One course I took in 1953 used Stephen Kleene's Intro to Metamathematics. I also picked up Rosser's Logic for Mathematicians. I had the advantage of being a math major. Max Fisch presided over the seminar. I don't know how much math he knew but recursion theory was big in the course. I also studied Symbolic Logic at Illinois with Turquette. That was in 1951. One book used was Rosser & Turquette on Multi Valued Logic. This is all by way of agreeing that it was hard to believe there would be enough philosophy students willing to brave the symbolism. The Vienna Circle guys were all scientists. Carnap was at Chicago then I think. Peirce was a scientist too. So those guys weren't scared off. ------------------------------ On Thu, May 3, 2012 3:31 PM EDT Irving H. Anellis wrote: >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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
