5 ms·
The texts Philosophical and Mathematical Logic and Mathematical Logic should probably fall under Mathematics and Statistics rather than Religion and Philosophy,
by p0llard 6y ago
The texts Philosophical and Mathematical Logic and Mathematical Logic should probably fall under Mathematics and Statistics rather than Religion and Philosophy, but seems a nice resource otherwise!
- hnarayanan 6y agoOP here. Thank you for pointing this out. I didn’t manually categorise it, just extracted the Springer categories. Will manually review this tomorrow.
- p0llard 6y agoHuh interesting, I'd guess they're basing that on the series the book is published in, which can often be misleading.
- ckcheng 6y ago"Philosophical and Mathematical Logic" is by Harrie de Swart affiliated with the Faculty of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, and the Department of Philosophy, Tilburg University. > Throughout the text, the author provides some impressions of the historical development of logic: Stoic and Aristotelian logic, logic in the Middle Ages and Frege's Begriffsschrift, together with the works of George Boole (1815-1864) and August De Morgan (1806-1871), the origin of modern logic. Those topics feel pretty typical of logic as studied in philosophy depts. I think traditionally, a lot of logicians working with formal or mathematical logic worked out of philosophy departments. I've been told that more recently, a lot of them now work out of Comp Sci departments. There just isn't enough of them in one place to have a Dept of Logic I guess! :) "Mathematical Logic" by Roman Kossak is probably mis-categorized. Topics look like typical math topics. Affiliation is Math Dept at CUNY, Bronx Community College campus. Yeah, probably should be under math section.
- p0llard 6y agoMathematical Logic and Philosophy cross over quite a bit, but I think any text which features proof sketches of Löwenheim–Skolem (present in Philosophical and Mathematical Logic) qualifies as a mathematics text. At any rate the category Religion and Philosophy is wrong, Analytic Philosophy maybe.
- ckcheng 6y agoTotally agree that formal and mathematical logic crosses over lots between math and philosophy folks (well, analytic philosophers and logicians). Categorizing books is pretty subjective. Looking at the table of contents, it feels like a work from someone working in the philosophy dept. There's an entire chapter for each of Modal Logic, Philosophy of Language, Intuitionism and Intuitionistic Logic, and Fallacies and Unfair Discussion Methods --- when I learned those things, I learned them from philosophy department courses. Certainly it was a very analytic philosophy department, so I'm totally on board with putting it under an analytic philosophy section. I seem to notice publishers and bookstores like to group religion and philosophy together though, so maybe that's why Springer did that. And yeah, I agree that it'd be a better fit for an analytic philosophy section.
- flor1s 6y agoI found it funny that the book "Robotics" (by Siciliano et al.) isn't in the category "Intelligent Technologies and Robotics". There's another book titled "Robotics" (by Mihelj et al.) in that category though.
- codetrotter 6y agoIMO it's quite perfect the way that is now and I would suggest keeping it categorised the way that Springer has categorised it. But if you still decide to create your own categorisation of the books, I think you should have two different views; the Springer categorisation as the default view and your own categorisation as an alternate view.