Why Logics?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is an essential contribution to the understanding of the plurality of logics in relation to "universal" logic and in the context of the outlined historical development of logic. The author critically discusses the dichotomy between classical and non-classical logics, and proposes the study of concepts and structures as a unifying perspective of the research in logics. In the final remark, the author clearly describes the need and the position of this  journal within the current logic research and publications.

I would like to add some remarks for consideration:

Page 1, begin of the 2nd section: to avoid misunderstanding, instead of "first introduced", it could be suggested, for  example, "given fundamental meaning" or "... influentially interpreted" (without "first") or something similar, since, as is known, expression "formal logic" was used before Kant, e.g., by Holcot (d. 1349), Jungius, Reischel, while Kant himself used it very rarely.

Page 1, line 4 and third section: maybe to use "Aristotelian" or "mainly Aristotelian" instead of "due to Aristotle"/"of Aristotle", because of stoic components in traditional logic and of complex "terministic logic" in the Middle Ages and later.

Pages 1, 4, 5, 6:  as a comment regarding "-s" in "linguistics", "mathematics" etc. and, as claimed, phonetic reasons for this: in Greek, there was, for example, "mathematike" ('mathematical', sc. doctrine) as well as plural "ta mathematika" ('mathematical things').

English seems to me fine (I am not a native speaker of English).

Author Response

Page 1, begin of the 2nd section. OK: I made the change

Page 1, line 4 and third section. Changes made

Pages 1, 4, 5, 6: It is true that "ta mathematika" = 'mathematical things', but it is probably not the reason why "mathematics" is plural in English, which is used not to talk about objects but as a name of a science.

Reviewer 2 Report

General suggestion: give more explanation of what the universal logic is and in what issues it differs from the philosophy of logic

Lines 18-19 The Aristotelean syllogistic is not a logical system in the strict sense of the term ‘system’, and hardly ‘mainly the only one’ for centuries. It knowingly existed along with the Stoic syllogistic, and largely unknowingly with the Talmudic logic, and from the late Middle Ages and– with the Indian nyaya logic.

Line 48 insert ‘n’ in ‘Roma’  Roman  Suszko

Lines 56-60 we recommend to concisely explain what does it mean conceptually to think of the classical propositional logic as having or not the property of compactness

Line 101 refers to the ‘the paradoxes mentioned in the previous section’, but the differences described in Section 1 are neither logical paradoxes nor are called paradoxes there.

Lines 106-107 After the promise that ‘Universal logic is … developing concepts in a general framework to have a better understanding of the universe of logic systems’ it would be good to tell readers what exactly are those concepts and describe one or two of them for fulfilling the promise.

Line 139 insert ‘i’ in Nicola Vasiliev Nicolai Vasiliev

Lines 147-148 Why ‘The expression universal logic is less ambiguous, because the plural “universal logics” does not really make sense’? Could this claim be developed against the general idea that ‘logics’ does make sense, and there are many metalogics?

Lines 159-160 numbering is vague, perhaps, because of strange spacing and punctuation; seems better to write the numbers strictly before what they mean to enumerate and each from a new a line, like this, f.e. ‘….ways:

(1) reasoning;

(2) a system describing reasoning, “a logic”;

(3) the science studying reasoning through the development of logic systems and tools to study them.

….

Line 266 delete or fill in the square  brackets

Footnote I correct ‘my robots’ to ‘by robots’

Lines 49, 64, 71, 91, 100, 106, 137, 148, 149, 151, 165, 166, 167, 202, 204, 207, 212, 220, 230 check for double space

Author Response

All corrections were made point-by-point

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

P. 1 "The expression 'formal logic' was promoted by Immanuel Kant" - actually, because of the very rare use of this term itself in Kant's text, it would be more precise to speak about "the concept of formal logic".

Regarding the strong claim about the fonetic reasons for "-s" e.g. in "mathematics" (see Pages 1, 4, 5, 6), a reference to some linguistic or other relevant source for or confirmation of this claim would be welcome.

This final solution and responsibility in connection with the above remarks is up to the author (no need for further report of this reviewer); otherwise the manuscript is fine for being published (as indicated in the "overall recommendation" below).

Reviewer 2 Report

The manucript deserves to be published as is, after the author has revised its earlier version. However, there is an issue that the author may wish to improve at a low cost. The amount of the self-citations, although is understandable in relation to the topic of the manuscript, questions the otherwise good impression of the paper.