Dear Arf dear all: Arf (Dick) has a good idea for starting a new list, but my experience is that we'd need a massive number of people to make it keep running. Lists need nutties to keep conversation going on (but of course do not need Martin Davies to call discussions "too metaphysical).
The Brazilian list "Lista dos Logicos Basileiros " <logica-l@dimap.ufrn.br> is already a good place, and some discussions go in English . But even if having a good number of subscribers (already 200) sometimes it gets silent for a log time. So, to sum sup, I think it is not a bad idea, but if we don't get an expressive number of people interested it would be doomed to failure pretty soon. About the attempts that have been made to show that logic is an objective science in that sense, I personally do not know! By the way, the ARF Group had two members attending and giving talks at “Beyond the Possible” , a conference dedicated to RIchard Sylvan's memory held in Melbourne, from July 27-29 2011 . http://sites.google.com/site/btpconference/home Fred and I gave talks there, and it was very nice to meet! All the best, Walter 2011/8/2 ARF (Richard L. Epstein) <r...@advancedreasoningforum.org>: > I am writing to suggest that we start a new e-mail communication (list-serve) > for (roughly) Logic, > Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, and Philosophy of Mathematics. > > Some of us have been trying to use the FOM list-serve for this purpose, but > that isn't suitable. > What is allowed and what is not is never clear, and just when a discussion > gets interesting, as with > Staffan's most recent posting, Martin Davis shuts it down as being "too > metaphysical". > > We could initially advertise our list-serve on FOM as an alternative. We > could host it through the > ARF website <www.AdvancedReasoningForum.org>, where we could keep an archive > of the postings. We > would need one person who could be the editor, whose job is to check that > postings aren't completely > nutty (there are always cranks who get in) or vicious, but not to enforce > intellectual limits > otherwise. (??) We'd also need a board of editors to whom questionable > postings could be directed > for evaluation. I'm not willing to be the editor, but I'd be glad to be on > the board. > > On a personal note, I think that the first attempt at a way to communicate > among academics like this > in logic was the Recursive Function Theory Newsletter that Barry Cooper and I > started in 1972 in > Berkeley. > > Let me know what you think--how we might organize it, how we might better > describe the subject > matter, and whether you think the project is worth the effort. Please pass > this e-mail along to > others who might be interested. > > Here is an example of what we could post (FOM rejected it). I need help with > it: > > **** > Can anyone tell me what attempts have been made to show that logic is an > objective science that do > not rely on the assumption that: > 1. propositions are abstract objects > or 2. propositions are linguistic, perhaps in a formalized version, whose > structure parses reality > exactly and correctly? > **** > > All the best, Arf > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Prof. Dr. Walter Carnielli Visiting Scholar School of Historical and Philosophical Studies Room G06 Ground Floor Old Quad Building The University of Melbourne 3010 VIC Melbourne, Australia Website: http://www.cle.unicamp.br/prof/carnielli ------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Logica-l mailing list Logica-l@dimap.ufrn.br http://www.dimap.ufrn.br/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/logica-l
