The Development of Logic

Rating:
Summary: A major flaw
Review: A major flaw is K&K's silence about Whately's Logic of 1826. This book , which went into many editions over nearly 100
years, was instrumental in the revival of logic in the English speaking world. Reading Whately made logicians out of De Morgan, C S Peirce, William Hamilton.
For the history of logic after 1840 or so, K&K is superseded by Grattan-Guiness's The Search for Mathematical Roots.

Rating:
Summary: A major flaw
Review: A major flaw is K&K's silence about Whately's Logic of 1826. This book , which went into many editions over nearly 100
years, was instrumental in the revival of logic in the English speaking world. Reading Whately made logicians out of De Morgan, C S Peirce, William Hamilton.
For the history of logic after 1840 or so, K&K is superseded by Grattan-Guiness's The Search for Mathematical Roots.

Rating:
Summary: Illuminating!
Review: Kneale's book is formidable, esp. for those who are interested in the philosophy of logic (even more than in the history of logic!). It gives you a perspective on the way logical structures were discerned, basic logical concepts were formed etc., thus paving the road for interesting questions whether logic could have been developed in a different manner, and the possibility of other "logics".

Rating:
Summary: Excellent book
Review: This book is a must for whoever is interested in studying logic. Its content ranges from Greek logic to formal developments after Frege. It has three excellent chapters on megarian, stoic, roman, medieval, and renaissance logic, which most books on the history of logic don't. It also has a chapter on the philosophy of logic after Frege, a chapter on philosophy of math after Frege and a chapter on the theory of deductive systems. Due to its completeness and accuracy, it is definetely a must. It is specially useful for advanced undergrad students and grad students. If you study logic, the most complete general source for historical information is this massive volume.

Rating:
Summary: Uneven but worth while
Review: Very strong on Frege, although because it was written in 1962,it cannot reflect the ample scholarship of the past 40 years.
Meticulous about the logic of the classical era. Deprecates
Lukasiewicz's attempt to formalize the syllogism (Arthur Prior's Formal Logic does a better job on this technical topic.)
Good on Leibniz, although I wish they would have said even more, doing full justice to the fact that Leibniz is the most exciting logician between Aristotle and Boole.
Good on Boole, because Wm Kneale contributed importantly to the postwar Boole revival.
Slights the important contributions of Charles Sanders Peirce, although again, his importance has become much clearer since this book was written.
Surprisingly lukewarm about Principia Mathematica.
Often fairly clear about topics (eg, recursive arithmetic) other texts make difficult.

Rating:
Summary: Uneven but worth while
Review: Very strong on Frege, although because it was written in 1962,it cannot reflect the ample scholarship of the past 40 years.
Meticulous about the logic of the classical era. Deprecates
Lukasiewicz's attempt to formalize the syllogism (Arthur Prior's Formal Logic does a better job on this technical topic.)
Good on Leibniz, although I wish they would have said even more, doing full justice to the fact that Leibniz is the most exciting logician between Aristotle and Boole.
Good on Boole, because Wm Kneale contributed importantly to the postwar Boole revival.
Slights the important contributions of Charles Sanders Peirce, although again, his importance has become much clearer since this book was written.
Surprisingly lukewarm about Principia Mathematica.
Often fairly clear about topics (eg, recursive arithmetic) other texts make difficult.