Talk:Philosophical logic

Overhaul Required

I don't know nearly enough about the subject to even start to approach this with the intent of repairing it, however it needs to be fixed. The introduction has no citations, while the majority of the article mearly redirects to other articles. Moreover what is elaborated upon is unclear at best. Sovereignlance (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophic logic and the philosophy of logic

This statement in the article: "Philosophical logic is often confused with philosophy of logic, the field of philosophy that is concerned with the nature and justification of formal logical systems", seems a bit vague. Aristotle dealt with natural language but he was also concerned with a formal system. So, the issue is more of where the former ends and the later begins. "Confusion" is not incorrect, just vague.Amerindianarts 07:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current lede appears to confuse Philosophic logic and the philosophy of logic quite badly, lacks citations, and is thus 99% POV.--Philogo 20:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say rather than "POV", we should say it's just plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.87.236 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

That editors who contribute to and watch this article check out this Article for Deletion nomination and comment. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what at thisis relevant. Will you help?--Philogo 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The article I am nominating for deletion addresses truth and representation and I thought these fell under the topic of philosophical logic, and I thought people working on that article would be knowledgable to judge whether Linguistic meaning duplicates an existing article on philosophy, or holds up to Wikipedia's standards for articles on philosophy topics. If you do not see how the title of the article relates to philosophy, I ask that you look at the contents of the article. The contents is definitely not about linguistics! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done: discussion at this.--Philogo 21:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Organisation

This article has a number of empty sections similar to or identical with some of the section headings in philosophy of logic. Is that, I wonder, intentional?--Philogo (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help

This book (A. C. Grayling, An introduction to philosophical logic, Edition 3, Wiley-Blackwell, 1997,

Philosophy: Logic High‑importance

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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

ISBN 0631199829) should help clear the ^{[citation needed]} tag spam, and also clarify that the relationship between philosophical logic and the philosophy of logic is seen differently by various authors. Pcap ping 12:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coherence

The section on the coherence theory gives what is, at best, a necessary condition for coherence in the relevant sense as though it were an adequate definition. Coherence involves relationships of mutual explanation and justification that are nowhere mentioned here, in addition to (if not outright supplanting) logical consistency. Someone more knowledgeable than myself about epistemology should revise this and possibly other sections (I don't take myself to fully understand the coherence theory, though I do understand it well enough to know this article doesn't do it justice). 24.79.207.140 (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Def and contradiction

Re: "Philosophical logic is the study of the more specifically philosophical aspects of logic". Actually, it seems to cover almost all logic, including very formal, that doesn't fall in the mathematical logic turf, and sometimes seen a superset of that as well. See for instance what the The Blackwell guide to philosophical logic [1] contains, or the Elsevier series Handbook of Philosophical Logic [2] contains. The next sentence practically contradicts the 1st def when it says it's distinct from philosophy of logic. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term is used with different meanings by philosophers vs. logicians or theoretical computer scientists. Philosophers do seem to see it as "logic lite on formalism" as defined in the introductory logic books aimed at philosophers, e.g. [3]. The other guys seem to see it as I describe it in the previous paragraph. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, John P. Burgess in his introductory book gives precisely those two texts (Blackwell Guide, Elsevier Handbook) as the best resource for philosophical logic (he refers to the 1st ed of the Handbook, which was less ambitious and had fewer volumes). [4]. Burgess is more illuminated, and says in the opening sentence of his preface that there are several senses of the term. [5]. He even says on the next page that center of gravity of philosophical logic, understood as mainly non-classical logics, today lies with computer science. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do your researches give a clear distinction between philosophical logic and philosophy of logic? — Philogos (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of this (reflected with some citations in the current version of the article) is that there's no consensus on this issue among philosophers. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And aww, based on the toc I expected Philosophy of logic to be a decent article, but sadly it's far from it. I think there's more agreement (outside Wikipedia) on what that is about. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The progress of exclusionism (or should I say vandalism?)

I think the old version—the one before a self-declared annoyed logician took issue with this article—provided more insight into the uses of this non-so-well-defined term based on what seemed to be good references. 86.127.138.67 (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]