Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Logic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Logic Task Force Pages Needing Attention This is a list of articles under the topic Logic that need attention with concise explanations of the work needed and dates they were originally listed here. See the article "Talk" pages for detailed explanations and discussions of the problems.

• T-schema could do with expansion
• Statement (logic) See for yourself
• History of logic Needs material post Frege (yes really!)
• Philosophy of logic This article is under construction
• Non-logical symbol the lede is dreadful; edit in progress
• interpretation (logic) edit in progress
• Logical connective the lead paragraph is poorly drafted
• Logical constant The Stanford encyclopedia article puts this one to shame
  
• inference has fallen into disrepair
• Deductive reasoning edit in progress: (This article is really inadequate and has errors although: (a)the article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale (b) is pointed to by Argument as the main article (c) is diverted to by Deductive argument)
  

Eg. The lead paragraph was the inspiring:
Deductive reasoning, according to many dictionaries,[1] is the type of reasoning that proceeds from general principles or premises to derive particular information.

--Philogo (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)--Philogo (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Counterfactuals Is anyone willing to make extensive revisions and additions to this page with me? Pjwerner (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've nominated Negative proof for deletion and would like some input from others. I have never seen the term Negative proof used to mean "Conclude X because there is no proof of ~X". That's a straightforward Argument from ignorance fallacy, far as I can figger, but please let me know if I'm mistaken and this article should be kept. Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC) I've never heard of it. Article has two refs, as one says "Negative Proof is a special case of the fallacy of Denying The Antecedent if we accept the additional premise that observing a phenomenon implies that it exists. With this additional premise, the above argument can be rewritten:...". --Philogo 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that Safalra's website counts as a reliable source. There is, nonetheless, one way in which Safalra appears to distinguish negative proof from Argument from ignorance: According to Safalra, the former is about the existence of some phenomenon while the latter is about the truth of some statement. With this definition, it is obvious that every instance of the so-called negative proof fallacy is an argument from ignorance, but not the other way around. In any case, this proposed difference is not reflected in the Wikipedia article. Phiwum (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Burden of proof (logical fallacy) I think this fallacy is supposed to be: setting the burden of proof unreasonably high. Again, maybe some critical thinking texts have referred to this as an informal fallacy, but I haven't seen it. In any case, the article as written is a bit confusing, with more emphasis on citing examples than with citing discussions of the fallacy itself. Can we get some appropriate sources for this article? Phiwum (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• logic stub category articles (dictionary-short articles with no cites or references) see list is at User:Hotfeba/logic dictionary stubs.

• Principle of bivalence is a mess, and is important to some other articles. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 10:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)