Apart from Etchemendy's Concept of Logical Consequence and Read's Thinking about Logic, what are good books on the philosophy of logic? I am not sure where to look for stuff to orient my self in the broader issues.

[Edit: Sol Feferman has the syllabus from his philosophy of logic class available on his website. Its focus is the demarcation problem.]

## Saturday, February 23, 2008

### Philosophy of logic

Posted by Shawn at 8:29 PM

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## 8 comments:

Another book that is about at the level of Read's (i.e. introductory-intermediate) is Susan Haack's

Philosophy of Logics. Putnam and Quine each have a book entitledPhilosophy of Logic, but they are more expositions of Quine's and Putnam's individual views than overviews of the whole field.In terms of something like Etchemendy's

CLC, I think Beal and Restall's recent bookLogical Pluralismis similar: although focus on a particular thesis, it is still relatively broad in scope, and will probably set the terms of debate for a while.Shapiro's Foundations without Foundationalism and Priest's Doubt Truth to be a Liar are both excellent phil of logic books. Of course, they do contain other things (technical expositions and phil of math), but they are significant contributions to phil of logic.

I think I would also mention Gila Sher's The Bounds of Logic.

John Woods, Paradox and Paraconsistency: Conflict Resolution in the Abstract Sciences, Cambridge 2003.

Simply beautiful!

I would like to point to Per Martin-Löf's book Intuitionistic Type Theory (Bibliopolis, 1984), and an article of the same author from the Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, On the Meanings of the Logical Constants and the Justification of the Logical Laws.

The former of these is not a work in the Philosophy of Logic on most conceptions of that field (what, by the way, is a standard conception?), but it goes against the first dogma of `metamathematical' logic, namely that there is a fundamental cleavage between syntax and semantics; in doing so, and also in giving the notion of judgement pride of place, I believe that studying it widens one's perspective of what logic can be (about).

The article mentioned uses the framework of intuitionistic type theory to do live up to its title, that is to explain the meanings of the logical constants and justify the logical laws.

Alonzo Curch's introduction to his Introduction to Mathematical Logic is also recommended; more generally, I believe that many of the classic textbooks of mathematical logic have more or less philosophically qualified introductions.

Tracts on the history of logic (such as Kneales') are also of some philosophical significance, I believe.

Blackwell has a volume on Philosophy of Logic in the Companion series, as well as one in the Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies series. They can both be useful. One book I like very much is R. I. G. Hughes,

A Philosophical Companion to First-order Logic. It's a wonderful collection of articles on philosophical issues that arise in classical first-order logic. I also like Sainsbury'sLogical Formsfor its discussion of conditionals. A while ago I made up a reading list for my grad students, it might be useful.Not sure how to categorize this, but I got a huge amount out of John MacFarlane's PhD dissertation "What does it mean to say that logic is formal?". (In general, I think dissertations are an underrated way of getting up to speed in a field, since often literature surveys are pitched at exactly the right level).

It's available for download from his website.

Richard,

That reading list is helpful. That is the sort of thing I thought would be easier to find online. I'm working on tracking some of the items down.

Robbie,

I'd count MacFarlane's thesis. I have it on my computer and had forgotten about it. It is something I definitely plan on checking out. I like MacFarlane's work. I like the idea of using theses for the literature surveys, although I worry about doing a literature survey in the future.

Ansten,

I've looked at Martin-Löf's type theory book a little and that lecture you point to. I believe the latter is available online, linked from Martin-Löf's wikipedia page. It looks interesting but I don't know what exactly to do with it yet. Maybe it will make its way into future posts.

Greg, Ole, and Tomas,

Thanks. I'm looking into those.

David Bostock, Intermediate Logic.Oxford 1997. Presents a very good overview on "standard" semantics and different types of calculi and proof procedures. It is not exactly philosophy of logic but extremely usefull to get into it.

I think Quine's Philosophy of Logic is a quite concise overview on several aspects of his philosophy (not only his philosophy of logic) but probhably one of the worst introductory texts on the philosophy of logic ever written.

Post a Comment