In reply to the polemics and comments on my bookLogic and Argumentation
This article contains the reply to the polemics and comments on my book Logic and argumentation. Since the most controversial issue among the commentators was my “radical attack on formal logic”, the first part of the text generally addresses this criticism. Firstly, I thoroughly explain what my doubts regarding the formal logic are. I am not questioning the great, even spectacular, successes of formal logic in the field of mathematical logic, nor its extraordinary contribution to the foundation of computer technology. I only find that for the traditional goal of logic — that of studying the principles of reasoning, inference and definition — formal methods have failed in confrontation with practice. I am developing this thesis in detail and I am trying to justify it, first of all by referring to the practice of reasoning in the field of mathematics. In the second part, I respond to specific criticisms and comments from individual authors. Many of the comments are correct, some are based on misunderstandings, while some, in my opinion, are wrong.