Talk:Language, Truth, and Logic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This entire article needs to be rewritten -- it's stolen from . I contacted the author of that text, and he did not submit it to Wikipedia. Palthrow 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC) It's also missing citations that make specific reference to corresponding pages in the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

The Library of Congress card catalog lists it as "Language, truth, and logic". Gene Nygaard 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The LOC does indeed include the serial comma in the titles of the 1946 and 1952 editions, but not for the original 1936 edition. (Unfortunately, actual links to searches at don't work.) — Elembis (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Since the article name already has a serial comma, I think Gene means the title should be lowercase. –Pomte 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not giving context; Gene's comment was prompted by my request to move this article to Language, Truth and Logic on Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals; see edits [1] and [2]. — Elembis (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case, the older editions show Language Truth & Logic on the cover so why do catalogs refer to it with and, convention? Articles can contain the ampersand, e.g. Barnes & Noble. The 1990 and 2001 have the title as you propose, and British English does not favour the serial comma, so I am inclined to support. –Pomte 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Add some criticisms?[edit]

I feel that this is a very poor article overall. For one thing, I feel that the concepts discussed in the book should be divided into the individual chapters that they are presented in, allowing for easier reference to LTL. Also, I think there should be a section giving some examples of how some philosophers react to and criticise the book (the criticism that the VP, which almost the entire book rests upon, fails its own test should be a good start). Some sort of allusion should also be made to the impact the book had upon publication, establishing the analytic tradition more strongly than it had ever been before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Metaphysics attacked[edit]

the last para of this section appeared to contradict itself ("Analytic observations give us new knowledge... But analytic observations do not give us new knowledge...") -- therefore i've inserted "of matters of fact" into the second statement, this being the salient part of the argument in the article by Alex Scott which this WP article is based on (see Palthrow's comment of 9 February 2006 above): "Analytic propositions may provide us with new and undiscovered knowledge of the logical relations of propositions. However, analytic propositions do not provide us with any new or undiscovered knowledge of matters of fact, because the validity of analytic propositions does not depend on empirical evidence." ( ) -- Oniscoid (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)