English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The definition of logic is: the science of thinking about or explaining the reason for something using formal methods.

Which definitions of science from OALD or MW apply to the above definition of logic?

And formal means very correct here?

share|improve this question
That's a very poor definition of logic. I wouldn't trust any reference that provides it. And formal does not mean "very correct"; it means "considering form only". I.e, meaning is irrelevant -- only form matters. – John Lawler Jul 9 '12 at 20:16
However, in non technical sense both definitions are adegute. – user19148 Jul 9 '12 at 20:27
@Carlo_R. They're... what? – cornbread ninja 麵包忍者 Jul 9 '12 at 20:41
@cornbreadninja: Argh...! I want say: adequate. Sorry. – user19148 Jul 9 '12 at 20:43
@JohnLawler The definitions are from learner's dictionaries so the language is intended to be simpler (sacrificing the precision that you require). But for the OP, back to being pedantic: both definitions mention 'natural' or 'physical' world, so technically logic would then -not- be considered a science. But this is really a philosophical situation, applicable to any language, not just English. How are those terms defined in your native language? – Mitch Jul 9 '12 at 21:27
up vote 2 down vote accepted

That definition of logic is not too bad. However, in that context, "formal" means taking only form into account.

Whether or not logic is a science is a deep, philosophical question. For example, one of the science definitions you linked to is "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation". Consider a common property of logic -- that both a statement and its converse cannot be true. Is that "knowledge about ... the natural world"? Do we learn that by observation?

Really, it gets down to semantics. Logic is what it is. If you want to call that part of science, then fine. If not, then not. But it's silly to try to parse definitions that way. Definitions are explanations, not tests you can apply. A sensible definition of "car" could begin "a means of transportation", but a toy car is certainly a car even though it's not a means of transportation.

share|improve this answer
And when you say form, what does that mean? – Theo Jul 10 '12 at 16:47
@Theo: Structure as opposed to meaning. For example, "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal." has the same structure as "All pligips are moton. Zonk is a pligip. Therefore Zonk is moton." However, one has a meaning and the other doesn't. – David Schwartz Jul 10 '12 at 17:01

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.