Talk:Logic

=============================================

Please remove the photo of Confucius. He was NOT a logician. What is his contribution in logic study?

Added Persia, to ancient civilizations studying logic.

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.

What is first? Science or Logic?

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)

The "types of logic" section

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)

Some more items:

• Given that the pages on Predicate logic and Propositional calculus both clearly state that they are subfields of Mathematical logic they can not be in the same level as that and are not "types of logic" as such if mathematical logic is considered a type.

• Principle of bivalence is a "principle" as it says. It is not a type of logic. Neither is "Rejection of logical truth" which is now 3 paragraphs here as a form of "rambling logic". It really needs to go at the end to a subsection of its own called truth and logic or something, and become much shorter.

Overall many, many problems remain here. SaundersLane (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This section used to be two parts, a 'types of logic' section and a 'controversies in logic' section. The latter was removed, I assume by some drive-by editor who had a thing against controversies sections and was not interested in the coherence of the article. The logic article has suffered a great deal from these kinds of issue since 2009. In the medium term, the article badly needs an overhaul, but as a stop-gap, the division could be reinstated. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've reinstated the controversies in logic section and added a new subsection on material inference. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Illogicality (part of "thought disorder") and Schizophrenia

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)

The article could have a section on logic and rationality, with a subsection title Illogicality that documents this condition. Would this be a good thing? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've changed ‎the title of the Deductive and inductive reasoning, and abductive inference subsection to Logic and rationality, which now needs rewriting and can now discuss alogia/illogicality. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've created an article as the main article of the Logic and rationality subsection, and am about to start adding a discussion of illogicality. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Overhaul

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/w/index.php?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)

Questions

"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)

Thanks for your recent work on the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Good article status

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)

Illustrations for logic? I will try and put some time aside for the words. Peter Damian (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Propositional logic lends itself naturally to illustration by Venn diagrams and predicate logic by analogy can be illustrated with one of Peirce's existential graphs. Term logic could be illustrated with the square of opposition. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Readability

"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)

I've changed the order in which the concepts are introduced: hopefully the text is now easier to digest. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)