Totally agree that formal and mathematical logic crosses over lots between math and philosophy folks (well, analytic philosophers and logicians). Categorizing

Totally 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.