Jim,
I suggest -- assuming I have not missed the import of your question --
that it would be far more accurate to propose that "Studies in Logic",
like most of the work of the algebraic tradition of the
"post-Principia" era was a victim rather of the so-called "Fregean
revolution" which, when not ignoring algebraic logic, rejected it
altogether as "inferior" to the modern logistic. If, for example, on
examines introductory logic textbooks from the mid-20th century, in
particular those aimed at philosophy students, one continues to find
inductive logic and scientific method ensconced in the same
introductory textbooks as deductive logic, although then the deductive
logic includes propositional calculus (and, depending upon the level of
the textbook, first-order predicate calculus), along with syllogistic
logic. One of the earliest, popular, post-Principia intro texts aimed
at philosophy students was Cohen & Nagel's "Introduction to Logic and
Scientific Method", which first appeared in 1934 and still had a strong
following until well into the 1960s at least. If differed from newer
intro logic textbooks aimed at philosophy students such as Copi's
"Introduction to Logic", appearing twenty years later and still going
strong, only in preferring the axiomatic approach to prop calc and FOL
rather than Copi-style natural deduction. They differ from an older
"pre-Principia" textbook such as -- to pull one off the shelf here,
Boyd Henry Bode's 1910 "An Outline of Logic" only in that deductive
logic meant syllogisms. Even in Peirce's day, few philosophers would
touch algebraic logic, taking the tack of Jevons in wanting to get rid
of the "mathematical dress" of classical algebraic logic.
On a related matter: The fact is, that the classical Boole-Schröder
calculus was simply too technically difficult, both in its day and
since, to fair well at appealing to any but those with mathematical
training. Examine the American Mathematical Society's and Zentralblatt
für Mathematik's Mathematical Subject Classification (any edition will
do): what you will find is that algebraic logic is listed as a
specialty, on a par with model theory, recursion theory, proof theory,
set theory, rather than as belonging to general logic that includes
propositional calculus, FOL, and the sorts of topics you might expect
to find in introductory textbooks.
Sorry if this doesn't speak more explicitly to the question you had in mind.
----- Message from jimwillgo...@msn.com ---------
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 14:41:18 -0500
From: Jim Willgoose <jimwillgo...@msn.com>
Reply-To: Jim Willgoose <jimwillgo...@msn.com>
Subject: RE: [peirce-l] Not Preserving Peirce
To: ianel...@iupui.edu, peirce-l@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Irving and Jon; I wonder if the "Studies in Logic" did not suffer, in
part, from a retrospective lack of unity. In other words, from the
vantage point of 1950, the various topics (quantification, induction,
Epicurus etc.) did not fit the 20th century development of a more
narrow-grained classification into history of philosophy of science
or formal deductive logic, or philosophy of language and meaning.
Another conjecture might be that the first two decades of the 20th
century dealt with the formalization and sytematizing of deductive
logic for textbook presentation. Only after sufficient time had
passed could the book be retrieved for historical and philosophical
interest. Of course, there is always the nefarious possibility of an
'institutional apriori" authority having its way. Jim W
> Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 11:48:14 -0400
From: ianel...@iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Not Preserving Peirce
To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Jon,
I couldn't have said it better myself!
Kneale & Kneale, to which Jack referred, was originally written in the
late 1950s and published in 1962, and in terms of respective
significance pays more attention to Kant even than to Frege, and is
best, thanks to Martha Kneale's expertise, on the medievals. Trouble
was, in those days, and pretty much even today, it is about all there
is in English.
My joint paper with Nathan Houser, "The Nineteenth Century Roots of
Universal Algebra and Algebraic Logic", in Hajnal Andreka, James Donald
Monk, Istvan Nemeti (eds.), Colloquia Mathematica Societatis Janos
Bolyai 54. Algebraic Logic, Budapest (Hungary), 1988
(Amsterdam/London/New York: North-Holland, 1991), 1-36, includes a
brief analysis of what's WRONG with Kneale & Kneale and its ilk.
When Mendelson's translation of Styazhkin's History of Mathematical
Logic came out in 1969, it should really have come to serve as a decent
supplement to Kneale & Kneale for K & K's grossly inadequate treatment
of Boole, Peirce, Schröder, Jevons, Venn, and Peano to help fill in the
serious gaps in Kneale & Kneale.
Even if one looks at the hugh multi-volume Handbook of the History of
Logic under the editorship of Dov Gabbay and John Woods that is still
coming out, it's a mixed bag in terms of the quality of the essays,
some of which are historical surveys, others of which are attempts at
reconstruction based on philosophical speculation.
Irving
----- Message from jawb...@att.net ---------
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 11:15:05 -0400
From: Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net>
Reply-To: Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net>
Subject: Re: Not Preserving Peirce
To: Jack Rooney <johnphilipda...@hotmail.com>
> Jack,
>
> All histories of logic written that I've read so far are very weak
on Peirce,
> and I think it's fair to say that even the few that make an
attempt to cover
> his work have fallen into the assimilationist vein.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> Jack Rooney wrote:
>> Despite all this there are several books on the history of logic eg
>> Kneale & Kneale[?].
>
> --
>
> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
> mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
> word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
>
----- End message from jawb...@att.net -----
Irving H. Anellis
Visiting Research Associate
Peirce Edition, Institute for American Thought
902 W. New York St.
Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis
Indianapolis, IN 46202-5159
USA
URL: http://www.irvinganellis.info
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a
message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF
PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the
list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in
the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to
PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
----- End message from jimwillgo...@msn.com -----
Irving H. Anellis
Visiting Research Associate
Peirce Edition, Institute for American Thought
902 W. New York St.
Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis
Indianapolis, IN 46202-5159
USA
URL: http://www.irvinganellis.info
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To
remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the
line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the
list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
