Talk:Logic

Did you know nomination

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.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... 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. ISBN 978-0-19-513731-6.
  • 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. ISBN 978-0-444-51541-4. 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.
  • Reviewed: (fourth DYK submission)

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Logic; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Phlsph7: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Mirrors have picked up the article. Bruxton (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

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.

Honestly, an article about "logic", a featured article too, should not be making these kinds of horrible errors, mixing up "like" with "such as". 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:9D96:289E:22BD:C291 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Partially done by someone / Page is unprotected Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Navya-Nyaya and modern set theory

The reference https://www.jstor.org/stable/2106873 talks about fringe theory regarding its relationship with modern set theory and it was first added by the user jagged 85 on 25th March 2010 who was known to misuse his sources. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

This same source is also used in other articles ilke Indian logic and History of science and technology in the Indian subcontinent where they talks about the relation with modern set theory. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Reverts

@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)

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)

Missing images related to "Logic"

Please review the images on the web pages of the following network links and add the missing and necessary ones to the relevant articles:

https://www.google.com/search?q=logic+formula&udm=2

https://www.google.com/search?q=logic+diagram&udm=2

https://www.google.com/search?q=logic+model&udm=2 78.190.206.8 (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. But sadly, Wikipedia policy, especially with the highest status article, in this case, has one of the six criteria stating that the images are meant to illustrate the article's explanation. Adding more such images is unnecessary, redundant, and not helpful. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Why logic is a science or reasoning

why it is ??@ 2409:40E6:B:F884:B847:59FF:FE31:692 (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)