What do you think?
Rate this book
Methods of Logic
This widely used textbook of modern formal logic now offers a number of new features. Incorporating updated notations, selective answers to exercises, expanded treatment of natural deduction, and new discussions of predicate-functor logic and the affinities between higher set theory and the elementary logic of terms, W. V. Quine’s new edition will serve admirably for both classroom and independent use.
344 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1950
24 people are currently reading
525 people want to read
About the author
Willard Van Orman Quine
105 books220 followers"Willard Van Orman Quine (June 25, 1908 Akron, Ohio – December 25, 2000) (known to intimates as "Van"), was an American analytic philosopher and logician. From 1930 until his death 70 years later, Quine was affiliated in some way with Harvard University, first as a student, then as a professor of philosophy and a teacher of mathematics, and finally as an emeritus elder statesman who published or revised seven books in retirement. He filled the Edgar Pierce Chair of Philosophy at Harvard, 1956-78. Quine falls squarely into the analytic philosophy tradition while also being the main proponent of the view that philosophy is not conceptual analysis. His major writings include "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", which attacked the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions and advocated a form of semantic holism, and Word and Object which further developed these positions and introduced the notorious indeterminacy of translation thesis." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 31, 2008
May be the closet to God I've ever came.
July 26, 2007
Like any great book, this one could be a bit, though not too much, better. By far and away the most useful element of Quine's book is his treatment of translating ordinary English into logical schemata. I have never seen such a lucid and effective presentation of the task, and I recommend the book very highly to anybody on that account. His presentation of truth-functional and quantificational schemata are solid are simply excellent. The book, however, is not without its defects of which I should caution prospective buyers about. First, there are many treatments in the book of historical interest, but to a student of first-order logic they may seem to be a bit excessive. His incorporation of Polish notation, while fascinating in its own right, is not in accorance with Quine's drive for efficiency and conciseness. A similar account goes for his treatment of Boolean algebra. It is in that treatment that Quine introduces many ideas indispensible to quantificational logic, yet it is tempting to skip over those chapters when one can sufficiently delve into quantification theory. Secondly, his notation is, as another reviewer points out, unorthodox. It is very effective and in my opinion superior to the conventional formality, but this could be difficult to deal with, and one wonders if Quine should have been more cautious about varying his symbols from the norm. Finally, Quine's treatment of the Completeness Proof and the Lowenheim Theorem, while quite solid in their own right, could be more effective. Quine seems to be keen on applying a constructivist approach to the proof, and spends many pages on definitions and lemmas that can be avoided. One can provide a proof by contradiction in order to sufficiently demonstrate most of his treatment of the matter, as so much of it is spent proving the "law of infinite conjunction," which is really only an 8 step proof. I won't go into the details here, but keep that in mind when studying the chapter. Nevertheless, Quine's work is as entertaining as it is rigorous.
February 4, 2015
An earlier edition of this (probably the second edition, 1959) was my college logic textbook. I've been meaning to read this very different fourth edition (1982) since the library acquired it. In re-reading it, I can't understand how I ever managed to learn logic from this book; the methods are totally unsuitable for beginners, he gives alternative methods for everything rather than developing a single method fully, brings up questions which only make sense from a much more advanced stage of understanding,and uses symbolism and terminology which are either old-fashioned (going back to Russell and Whitehead) or otherwise non-standard (in this edition he changes over to some of the standard modern symbols, but in revenge he uses even more non-standard terminology, such as "alternation" for what every other book calls "disjunction", etc.)
Now that the book is at an age where most textbooks are forgotten or relegated to Dover reprints or free Kindle books, and I doubt whether any professor would still adopt it for a beginning textbook, it can be better appreciated for what it really always was, a sort of "elementary logic from an advanced standpoint" commenting on the varied methods used in simple logic from the viewpoint of the philosophy of logic, and particularly from Quine's own version of nominalism. Looked at that way, it really is a classic text and well worth studying -- once you learn the basics from a more pedagogically considered textbook.
Now that the book is at an age where most textbooks are forgotten or relegated to Dover reprints or free Kindle books, and I doubt whether any professor would still adopt it for a beginning textbook, it can be better appreciated for what it really always was, a sort of "elementary logic from an advanced standpoint" commenting on the varied methods used in simple logic from the viewpoint of the philosophy of logic, and particularly from Quine's own version of nominalism. Looked at that way, it really is a classic text and well worth studying -- once you learn the basics from a more pedagogically considered textbook.
August 8, 2011
A relatively clear presentation, with rigor approximately between that of a standard introductory text and van Dalen's Logic and Structure. Uses a notation largely abandoned today, which is interesting in its own right. A few topics are not often found in standard introductory logic texts, namely, theorems of completeness, Löwenheim, and arithmetic axioms.
June 8, 2012
Very useful text on formal logic. However, the notation is antiquated. That being said, Quine's text is still one of the clearest and most thorough introductions on the subject. He writes in a style that is uncommon today, but I rather like it. The sections on logical schemata are detailed and well thought out.
September 6, 2019
I quit this about 1/3 of the way through, possibly because I'm old and slow-minded and couldn't grok it, and possibly because the writing style too often puts erudition over organization, but more likely simply because it didn't fit what I wanted. I wanted a book that would i] give me an overview/typology of "logic" (symbolic? mathematic? induction? propositional? predicate? boolean? - which are subclasses of others? which is most appropriate where?) and/or ii] show me how formal logic applies to everyday discourse/debate.
But that's not what this book is about. Turns out the field of logic underwent a considerable flowering in the first half of the last century. Several logicians each wrote books about the "new" field from their point of view, showing the derivation of their views and their connections with history. These books have become "classics" and are still widely (and now very inexpensively) available. Many of these books propose notations that didn't stick and are now so arcane it's hard to even find a definition of them outside the book; each focuses on their author's new view as the _only proper way to approach logic; and most include the word "intro" in their title. This is one such book.
While widely and inexpensively available, these books are NOT "intros" in the way I expect that word to mean. As each thinks its own views are the one and only right way to do logic, they don't at all provide the sort of overview/typology I desired. And as each is full of derivations and historical references, the application of formal logic to everyday discourse/debate is sprinkled throughout the text in such a disorganized way that it's too hard for the beginner to pull out and make sense of.
But that's not what this book is about. Turns out the field of logic underwent a considerable flowering in the first half of the last century. Several logicians each wrote books about the "new" field from their point of view, showing the derivation of their views and their connections with history. These books have become "classics" and are still widely (and now very inexpensively) available. Many of these books propose notations that didn't stick and are now so arcane it's hard to even find a definition of them outside the book; each focuses on their author's new view as the _only proper way to approach logic; and most include the word "intro" in their title. This is one such book.
While widely and inexpensively available, these books are NOT "intros" in the way I expect that word to mean. As each thinks its own views are the one and only right way to do logic, they don't at all provide the sort of overview/typology I desired. And as each is full of derivations and historical references, the application of formal logic to everyday discourse/debate is sprinkled throughout the text in such a disorganized way that it's too hard for the beginner to pull out and make sense of.
Read
December 23, 2008Was told I couldn't be a good logician until I read Quine on logic... so here goes.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews