/lit/ - Literature

Why aren't you a non-cognitivist yet?

Hello /lit/!

So I've taken it upon myself to teach myself logic this winter. I found a book by WVO Quine in the library the other day called Elementary Logic and it seems neat (I'm going slowly with it so I'm only 12 pages in so far) but I can't help but wonder if some of the notation is still valid. In the preface, Quine mentions that this is a revised edition from sometime in 1960's where he fixed a bunch of stuff that had changed in the world of logic since the original publication. Going off that I found a handy little teach-yourself book online and I noticed some of the notational symbols are different. As this one was written much more recently I am starting to have doubts about the Quine book.

Any suggestions? Anyone use Quine's book and can comment?

Here's the link to the online one I found in case anyone knows of it and can comment on that as well. http://www.fecundity.com/logic/

REKT Kant and the logpos faggots, completely destroyed the entire field of ethics, revitalized philosophy of science, etc.

Quine was a baller.

>>3695983

Ah yes he his... he needs a beret and to be grabbing his lapels

>>3655027

Deduction preserves truth

Induction does not but can be cogent

All suppositions are contingent (there is no analyticity)

Therefore, all truth is contigent

*between reference frames but not within them

>Familiarize yourself with the philosophy of science. It will help you with this.

So I've been reading some Quine lately and the concept of Confirmation Holism in the philosophy of science intrigued me. I'm not a philosophyfag, but I'm planning on using it in a paper. So I was wondering what the current consensus in the philosophic community was on confirmation holism? WP/Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy haven't been very helpful...

>>1198295
>language, which is by necessity defined by efficient communication.
Read some Quine. The accuracy of any translation (in this case sign into any kind of language) has no transcendent (I'm being a bit vague here) valid method pertaining to accuracy or faithfulness (or in your stupid case, efficieny), although pragmatic concerns are suggested.

Attached rabbit parts and such.

>>1060204

Perhaps because it's all shit?