8

In the last 24 hours, several have had the tag "logic" removed from them.

There seems to be a "logic" about this, but I'm not sure I follow it in every case.

First, several where I agree:


There are however three where I don't:

The first two relate to formal fallacies that impinge on logically valid forms.

The latter one relates to the application of the principle of bivalence and to counting problems in logic claims about numbers.

Should these be included in the logic tag?

  • 2
    I agree completely that those three questions fall under the logic tag. The question asking about not entirely true or false statements is basically asking for an explanation of fuzzy/some other non classical logics. For the other two, there is ample precedent for questions asking about fallacies falling under the logic tag. At least as it stands now (meaning, barring any sort of meta discussion of changing what is acceptable in the tag), those three questions fall under the tag in my eyes. – Not_Here Nov 22 '17 at 5:21
  • 1
    I can see (somewhat) an argument for not putting informal fallacies under the logic tag, but these as asked and answered are formal fallacies, which if applied broadly would mean no invalid argument regardless of whether it's form is common or not can be under the logic tag ... which seems like a reductio to me. – virmaior Nov 22 '17 at 6:10
  • 1
    Since informal arguments (abductive inferences, etc.) often take the form of fallacies perhaps the idea is that all fallacies should fall under the argumentation tag (but it would be nice to hear from Paul Ross, who seems to have made all the changes). Perhaps we should just place both tags in formal cases. – Conifold Nov 27 '17 at 3:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .