User talk:Chalst/tasks

Feel free to suggest tasks I might be able and willing to tackle on this page.

Quine's paper "Variant logics"

Hi,

I left a message on the discussion page of "Is logic empirical?" I'm not sure if you get notified when a page is editted, so I decided to message you for good measure.

You wrote the article, and in it you say that Quine, in a paper titled "Variant logics" repudiates the notion that classical logic is subject to revision. I looked all over for this paper with no success.

Can you verify that that is the correct title of the paper? Also, can you provide a quote that supports the idea that classical logic is not subject to revision?

It's of great interest to me. I've had an extended argument with friends... and it seems that in every philosophical conversation I have, it comes down to whether or not logic can be violated. (For example, can God violate logic?)

The strongest attack on logic is that it is empirical, and if we observe a violation of the laws of logic (as we have apparently in quantum physics), then we should revise logic. I am again this. I can't really explain it... It's not stubborness, or bias. At least I don't think it is. I'm just convinced that violating, for example, the law of non-contradiction is impossible.

I'm glad to see that other great thinkers, such as Quine, have considered this issue also. Perhaps a look at Quine's reasoning may support my position, because really I have no support.

Please E-mail your response to me at its_ramzi@hotmail.com .

Thank you, Ramzi

Verificationism

I've actually just created a stub on this, under the name 'Verificationist'. Feel free to expand on it... Thomas Ash

Interpolation lemma

Craig interpolation exists but is a stub. I think it deserves much more content, e. g. definitions in at least the most popular logics and statements of the lemma where it holds (like here; I can’t actually claim to understand any part of it, but it looks relevant), but I’m not a logician and don’t know enough about the matter. Maybe you’re interested in expanding that article. A redirect from Craig's interpolation lemma or whatever its precise name is might also be a good idea. (By the way, I found this page by googling for eventual instances of the lemma on Wikipedia.) —xyzzy_n 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

History of logic

You mention that the History of logic section in Logic is broken - so, of course, is the History of logic article (though, in my opinion, not quite so badly as the stack of three boxes at the top of the article might suggest). In mentioning this, I will admit to being selfish - every time I look at the article, I quail at the amount of work that doing it properly would require. PWilkinson (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about the issues in HoL, because I think the overall coverage is not far from balanced, unlike the HoL section in Logic, and because the Logic article is more important. Sorting out HoL is pretty far down my list, though there are a few issues I could put in my "Sometime" section. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)