Is modern logic an improvement on Aristotelian logic or is there some other relationship between the two? In which sense is modern logic more advanced than Aristotelian logic? Is logic a cummulative developing discipline or is the progress in the course of the history of logic somehow different from the cumulatively developing processes? Are these logics based on different -- mutually untranslatable -- paradigms? The paper analyzes these questions in connection with some more general problems of the philosophy of science.

It is necessary to take into account that every ontology and also every scientific system draws a picture of the World according to the abstractions and presuppositions which were accepted, consciously or unconsciously, during the construction of the system. That is why Aristotle, Hegel, and the paraconsistent logics gave us different world views. On the basis of contemporary logics, including paraconsistent logics, we can better understand what the objects of the Aristotelian logic are, what are the presuppositions used in it, (...) what are the meanings of its terms and how their meaning was changed when used in other theories. (shrink)

SummaryIt is not the inconsistency in the sense of classical logic that we have to tolerate. The dialectical reasoning, described by N. Rescher, is outside the domain where CI is defined. The apparent contradiction between CI and paraconsistent logic can be removed by realizing that PL is a widening of the conceptual framework of classical logic. In this new framework the meaning of some words was changed similarly as, according to N. Bohr, in quantum mechanics the words “particle” and “wave” (...) have changed their meaning. (shrink)

Starting with the analysis of cognitive situations which appear in everyday life, and by means of the logical analysis of some games, the author deals with applied logic in the sense of the general methodology of reasoning. The book acquaints the reader with some forms and operations of reasoning which are applied in the process of scientific cognition as well as in daily activities that require thought. As opposed to a number of well-known and unique handbooks and text-books on pure (...) logic this books conveys learning, and in many cases original thoughts, through witty dialogues, in an entertaining way. (shrink)

Thinking should be taught in every class, but only children’s philosophy workshops allow learning and the practice of correct thinking without linking them to the acquisition of some other mandatory learning. The reading of stories with veiled philosophical content is one way to conduct philosophical workshops for children. We may give children stories that contain some laws of correct logical reasoning. However, in order to achieve this aim, we must extract the content from the symbolic logic and translate it into (...) everyday language. We must choose areas where the thought process is of interest for children, such as that found in logical games. This method was used by Lewis Carroll in his book The Game of Logic. We attempt to develop further his idea by suggesting games which are used by children in their everyday life. (shrink)