Timeline for What are the major research programmes in contemporary logic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2019 at 18:17 | answer | added | Speakpigeon | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:42 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/ with https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 21, 2012 at 22:57 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 12, 2011 at 10:14 | comment | added | Niel de Beaudrap | @Doug: there is of course no procedure to map an argument to a validating logic. However, one can identify the necessary or sufficient logic-features in order to validate it, and then e.g. consider logics with such features. Traditional arguments may be validated by a very wide variety of logics, including 'classical' logic; but it may be validatable in logics having fewer techniques (e.g. excluding reductio ad absurdum as a valid strategy). Other arguments may require non-classical features, such as paraconsistency. One can then compare the fitness of various logics (or logic-schema). | |
| Sep 11, 2011 at 0:10 | comment | added | Doug Spoonwood | As I understand them, plenty of arguments can work in the context of several logical systems given that we actually try to develop as many logical systems as we desire, so how can we move from the argument to the supposed logical system when it's known that more than one possibility exists? If we have some ground for preferring one system over the other here somehow, on what basis do we have that preference? | |
| Sep 11, 2011 at 0:06 | comment | added | Doug Spoonwood | @Niel I don't see how you can determine which logical framework from just the argument given. Say you have an argument (and supposing we both want this as valid) like "if a tree fell (f), then something moved it (m). If something moved the tree (m), then gravity significantly moved it also (g). Therefore, if a tree fell (f), gravity significantly moved it (g)." There exist more than one logical framework where this argument will work as valid including the pure implicational calculus, as well as full-blown classical logic. So, how can one reverse-engineer the logic from the argument? | |
| Sep 10, 2011 at 1:06 | history | edited | Niel de Beaudrap |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 9, 2011 at 21:17 | answer | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 9, 2011 at 19:57 | comment | added | Niel de Beaudrap | But one can do a bit of "reverse logic", and ask what sort of logical framework would be necessary for an argument to be valid, or to derive a collection of "known facts" (proposed conclusions/corrollaries) from a set of premisses thought to be sufficient to entail them. In this sense, one may speak of using logic to model an argument or the world at large. I would imagine that in practice, this might be accomplished by looking at examples of interesting arguments/causative/implicative processes, and trying to generalize them as succinctly as possible. | |
| Sep 9, 2011 at 19:12 | comment | added | Doug Spoonwood | I'm not quite so sure that logicians concern themselves with modeling, but rather think they might concern themselves with evaluation. Many introductory textbooks talk about how logic can get used to evaluate arguments. Logic in mathematics gives us a means to evaluate mathematical arguments and mathematical reasoning. It seems extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to evaluate some philosophical works and especially abstract mathematical arguments without some logic. If logicians fundamentally concern themselves with evaluation, it makes sense that there exist many logics. | |
| Sep 9, 2011 at 15:47 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/112190462282047488 | ||
| Sep 9, 2011 at 3:36 | history | edited | Joseph Weissman♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags; edited title
|
| Sep 9, 2011 at 2:23 | history | edited | Niel de Beaudrap | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
elaborated the question
|
| Sep 9, 2011 at 2:07 | history | edited | Niel de Beaudrap | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
trying to reduce the math-influenced language
|
| Sep 9, 2011 at 2:00 | history | edited | Niel de Beaudrap | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
elaborated the question
|
| Sep 9, 2011 at 1:51 | history | edited | Niel de Beaudrap | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added question
|
| Sep 9, 2011 at 1:46 | history | edited | Niel de Beaudrap | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor rewording
|
| Sep 9, 2011 at 1:36 | history | edited | Niel de Beaudrap | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
reformulated question in an attempt to make it less presumptive
|
| Sep 8, 2011 at 23:58 | history | asked | Niel de Beaudrap | CC BY-SA 3.0 |