Talk:Argument–deduction–proof distinctions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

What do you find confusing? It seems clear to me.NABRASA (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one is not already steeped in the language of logic and philosophy, the entire article is confusing. It assumes a level of knowledge not common among Wikipedia readers, and would be more appropriate as a journal note. Specific phrased of concern:

"The absence of argument-deduction-proof distinctions is entirely consonant with Church's avowed Platonistic logicism"
This sentence is meaningless to someone who is not already well versed in Platonistic logicism (and one must admit that would include the vast majority of Wikipedia readers).
"Following Dummett's insightful remarks about Frege, which — mutatis mutandis — apply even more to Church, it might be possible to explain the today-surprising absence.
This sentence is just a mess. One must have read Dummett and understood his remarks about Frege, and then one must understand how to "change that which must be changed" to apply these thoughts to Church, and then from that one must be able to leap to the same conclusion as the author about how such insights help explain the absence of argument-deduction-proof distinctions.

If this all seems clear to NABRASA, then he is obviously an advanced student of philosophy and logic. Not all of us are. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are well taken points. I will try to address them. Check back in a few days. NABRASA (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did lots of work on it. Does it look ok now? BTW, thanks again for your collegiality.NABRASA (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is improving. But the lead is still a bit barren. Something along the lines of:

In the philosophical study of logic, the distinction between arguments, deductions, and proofs is sometimes unclear. The original meanings of all of these terms have evolved since their first use in antiquity.

This lead (or something like it) might be a better springboard into the rest of the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]