A questioner asked why is mapped to . Now I'm wondering the same thing. I think the easiest way to clear up the confusion is if someone in the know would edit the tag wiki to clear things up. (Thanks!)

  • Note that anyone can submit edits to the tag wikis. I am not exactly sure why this link is in place, and I agree it could be confusing
    – Joseph Weissman Mod
    Feb 2, 2012 at 21:28
  • 1
    I went ahead and removed the synonym; only 2 posts were affected. While looking at the list I also noticed killing > murder which I'm also not sure belongs, but that's a discussion for another thread. :P
    – stoicfury
    Feb 29, 2012 at 16:35

2 Answers 2


I see the point and agree with the removal of the tag synonym but I think any use of a "reason" tag will have to be used carefully. The problem is that "reason" can mean so many different things.

In a general sense, "reason" is what philosophy is all about, and in that way it'd be essentially as useless as a "philosophy" tag.

  1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
  2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.

But in the sense the poster used it in the question you linked, "reason" is not referring to the justification of anything but rather the thing or process that reasons itself.

  1. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.

It can also refer to:

  1. sound judgment; good sense.
  2. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

So I'm all for delinking the "reason" tag with "logic", but for clarity we might consider figuring out ways in the long run to avoid confusion with the tag.

  • 1
    Creating the respective tag wikis would help. (Yeah, in general reason could easily apply to all questions, hopefully.) Feb 6, 2012 at 7:36
  • Yeah, tag wiki's for sure would help :)
    – stoicfury
    Feb 7, 2012 at 0:03

Since nobody else has stepped in, I've suggested the following excerpt:

study of formal systems of reasoning—especially of the deductive variety.

(Only the — must be simulated with ---.)

This has been my approximate definition of logic for quite some time, but if anyone wants to use another, feel free. I think the body needs to address the difference (or lack thereof) between and . Since I haven't read Kant, I can't speak intelligently about it. ;-)

I went ahead and asked a question about this on the main site. I'm not sure if it's a good one since I've done very little research on the topic myself.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .