Talk:Logicism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Self-reference
Is Neo-Logicism meant to be a different article? Because otherwise it references to itself 8/. Fephisto 22:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes parts of large articles refer to other parts of the article. Nevertheless, the problem is fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canadianism (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC). Canadianism 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Should this page be moved and replaced?
I am thinking of annihilating this page and rewriting it. Would it be a good idea to move most of the current (not very NPOV) content to a new place, like 'Logicism and Godel's theorem' perhaps? (I'm new here.) --Toby Woodwark 20:37, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
Absolutely not. B 00:15, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
I find this page very inaccurate and subjective. If an expert in the area is considering rewriting it I would definitely agree with that.
All right, I'm going in. I don't know if this'll come out perfectly, but I do agree that the second half of the article is extremely subjective, if not downright wrong. I'll try to clean it up now, then...
[edit] sentences removed
I removed: "Modern philosophers believed that proof of this theory was the means of banishing the befuddlement...". The idea expressed is probably inaccurate for many of the people usually associated with Logicism.
I also removed: "with sucess except for the paradox of trying to formulate a logical definition of natural numbers in terms of classes". Though it certainly is suspect to use a notion of class to give a logical definition of number, I don't see the sense in which this is a paradox.Wjwma 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The incompleteness results
I modified the sentence alleging that Godel's Incompleteness results undermine logicism. Given certain assumptions and certain formulations of logicism, it is true that the incompletness results undermine logicism, but these positions are controversial. Wjwma 18:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Citations please
This page is badly in need of some references. Otherwise, it is subject to being deleted per WP:NOR. -- noosphere 09:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good enough yet? Canadianism 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- This page is in no danger of being deleted "per WP:NOR." The topic of logicism is quite notable and so would survive any deletion discussion. If you believe that the page needs additional references, fix it, but please don't make threats about deletion. CMummert · talk 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think, more or less, it has been fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canadianism (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
