"Well it was not exactly a dissertation in logic, at least not the kind of logic you would find in Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica for instance. It looked more like mathematics; no formalized language was used"
About this Quote
Church is doing a very mathematician’s kind of shade: polite on the surface, devastating in implication. By invoking Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Mathematica, he points to the era’s gold standard for “logic” as a fully explicit, symbol-driven, formally regimented enterprise. Then he quietly pulls the rug out from under whatever work he’s describing: it wasn’t “a dissertation in logic” in that exacting sense. The phrase “not exactly” is doing a lot of work, letting him distance himself without sounding petty or dismissive.
The subtext is a boundary dispute. In the early 20th century, “logic” was trying to become something like engineering: airtight, standardized, immune to ambiguity. Church, one of the architects of modern formal logic himself, is alert to the telltale signs of a field still negotiating its identity. “It looked more like mathematics” reads like both compliment and critique: mathematics can be rigorous, but it also tolerates informal moves, shared conventions, and arguments that live in the reader’s head rather than on the page.
“No formalized language was used” isn’t merely descriptive; it’s an indictment of methodological posture. Church is signaling that the author relied on mathematical style and intuition instead of making the logical machinery explicit. In a moment when foundations mattered - when computability, proof, and meaning were being rebuilt from scratch - that absence isn’t cosmetic. It changes what counts as a result, who can verify it, and whether the work advances logic as a discipline or merely borrows its prestige.
The subtext is a boundary dispute. In the early 20th century, “logic” was trying to become something like engineering: airtight, standardized, immune to ambiguity. Church, one of the architects of modern formal logic himself, is alert to the telltale signs of a field still negotiating its identity. “It looked more like mathematics” reads like both compliment and critique: mathematics can be rigorous, but it also tolerates informal moves, shared conventions, and arguments that live in the reader’s head rather than on the page.
“No formalized language was used” isn’t merely descriptive; it’s an indictment of methodological posture. Church is signaling that the author relied on mathematical style and intuition instead of making the logical machinery explicit. In a moment when foundations mattered - when computability, proof, and meaning were being rebuilt from scratch - that absence isn’t cosmetic. It changes what counts as a result, who can verify it, and whether the work advances logic as a discipline or merely borrows its prestige.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by Alonzo
Add to List
