5.0876 Rs: Logic E-Lists (2/63)
Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Thu, 30 Apr 1992 22:04:43 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0876. Thursday, 30 Apr 1992.
(1) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 15:06:37 EDT (55 lines)
From: "Allen Renear, Brown Univ/CIS, 401-863-7312" <ALLEN@BROWNVM>
Subject: Logic E-Conferences
(2) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 09:30:27 -0400 (EDT) (8 lines)
From: Leslie Burkholder <lb0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: E-Logic Lists
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 15:06:37 EDT
From: "Allen Renear, Brown Univ/CIS, 401-863-7312" <ALLEN@BROWNVM>
Subject: Logic E-Conferences
The Netnews newsgroup for logic is
sci.logic
Logical topics also come up in
sci.philosophy.tech
sci.philosophy.meta
comp.ai.philosophy
Well, maybe these latter groups are less apt to discuss logic than
to rant about some logical result is or is not relevant to the
philosophical issues under discussion.
As usual the variation in quality and topic is quite unpredictable.
Personally I rather like these groups though. I find more good stuff
in them then many critics do. And even the not-so-good stuff is
often interesting and provocative. But you must have a high tolerance
for lots of off-topic foolishness and lots of participation by persons
with diverse backgrounds, preparations, and ... uh ... conversational
norms. Still, there is frequently good stuff and it is all fairly
diverting. Do be prepared for even more than the usual amount of
netnews vehemence -- sometimes even viciousness.
There is also a discussion list (not on Netnews) on relevant logic(*)
which is *very* on-topic and *very* high quality. For information try
relevant-logic-interest@exeter.ac.uk
If that fails contact GBKeene@exua.exeter.ac.uk
-----------------------------
(*) Appendix: What's "relevant logic"?
Most formal logics have these odd properties:
1) *anything* "follows" from a set of premises that is demonstrably
inconsistent and 2) a proposition that is itself demonstrable
"follows" from *any* premise(s) whatsoever. Formalizations of
conditionals (If P, then Q) have some related and similar odd results.
Relevant logic is concerned with exploring logics that avoid
these queer results. It can be very technical at times and very
philosophical at times. It is called "relevant" because of
notion that if such-and-such "follows" from such-and-so then
such-and-so must be *relevant* to such-and-such -- merely being a
"logical conseqence" in the narrow sense defined by most formal
logics is not enough. It is precisely this relevance that is lacking
in the odd results mentioned above, and in which their oddness lies.
Now why did I go on about that? I'm sure some real relevant logician
is going to pipe up and tell me I haven't got it quite right.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------30----
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 09:30:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Leslie Burkholder <lb0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: E-Logic Lists
>Does anyone know of any Internet or Bitnet lists pertaining to the
>philosophy of logic or symbolic logic?
Try netnews.sci.logic.
LB