of audience who would be interested in the article as a whole (i.e. not too technical, as it could easily become). From the other side (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I would like to help with that, but unfortunately as a model theorist I only see lots of very interesting trees, each telling its own remarkable story, but no forest. I am looking for a source that can guide me.

    In my opinion Robinson's non-standard analysis should be discussed separately from model theory, since it's a separate community with separate methods and conventions. I believe there is much less interaction between model theory and non-standard analysis nowadays than between model theory and any of set theory, algebraic geometry or computer science, for example. On the other hand, if it's only a single sentence (as now) we should probably leave it in the model theory paragraph. Hans Adler 21:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Easter eggs? I may be missing some nuance here, but if this refers to the deliberate insertion of misleading information or vacuous citations, I certainly don't find any. I would be unhappy if there were, as I contributed a couple of sections myself. Not an issue, as far as I can see.KD Tries Again (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
  • Thanks for checking, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The "Periods of modern logic" section ends with "Period after World War II", but this division is sourced to a book written in 1961. A lot has happened since then! Imagine a "history of computers" article whose "modern computers" section started with Babbage's difference engine and ended with mainframes of the 1950's. I would think this section should say something about categorical logic, more about type theory than it currently says (e.g. it should mention Per Martin-Löf), and something to the effect that a lot of current activity has moved into the intersection of mathematical logic and theoretical computer science. If it helps, Jean-Yves Girard's paper on Ludics in 2000 divided 20th-century logic into an "time of delusions" (pre-Gödel), an "time of codings" (1930's-1960's), and an "time of categories" (1970-2000).([2] p. 4) But I don't know that I'd call this a mainstream source. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Added: I think there should also be some mention of engineering applications, like model checking, automated theorem proving, formal verification of computer programs, and the influence of type theory and the Curry-Howard correspondence on the development of programming languages. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Further comment: This article concentrates so much on philosophical logic that maybe it should be retitled to "history of philosophical logic" so that people looking for mathematical logic won't be disappointed. Maybe I have an over-narrow point of view (I'm a math buff) but I get the impression that if you throw every work on logic ever written into a big pile, 1) most of the publications will be from the 20th century; and 2) most of the 20th-century publications will be on mathematical rather than philosophical logic. So for the general subject of "logic", the article is slanted much too much towards older works and towards philosophy. I don't think it's appropriate to weight every time period equally. It's again like the history of computers--of course the topic goes back to the ancient Greeks, but almost all the interesting stuff is relatively recent. G. T. Kneebone and A. P. Cavendish have an article (JSTOR 4106575) that discusses mathematical vs philosophical logic, if that's of any help. log66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I disagree with the preceding comment. This is not an article on the "general subject of 'logic'". Wikipedia has one of those (Logic - and it could use some work). The present article deals specifically with the history of the subject, and thus the slanting towards older works is entirely appropriate. It's as if one complained that History of France was too heavily weighted toward past events. One of the most important points to make about the history of logic is precisely that mathematical logic played a second fiddle to philosophical logic throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but then became the cutting edge of the subject. I have no criticism of the recent additions on recent and contemporary mathematical logic, but I am concerned that the article should not become too weighted in that direction. I wonder if topics like the Curry-Howard correspondence or automated theory proving really need prominence in an article about the history of logic?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

(e/c) And yet more comment: User:Fram has blocked From the other side and (quite destructively, I must say) has even reverted some of the history of this FAC (referring to that as a "minor edit", if you please). Apparently nothing is more important to Fram than keeping a putatively banned user out, no matter how much that user is improving the project. I disagree with that principle, and have reverted Fram's changes to the FAC; I'm assuming s/he won't wheel war. I have not unblocked From the other side, because I'm awaiting and hoping for consensus to do so. Could somebody please take this to ANI? I have to go out. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC).

Noted. However, from what I can tell, you mean Fram deleted article content, not FAC content. I can find no edits to the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I reverted the banned user latest series of edits (since rereverted, but not by Bishonen, or not by his known account at least), I left alone the vast number of edits by previous sock accounts of this user though because other users edited inbetween. Fram (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"referring to that as a "minor edit", if you please": a rollback is always indicated as a minor edit. Easy come, easy gone, they are not "quite destructively" at all. Edits by banned users may be rollbacked by anyone, and should only be reinstated by people taking the responsability for them. I am not going to do that, since he is correctly (not putatively at all) banned (last month upheld at AN, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive209#Good faith (towards Peter Damian)), and many of his edits under his various guises are problematic. Perhaps not those he made here, I don't care about those, but in general. Anyway, if you would simply unblock From the other side, you would end up desyssopped yourself. Be my guest... I notice that you have willingly and knowingly left socks of this user unblocked. Helping users evade a ban is not really admin-worthy behaviour. By the way, are you a sockpuppet of User:Classicalecon? All in all, I don't really care if you take this to ANI, but you may perhaps have more problems if your actions get scrutinized. Fram (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic moved to talk; the issue has been noted. Please do not continue this discussion here. FAC is for the purpose of evaluating whether articles meet WP:WIAFA, not making decisions about banned users. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)