Talk:Philosophical logic

Overhaul Required

I don't know nearly enough about the subject to even start to approach this with the intent of repairing it, however it needs to be fixed. The introduction has no citations, while the majority of the article mearly redirects to other articles. Moreover what is elaborated upon is unclear at best. Sovereignlance (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Philosophic logic and the philosophy of logic

This statement in the article: "Philosophical logic is often confused with philosophy of logic, the field of philosophy that is concerned with the nature and justification of formal logical systems", seems a bit vague. Aristotle dealt with natural language but he was also concerned with a formal system. So, the issue is more of where the former ends and the later begins. "Confusion" is not incorrect, just vague.Amerindianarts 07:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The current lede appears to confuse Philosophic logic and the philosophy of logic quite badly, lacks citations, and is thus 99% POV.--Philogo 20:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say rather than "POV", we should say it's just plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.87.236 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Request

That editors who contribute to and watch this article check out this Article for Deletion nomination and comment. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not see what at thisis relevant. Will you help?--Philogo 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The article I am nominating for deletion addresses truth and representation and I thought these fell under the topic of philosophical logic, and I thought people working on that article would be knowledgable to judge whether Linguistic meaning duplicates an existing article on philosophy, or holds up to Wikipedia's standards for articles on philosophy topics. If you do not see how the title of the article relates to philosophy, I ask that you look at the contents of the article. The contents is definitely not about linguistics! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done: discussion at this.--Philogo 21:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Organisation

This article has a number of empty sections similar to or identical with some of the section headings in philosophy of logic. Is that, I wonder, intentional?--Philogo (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

This book (A. C. Grayling, An introduction to philosophical logic, Edition 3, Wiley-Blackwell, 1997, ISBN 0631199829) should help clear the tag spam, and also clarify that the relationship between philosophical logic and the philosophy of logic is seen differently by various authors. Pcap ping 12:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Coherence

The section on the coherence theory gives what is, at best, a necessary condition for coherence in the relevant sense as though it were an adequate definition. Coherence involves relationships of mutual explanation and justification that are nowhere mentioned here, in addition to (if not outright supplanting) logical consistency. Someone more knowledgeable than myself about epistemology should revise this and possibly other sections (I don't take myself to fully understand the coherence theory, though I do understand it well enough to know this article doesn't do it justice). 24.79.207.140 (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)