The phrase "assumption of logical" is not correct in English as it is incomplete and lacks clarity.
It could be used in contexts discussing logical reasoning or premises, but it needs additional context to be meaningful.
Example: "The assumption of logical reasoning is crucial in forming valid arguments."
Alternatives: "premise of logic" or "logical assumption".
This is the assumption of logical omniscience (discussed below).
Hacking and Garber have made proposals to relax the assumption of logical omniscience.
Even if the assumption of logical omniscience is not too much of an idealization to provide a useful model for human reasoning, it has another potentially troubling consequence.
No attempt is made to evaluate their seriousness here, though there is no generally agreed upon Bayesian solution to any of them. A. The assumption of logical omniscience.
Because relaxing that assumption would block the derivation of almost all the important results in Bayesian epistemology, most Bayesians maintain the assumption of logical omniscience and treat it as an ideal to which human beings can only more or less approximate.
Whereas at the mid-point of the twentieth century philosophy of religion was virtually defined by the assumptions and methods of logical positivism and empiricism, in subsequent years new and technically rigorous contributions by religiously committed philosophers began to enliven old theistic arguments.
However, here we shall go along with the simplifications afforded by the assumption of a classic logical background (with descriptive terms treated à la Russell).
The complex edifice of the Tractatus is built on the assumption that the task of logical analysis was to discover the elementary propositions, whose form was not yet known.
Given the minimal assumption that the relation of logical consequence is reflexive, that means that proposition expressed by a = b is a logical consequence of the proposition expressed by a = a, even though the sentence a = b is not a logical consequence of the sentence a = a.
It tells a story of assumption, bias, logical fallacy, naiveté, and faulty logical deduction degenerating in the creation of absurd conclusions.
He also showed that no such system can prove its own consistency: a stronger set of logical assumptions is needed to prove the consistency of a weaker set (a result of profound importance in the theory of computing).
