Talk:Logic in Islamic philosophy

Dualism
I have come across several references to Islamic logic being dualistic—capable of admitting contradictory theses. Can anyone comment on this?--Adoniscik (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What is meant by 'Islamic' here?
I'm a little confused by this article, in that it never quite makes clear in what sense any of this 'Islamic'. The portion about fuzzy logic seems to suggest that what is intended is only contributions to logic that come from 'the Islamic world'. I'm not clear on why such geographical facts should be of philosophical interest---it seems analogous to talking about contributions to logic made by people whose name begins with 'Z'. On the other hand, if what is intended by 'Islamic' is some natural class of ideas associated with a philosophical tradition connected to reasoning about Islamic texts, as the earlier section of the article seems to suggest, perhaps it would help to make clearer how Islam colored the development of these ideas. Maybe specific brief examples of particular arguments (or sketches thereof) would be useful? (None of this is intended to suggest that this article isn't really interesting, though... I found it very informative.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.55.235 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Logic in a major non-Western civilization. Also compare Buddhist Logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.209.2 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stub and rework
For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. With 166 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (2nd: 5 edits). The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here or here. Since the youngest pre-Jagged85 version (08 December 2007) is unreferenced, I stub the article completely. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm obliged to agree. Simply restoring the text wholesale isn't acceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor in question has contributed several "good articles" and I have informally verified certain material in these pages including significant material unavailable elsewhere in wikipedia. Pointing to failures elsewhere does not justify wholesale deletion of other content sight unseen. I can find no record of dispute or discussion concerning the present page. Since editors have taken responsibility for helping bring these pages up to standard, it is incumbent upon the deleting editor to check citations and show point-for-point on this page why each cited statement has been removed, preserving material that is adjudged reliable and valuable. I do not discount the possibility of merging reliable text into another article. Redheylin (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These good articles have already been delisted as generally unreliable and the user has been meanwhile the subject of a RFC/U, a socket puppetry case and of the largest cleaning-up effort I am aware of in Wikipedia. Yes, editors have taken responsibility for helping bring these pages up to standard and there are people in the process of expanding the stubs again. Other concentrate on removing contentious material — I am sure that you agree no information is always better than tons of misinformation. You are absolutely welcome to restore material which you consider reliable on a point-by -point basis to the article. It is then considered 'your' material and we would turn to you for requests of verification. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert in this area, but
 * Important developments made by Islamic logicians included the development of original systems of logic, notably Avicennian and post-Avicennian logic, and the development of early theories on temporal logic, modal logic...
 * looks problematic to me. Neither temporal logic nor modal logic mention this supposed connection, and the first reference given, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/346217/history-of-logic, while it mentions the greeks a lot (in the context of modal), doesn't explicitly contain "modal logic" anywhere, nor does it mention anything Islamic in the context of modal that I can see. But I may have missed it; if so, please point it out. The claim to have developed Propositional calculus doesn't seem terribly plausible either. The section Logic in Arabic grammar is entirely without citations.
 * If you're prepared to give this article a thorough, skeptical going-over then good; but Jagged's history, and a quick skim over the article, indicates that stubbing is a good decision William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should call for help before you delete. You have given your word to help these articles get put right. Redheylin (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

These other main articles on logic only take into account European and Greek history. Islamic civilization's developments are often not acknowledged because they either had no impact on European thought and only European thought seems to matter amongst you Wikipedia editors or the contributions are purposely retroactively wiped.

Anyone who alleges issue with the development of modal logic in Islamic civilization is out of their mind. Look up the cosmological argument, read the contributions of Avicenna and Al-Ghazali. There's your proof, without a doubt, of the widespread use of modal logic in 10th-11th century Islamic civilization.

Get off your lazy asses and read something other than Wikipedia for a change. Or volunteer to keep your ignorance off Wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.26.43 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. development of modal logic in Islamic civilization... Look up the cosmological argument. Nope, not seeing the connection. Can you expand on it, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Figures you already had your signature all over the edits for that article too. What's with your recent obsession with deletion of articles on Islamic civilization? You're a long way from climate change articles.

'''Modal logic is a type of formal logic that extends the standards of formal logic to include the elements of modality (for example, possibility and necessity). Modals qualify the truth of a judgment.'''

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-language/#ModSyl

Luckily you can't edit that website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.26.43 (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure, either, what your complaint is. Certainly, as you know, logic as a discipline originated with the Greeks and Aristotle not only was the first to formulate logic laws, but also ventured deeply into modal logic (cf. Aristotle's Modal Logic: Essence and Entailment in the Organon ISBN 978-0-521-52233-5). So, why don't you expand the article on the development of Greek logic by Muslim scholars. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Unrealistic Claims
There are many things which are not cited, and are unrealistic among the opening section or paragraph of this article. Wikipedia policy states to just delete such nonsense without the need for discussion, but I know if i do this I will surely be challenged by disruptive religious people. I am really trying to avoid an edit war. So please, let us discuss this nonsense before I put the article up for deletion once again, and this time a majority comes in to vote in favor of it. If anyone is going to provide a source, please let it be something definitive. Something which is very well established. Although Wikipedia forbids quoting of other encyclopedias, or encyclopedic content, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, please do not hesitate in using such sources to establish facts, as the Encyclopedia Britannica is probably the most reliable online resource for establishing true facts. And Wikipedia also states to only use official rules as a guideline, rather than absolute law, and that logic and common sense trump most rules. Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Coulkd you give an example of the kind of issue that you are concerned about? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Give an example? The citations needed within the opening paragraph make it pretty clear. You already seem to be confused for no apparent reason. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see the problem with the lede. Ledes are supposed to introduce and summarize their article. But this one is largely disconnected from the body of the article. Dimadick (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)