Scan barcode
darwin8u's review
3.0
"...with vagueness, nothing is straighforward."
Graham Priest, VSI Logic
I was going to try to write a VSR (Very Short Review) of this book using symbolic logic, but abandoned that idea about 1/3 of the way through this book as I began to remember that while I enjoy logic in theory, the practice of formal logic and its symbols sometimes drives me batty. I think it stems not from my computing power, just my weak will power and general lack of interest. Some people love symbolic logic with its ability to dodge some of the difficulties of vagueness, equivocation, and confusion from emotive significance that comes from thinking carefully using languages that are, by nature, all a little fudgy. But, like any language, symbolic logic requires practice, discipline, and time. I guess I lack all three. I could write that in symbolic logic too, I guess, but like I said earlier. Nah, not really interested.
The book is, however, a nice overview of logic. Going through the basics of: validity, truth functions, names and quantifiers, descriptions, self-reference, necessity and possibility, conditionals, the future and the past, identity and change, vagueness, probability, inverse probability, decision theory, and a quick survey of logic from the Greeks to Bertrand Russell (and a bit beyond).
Probably, my favorite parts were probability and decision theory. But that goes back to my days doing economic analysis and econometrics. I felt like I was partially on terra firma. Partially. I should also disclose I read this in the bath. That is neither here nor there, but I think part of my difficulties with this book might have come from the lack of an oak table, green lamp, and chewed-up pencil.
Graham Priest, VSI Logic
I was going to try to write a VSR (Very Short Review) of this book using symbolic logic, but abandoned that idea about 1/3 of the way through this book as I began to remember that while I enjoy logic in theory, the practice of formal logic and its symbols sometimes drives me batty. I think it stems not from my computing power, just my weak will power and general lack of interest. Some people love symbolic logic with its ability to dodge some of the difficulties of vagueness, equivocation, and confusion from emotive significance that comes from thinking carefully using languages that are, by nature, all a little fudgy. But, like any language, symbolic logic requires practice, discipline, and time. I guess I lack all three. I could write that in symbolic logic too, I guess, but like I said earlier. Nah, not really interested.
The book is, however, a nice overview of logic. Going through the basics of: validity, truth functions, names and quantifiers, descriptions, self-reference, necessity and possibility, conditionals, the future and the past, identity and change, vagueness, probability, inverse probability, decision theory, and a quick survey of logic from the Greeks to Bertrand Russell (and a bit beyond).
Probably, my favorite parts were probability and decision theory. But that goes back to my days doing economic analysis and econometrics. I felt like I was partially on terra firma. Partially. I should also disclose I read this in the bath. That is neither here nor there, but I think part of my difficulties with this book might have come from the lack of an oak table, green lamp, and chewed-up pencil.
edders's review
4.0
Well written and deliberately non-mathematical, this is genuinely a good but very short first contact with logic as a topic. Very good examples clearly explained are what maintained my interest in this book and I think it achieves its aims well.
The only thing to watch out for - which is an unavoidable part of reading about logic - is that there is a symbolic language you have to get to grips with to understand the arguments. This isn't a flaw but it will make it slightly slower, harder going for those who are inexperienced.
The only thing to watch out for - which is an unavoidable part of reading about logic - is that there is a symbolic language you have to get to grips with to understand the arguments. This isn't a flaw but it will make it slightly slower, harder going for those who are inexperienced.
More...