Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon logic.svg

This Logic related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article requires attention for the following reason(s):

It contains unsourced statements Tagged since April 2022

Formal logic[edit]

(I apologize in advance: It's WAY too hot here right now, and my own formal logic experience is dusty, so this will just be whining without making things better myself.)

While I approve of LaTeX coding and all that, the current version of that section is basically gibberish to people who don't know formal logic or Latin (not saying that the version before that was that much better - the example could use work, and the Latin needed translation, too - but it at least was readable). Somebody might need to explain/translate "modus ponens" and maybe come up with a more readable example (maybe with explanations in side-by-side format?). Also, the "Socrates us mortal" thing needs a ref or expansion.

Again, apologies for not being more constructive here. X_x --Sid (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Forget something.[edit]

You people forget to add other forms of logic such as Hybrid Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Linear Logic, and epistemic logic. --Reason23 (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Christ-on-a-shit-bike we actually don't have anything specific on fuzzy logic. Will have to rectify that. Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator 08:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See 2 of those[edit]

--Reason23 (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)I see Linear logic and Fuzzy logic but not hybrid logic or epistemic logic.

There's no such thing as Informal Logic.[edit]

The validity of an argument or proposition can only be broken down by the Formal method thus the study of informal logic is incompatible with it being a discipline unto itself over this entire fact. You're essentially applying formal logic into an informal setting which isn't synonymous with basing the virtues of informal structures to validate said argument.

Informal Logic is something ought to be more aligned towards fields of Psychology and Rhetoric/Orator rather than Philosophy.— Unsigned, by: Pentrazemine / talk / contribs 03:20, 23 February 2015


Let's keep the strikethrough. Jokes and sarcasm add to the snark. --Signed G Man (I'm new to this. I don't know how all this works yet lol)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Spud (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, a well-meaning but clueless BoN who thought he was on Wikipedia just removed some snark and wrote "articles should be serious" in hs edit summary. That kind of thing happens all the time. Just undo the edit and explain why in your edit summary. There's no need to start a talk page discussion about it. Spud (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip guys. At the time, I was still learning the ropes to editing wikis, especially RW. I only log on intermittently, which might delay my getting used to this site. As for that BoN, he/she/it must have thought that RW was TOW or an encyclopedia or something. *drink* G Man (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

White patriarchal bias[edit]

Should we deny the lived experience of women, POC, queers, and allies, for whom name calling is an equally valid mode of expression? Midwit Nerd 3.142 (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)