User talk:Danielsavoiu/Term logic

Redundancy

Does wikipedia need all of:

1. Aristotelian logic
2. Term logic and
3. Organon?

I see a case for two articles, but not three with the material we have. I suggest we merge the first and the last articles. --- Charles Stewart 19:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In general I like having lots of focused articles which overlap. It makes it a lot easier to look stuff up. I like being able to, for example, enter "Organon" or link to it and, in the first sentence, find out what it is, rather than having to scan through an article looking for where the Organon is explained. So I would prefer to keep all three articles. I also don't mind redundancy and overlap, we have the space, and I think it makes Wikipedia more robust — if a definition gets bollixed up in one place, it might be fixed by looking in another. Having said all that, I don't necessarily think that the way we have organized this information across these three articles is best, and a rewrite of all three, with the others in mind would certainly be a good thing. And if you really just want to merge a couple of the articles, go ahead. It won't be hard to create new articles again from the probably better merged article. Paul August ☎ 21:56, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I think I'll keep the Organon article separate, but change the article to become just a brief summary of the six books, plus a reference to the metaphysics, with a direction to look at this article for an explanation, and I'll put an Organon section in this article with abrief precis of the constitution of the texts, plus the historical stuff now in that text. That should keep its quick reference value, without having the scattering of topic. The diving up of this article and term logic is not ideal, but I won't tackle that now. --- Charles Stewart 14:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Paul August ☎ 14:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

By the way the above, reminds me that, I've tried a couple of times to read through all the logic articles, but have found their organization a bit confusing to me. I've had it in the back of my mind, for some time now, to go through them, and try to sort them out a bit. But I have found the task a bit daunting. I have however I've been noticing recently, Charles Stewart's work (I just now discovered User:Chalst/WikiProject Logic proposal) and I am encouraged by it. (Charles: perhaps you should start a discussion about your proposed logic project on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics? Or perhaps you did and I missed it?) Paul August ☎ 15:06, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. The idea is almost a year old now, and a few people are interested. I've been hesitant to roll it out for fear that it would distract from the task of getting the core logic articles in order , so I've only discussed it with User:CSTAR, User:Mel Etitis and User:Txa. But maybe the disorganisation of the logic pages is deterring people from getting involved. --- Charles Stewart 16:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Aristotle

"Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell criticized the work of Aristotle and showed its many limitations. They helped remove the positive prejudice associated with the work of Aristotle. Today logicians who study modern logic respect the Aristotelian logic in the sense of its great early accomplishment."

This text is about Organon or is about (pseudo-)aristotelian logic? Where have Frege criticized the work of Aristotle? I'm not even sure Frege known the Organon. And I don't agree we should accept Russell's oppinion about aristotelian logic, anyway; so i'm not sure this quote is npov. Gubbubu 18:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Russell's criticisms were (from his History of Western Philosophy under Aristotle's Logic):

1) defects within his system. Going from "All Greeks are men" and "All Greeks are white" to "therefore some men are white" is only true if there actually ARE any Greeks. So, in order for the conclusion to follow, a third premise that "There are some Greeks" would be needed. I think this is referred to as the error of the excluded middle (but I'm not sure about that).

2) the syllogism was given too much emphasis compared with other types of deductive argument. This refers mostly to math and formal logic in the form of predicate calculus, etc.

3) over-estimation of the value of deduction, as opposed to induction. WhiteC 02:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that modern logic is more powerful than Aristotle's system, but some people dispute that modern logic is an improvement on syllogistically based logics; see term logic. I agree that the passage is POV. With respect to Russell's criticisms, (1) is the problem of existential import, and it is not clear that Aristotle's system has a real problem here, (2) the syllogism is not the only inference in Aristotle's system, and (3) doesn't sound to me like a claim that Russell would make. --- Charles Stewart 14:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General agreement, except for (3). He doesn't say Aristotle ignores inductions, just that he tends to stress deduction over it, as do (in his opinion) most other ancient philosophers. I refer you to page 199 of Bertrand Russell's 'A History of Western Philosophy', 1972 Simon & Schuster. Sorry if he doesn't sound like himself. WhiteC 02:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problem of existential import

We should have a section on this; I'm too busy to start it now. Some bookmarks:

• Nedzynski and the Square of Opposition Ivan Antonowitz defends syllogistic against the problem.
• SEP article on the square of opposition Good overview of problem.

Proposal to merge

Following User:Danielsavoiu's work in explaining syllogistic inference on this page that largely duplicates the explanation on term logic, I think we should get this article merged with term logic ASAP. I think User:Paul August has no objections: if anyone does, now is the time to raise them. --- Charles Stewart 19:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

PS. I should say that I think this article should be merged into term logic, despite the relative frequency of the terms, since term logic covers material the article should cover, which Aristotelian logic does not. --- Charles Stewart 19:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to follow your lead in this Charles. Paul August ☎ 20:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)