Talk:Square of opposition: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
John Leach (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "CZ:Article Mechanics" to "CZ:Article mechanics") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
Having taught the square of opposition many times, I think the main use of this article for most users will be: what is the square, exactly, and what do the different relationships between points on the square ''mean?'' So we should add a nice graphic. There must be a zillion free nice ones out there already. I myself might have one if you can't find one, but I'm sure it wouldn't be the best. Very cool that you could find the square from a Latin text, but this is mainly of historical interest and does not illuminate the square at all for modern students | Having taught the square of opposition many times, I think the main use of this article for most users will be: what is the square, exactly, and what do the different relationships between points on the square ''mean?'' So we should add a nice graphic. There must be a zillion free nice ones out there already. I myself might have one if you can't find one, but I'm sure it wouldn't be the best. Very cool that you could find the square from a Latin text (which needs labelling by the way), but this is mainly of historical interest and does not illuminate the square at all for modern students enrolled in critical thinking courses (i.e., the first audience we need to think about; of course, we can have as much more advanced info as you like, as long as that audience is ''also'' served). In general, this is a historical introduction. That's interesting as far as it goes, but more a lucid introduction (for a lay audience, I mean) with plenty of examples, similar to what is found in a well-written logic text, would be more helpful. Then a historical section could be added to explain the history of the square. | ||
By the way, the article needs to be linked throughout. | By the way, the article needs to be linked throughout. E.g., "traditional logic" needs to be changed to "[[traditional logic]]," etc. Wherever you see a word or phrase that it would be helpful to have a link from this article, the link should be included (see [[CZ:Article mechanics|Article Mechanics]] for guidance on that). For example, words I would link include proposition, Latin, philosophy of language, logic, predicate, Aristotle, etc., etc. | ||
Also, I notice this comes from Wikipedia. Please always check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" unless you are the sole author of the article. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:48, 16 February 2008 (CST) | Also, I notice this comes from Wikipedia. Please always check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" unless you are the sole author of the article. | ||
One other thing. The square is obviously an entree to several related topics. It is worth thinking at this point about what information we might have in ''separate articles'' about those topics. Will we have articles about, for example, contrary propositions, subalternation, universal versus particular propositions, affirmative versus negative propositions (notice I don't say exactly how these should be titled), existential import, etc.? I think we should. If so, then perhaps the planned material about existential import should live at [[existential import]], and only a relatively simple introduction to the problem would go on this page. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:48, 16 February 2008 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:02, 5 March 2024
Having taught the square of opposition many times, I think the main use of this article for most users will be: what is the square, exactly, and what do the different relationships between points on the square mean? So we should add a nice graphic. There must be a zillion free nice ones out there already. I myself might have one if you can't find one, but I'm sure it wouldn't be the best. Very cool that you could find the square from a Latin text (which needs labelling by the way), but this is mainly of historical interest and does not illuminate the square at all for modern students enrolled in critical thinking courses (i.e., the first audience we need to think about; of course, we can have as much more advanced info as you like, as long as that audience is also served). In general, this is a historical introduction. That's interesting as far as it goes, but more a lucid introduction (for a lay audience, I mean) with plenty of examples, similar to what is found in a well-written logic text, would be more helpful. Then a historical section could be added to explain the history of the square.
By the way, the article needs to be linked throughout. E.g., "traditional logic" needs to be changed to "traditional logic," etc. Wherever you see a word or phrase that it would be helpful to have a link from this article, the link should be included (see Article Mechanics for guidance on that). For example, words I would link include proposition, Latin, philosophy of language, logic, predicate, Aristotle, etc., etc.
Also, I notice this comes from Wikipedia. Please always check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" unless you are the sole author of the article.
One other thing. The square is obviously an entree to several related topics. It is worth thinking at this point about what information we might have in separate articles about those topics. Will we have articles about, for example, contrary propositions, subalternation, universal versus particular propositions, affirmative versus negative propositions (notice I don't say exactly how these should be titled), existential import, etc.? I think we should. If so, then perhaps the planned material about existential import should live at existential import, and only a relatively simple introduction to the problem would go on this page. --Larry Sanger 07:48, 16 February 2008 (CST)