Talk:Logicism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Self-reference
Is Neo-Logicism meant to be a different article? Because otherwise it references to itself 8/. Fephisto 22:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Should this page be moved and replaced?
I am thinking of annihilating this page and rewriting it. Would it be a good idea to move most of the current (not very NPOV) content to a new place, like 'Logicism and Godel's theorem' perhaps? (I'm new here.) --Toby Woodwark 20:37, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
Absolutely not. B 00:15, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
I find this page very inaccurate and subjective. If an expert in the area is considering rewriting it I would definitely agree with that.
All right, I'm going in. I don't know if this'll come out perfectly, but I do agree that the second half of the article is extremely subjective, if not downright wrong. I'll try to clean it up now, then...
[edit] sentences removed
I removed: "Modern philosophers believed that proof of this theory was the means of banishing the befuddlement...". The idea expressed is probably inaccurate for many of the people usually associated with Logicism.
I also removed: "with sucess except for the paradox of trying to formulate a logical definition of natural numbers in terms of classes". Though it certainly is suspect to use a notion of class to give a logical definition of number, I don't see the sense in which this is a paradox.Wjwma 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The incompleteness results
I modified the sentence alleging that Godel's Incompleteness results undermine logicism. Given certain assumptions and certain formulations of logicism, it is true that the incompletness results undermine logicism, but these positions are controversial. Wjwma 18:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Citations please
This page is badly in need of some references. Otherwise, it is subject to being deleted per WP:NOR. -- noosphere 09:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
