Timeline for Can knowledge about argumentation be sufficient for philosophical logic without too symbolic or mathematical concepts?

9 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Oct 2, 2019 at 2:38	comment	added	transitionsynthesis		Plenty of philosophers don't use or even study any formal logic beyond basic undergraduate logic courses. So if the question is whether we can do good philosophy without symbolic logic, the answer is "of course we can." In fact, artificially formalizing arguments when you need not introduce formalisms is frowned upon in academic philosophy and can easily get papers rejected from publication.
Oct 1, 2019 at 22:34	history	edited	Frank Hubeny		edited tags
Oct 3, 2012 at 15:02	history	tweeted			twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/253510421271683072
Oct 2, 2012 at 20:58	answer	added	Apollo_is_Dead		timeline score: 0
Oct 1, 2012 at 13:07	answer	added	Xodarap		timeline score: 3
Oct 1, 2012 at 13:02	history	edited	Xodarap		tags
Sep 30, 2012 at 18:53	comment	added	Michael Dorfman		Am I mistaken, or is this question really about your own personal taste? You say that formal and symbolic logic is "too obscure" and you find it "unnecessary for philosophical usage", and then ask us if it is possible for philosophical logic be done without it being "too" symbolic. But how are we to judge what is "too obscure" or "too symbolic" in this context? Clearly, there are varying degrees of formalization found in various philosophical texts; what criteria would you like us to use to assess these?
Sep 30, 2012 at 17:16	review	First posts
Oct 20, 2012 at 0:34
Sep 30, 2012 at 17:15	history	asked	Poli	CC BY-SA 3.0