FOM: History and f.o.m.

[Harvey Friedman]

This brief message is in response to Tait's 10:58AM 1/23/98.

> It was late at night when I read your posting and I had been celebrating.
>If >it weren't for that, I would have stayed out of this on FOM. (I am
>very >interested, but worry whether extensive discussion of history on the
>list is >appropriate (?))

I do think that a discussion of why history is interesting and/or important
for f.o.m. is appropriate for fom. The question I have is this: Are you
interested in the history of logic and/or philosophy because you find it
intrinsically interesting, or intrinsically important, or because it sheds
light on important curerently unresolved issues in f.o.m.? If the latter is
an important consideration for you, then can you tell us which history and
historical figures are most relevant? Have you, or do you expect to make
advances in f.o.m. with the help of historical studies?