The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Aristotle's system of logic formed the foundation of logical thought for more than 2,000 years until the advent of modern symbolic logic?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
Other talk page banners
The contents of the Formal logic page were merged into Logic. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Symbolic logic page were merged into Logic. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Advances in Algebra and Logic, Scientific Research: An Academic Publisher (from scirp.org, the site is blacklisted so the URL cannot be added), 2023
The referencing style is very, very inconsistent. There is no hope for a GA or an FA unless it is made consistent. I will happily do this in the same style as Black Monday (1987). I already have a major start at User:Lingzhi.Renascence/sandbox. Completely finishing it might take 2 more hours, but having 2 hours free time might take 2 days. [It might still look rough, but I know how to fix everything]... After that, I would copy everything over from my sandbox to here. Let me know if anyone has any objections § Lingzhi (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that with "consistent reference style" you mean replacing all regular reference tags in the body of the article with shortened footnotes. I think it's a good idea and I agree that this would be beneficial for a possible FAC. Thanks for putting all the work into this. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
System changed. Actually, the style was more than 90% consistent, but there were many cites here and there in more than 1 different style. I assume they were added by a variety of editors. There were also sometimes many full citations of the same book, one for each page or section that was being referenced. Finally, I think the {{sfn}} format is more readable, not only in the References section as displayed, but in the underlying wikitext of the body text. § Lingzhi (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that Aristotle's system of logic formed the foundation of logical thought for over 2000 years until the advent of modern symbolic logic? Source: Haaparanta, Leila (2009). "1. Introduction". The development of modern logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN978-0-19-513731-6.
ALT1: ... that paraconsistent logic is a type of formal logic that can be used to draw meaningful conclusions from contradictory information? Source: Priest, Graham; Tanaka, Koji; Weber, Zach (2022). "Paraconsistent Logic". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Introduction, 1. Paraconsistency. Retrieved 12 May 2023.
ALT2: ... that logic distinguishes between deductive arguments, which preserve truth, and ampliative arguments, which are not as certain but arrive at new information? Source: Hintikka, Jaakko; Sandu, Gabriel (2006). "What is Logic?". In Jacquette, D. (ed.). Philosophy of Logic. North Holland. p. 13. ISBN978-0-444-51541-4. Archived from the original on 7 December 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2021. Inferences can be either deductive, that is, necessarily truth preserving, or ampliative, that is, not necessarily truth preserving. This distinction can be identified with the distinction between such steps in reasoning as do not introduce new information into one's reasoning and such as do not do so.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "like the modus ponens" to "such as the modus ponens".
Change "like inferring that all ravens are black" to "such as inferring that all ravens are black".
+ check the rest of the article for similar errors.
Someone with such strong opinions shouldn't be mixing up formal fallacies with informal fallacies based on the narrowest archaic definitions of words in human language. Remsense聊00:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Myuoh kaka roi and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. Could you clarify how your claim is relevant to the article? The source you mentioned is only used for one sentence. This sentence does not mention a relation between the Navya-Nyāya school and modern set theory. I don't know if this was different when the source was first added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The user jagged 8 may have misused sources, but this source does support the sentence, and it is a reliable source although a bit old. Plus, there are plenty of other sources that support the same idea from a quick google search (e.g. [1][2]), including the SEP [3]. Shapeyness (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but can these reliable sources talk anything about modern set theory which was been subsiquently added to articles like Indian logic.It was once there in this article page but was subsequently removed. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense, @Phlsph7. I think I have to agree with the user IP [4], the image may be supposed to be located after the infobox and language maintenance template in sequence. This layout is already been set as one of the guidelines (or manual of styles) per MOS:ORDER. Did I miss something here? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dedhert.Jr and thanks for the input. As far as I'm aware, the first image is used when previewing the article by hovering over a link to it or searching it. The preview should show modus ponens, not a Greek letter. It's true that MOS:ORDER puts infoboxes before images. I assume the infoboxes meant there are infoboxes about that specific article, which are often used for people or books, like at Willard Van Orman Quine. The template we have here is a sidebar. I'm not sure if sidebars are considered a type of infobox.
But since we are at it, WP:LEADSIDEBAR states that "The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged". I suggest that we remove it, which would solve the dispute anyways. There is already a philosophy infobar at the bottom of the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]