Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:18:07.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Logic: revival and reform

from 3 - Logic, mathematics, and judgement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

Peter Simons
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Thomas Baldwin
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

From the end of the Middle Ages to the nineteenth century, logic languished in stagnation and neglect. At the end of the eighteenth century Kant declared it incapable of further improvement. Yet within a hundred years of the first stirrings in the early nineteenth century it had undergone the most fundamental transformation and substantial advance in its history. Between 1826 and 1914 logic was irreversibly changed, leading in the 1930s to the metalogical limitation results of Gödel, Church, and Turing which rocked mathematics, while laying the foundations for the coming computer revolution. The story of this transformation is one of the most astonishing in the history of ideas.

NEW INTEREST, NEW FORMS

Ironically, the revival of logic began as a retrospective movement. Dismayed by the deadening influence of Locke on Oxford, in 1826 Richard Whately (1787–1863), assisted editorially by John Henry Newman, published his Elements of Logic. It was not an innovative work, being based in good part on Henry Aldrich’s (1647–1710) Artis Logicae Compendium (1691), an Aristotelian Latin crammer for Oxford students, but the mere fact of its publication was significant. Whately also restricted logic deliberately to the study of deduction, in contradistinction to the emphasis on induction among empiricists. Whately’s work went through many editions and became an established textbook in England. Thus logic, albeit in a form much impoverished by comparison with the Middle Ages, re-entered the syllabus. John Stuart Mill, in his System of Logic of 1843, defended the empiricist preoccupation with inductive methods, and his careful linguistic preliminaries to logic, including the influential though by no means novel distinction between the denotation and connotation of terms, were to be widely copied, but his rather negative attitude to deduction was to have little influence on the development of logic.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Behmann, H. (1922). ‘Beiträge zur Algebra der Logik, insbesondere zum Entscheidungsproblem’, Mathematische Annalen 88.Google Scholar
Bentham, G. (1827). Outline of a New System of Logic, London: Hunt and Clarke.Google Scholar
Bolzano, B. (1837).Wissenschaftslehre, Seidel: Sulzbach. Trans. and ed. George, R., 1972 Theory of Science, Oxford: Blackwell; also trans. Terrel, B., ed. Berg, J., 1973 Theory of Science, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Boole, G. (1847). The Mathematical Analysis of Logic, London: G. Bell. Repr. 1948 Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boole, G. (1854). The Laws of Thought, London: Walton and Maberley. Repr. 1951 New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Bosanquet, B. (1888). Logic or the Morphology of Knowledge, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2nd edn 1911.Google Scholar
Bradley, F. H. (1883). The Principles of Logic, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2nd edn 1922.Google Scholar
Carroll, L. (1887). (pseud. of Charles Dodgson). The Game of Logic, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carroll, L. (1895). ‘What the Tortoise said to Achilles’, Mind n.s. 4.Google Scholar
Carroll, L. (1896). Symbolic Logic, a Fascinating Recreation for the Young, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carroll, L. (1977). Symbolic Logic, Parts I and II, ed. Bartley, W. W. III, Hassocks: Harvester.Google Scholar
De Morgan, A. (1847). Formal Logic, London: Taylor and Walton. Repr. 1926, London: Open Court.Google Scholar
De Morgan, A. (1966). On the Syllogism and other Logical Writings, ed. Heath, P., New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Drobisch, M. (1836). Neue Darstellung der Logik, Leipzig: Voss.Google Scholar
Erdmann, B. (1892). Logik, Halle.Google Scholar
Grassmann, R. (1895). Formelbuch der Formenlehre oder Mathematik, Stettin.Google Scholar
Hillebrand, F. (1891). Die neuen Theorien der kategorischen Schlüllee. Eine logische Untersuchung (The New Theory of Categorical Syllogisms. A Logical Investigation), Vienna.Google Scholar
Huntington, E. V. (1904). ‘Sets of Independent Postulates for the Algebra of Logic’, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jevons, W. S. (1864). Pure Logic, London: E. Stanford.Google Scholar
Joseph, H. W. B. (1906). An Introduction to Logic, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. N. (1884). Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic, London: Macmillan. 4th edn 1928.Google Scholar
Lotze, R. H. (1874). Logik, 3 vols. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Trans. 1884–8 Bosanquet, B., Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lukasiewicz, J. (1970). Selected Works, ed. Borkowski, L., Amsterdam and Warsaw: North Holland and PWN.Google Scholar
MacColl, H. (1877–80). ‘The Calculus of Equivalent Statements’, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 9 (1877–8); 10 (1878–9); 11 (1879–80).Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1843). System of Logic, London: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1933). ‘On an Improvement in Boole’s Calculus of Logic’ in Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P., and Burks, A. W. (eds.), Collected Papers of C. S. Peirce, vol. III, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schröder, E. (1877). Operationskreis des Logikkalküls, Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Schröder, E. (1890–1905). Vorlesungen zur Algebra der Logik, 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Repr. 1966, New York: Chelsea.Google Scholar
Sigwart, C. (1873–8). Logik, 2 vols., Tübingen.Google Scholar
Solly, T. (1839). A Syllabus of Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Venn, J. (1881). Symbolic Logic, London: Macmillan. Repr. 1979, New York: Chelsea.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whately, R. (1826). Elements of Logic, London.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N., and Russell, B. A. W. (1910–13). Principia Mathematica, 3 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. (1896). Universal Algebra, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×