Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tisthammerw (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 7 July 2009 (→Cleanup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Philosophy: Logic Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

Cleanup

While I think my changes (better organization, extra rebuttals, citations etc.) improve from where it was before, I'll let the "clean up" box remain for now; I cited from only one book, after all. If anybody else thinks the box isn't needed though, feel free to remove it. I didn't remove it partly because, to me, it neared a conflict of interest (am I the the most unbiased judge to tell my changes were good enough?). --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Why does open question argument divert to naturalistic fallacy but open question diverts to this page and the title reads 'Open Question Argument'? Naturalistic fallacy appears to be better sourced and talks about the same thing. -Bottlecapninja 12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the last paragraph it reads "Others hold..." who are 'others'?MrMelonhead (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
• Unassessed logic articles
• Unknown-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles