abstract: The spatial arrangement of urban hubs and centers and how individuals interact with these centers is a crucial problem with many applications ranging from urban planning to epidemiology. We utilize here in an unprecedented manner the large scale, real-time 'Oyster' card database of individual person movements in the London subway to reveal the structure and organization of the city. We show that patterns of intraurban movement are strongly heterogeneous in terms of volume, but not in terms of distance travelled, and that there is a polycentric structure composed of large flows organized around a limited number of activity centers. For smaller flows, the pattern of connections becomes richer and more complex and is not strictly hierarchical since it mixes different levels consisting of different orders of magnitude. This new understanding can shed light on the impact of new urban projects on the evolution of the polycentric configuration of a city and the dense structure of its centers and it provides an initial approach to modeling flows in an urban system.
author: Camille Roth; Soong Moon Kang; Michael Batty; Marc Barthélemy
date: 2024-09-30
title: Structure of urban movements: polycentric activity and entangled hierarchical flows

# Introduction

The structure of a large city is probably one of the most complex spatial system that we can encounter. It is made of a large number of diverse components connected by different transportation and distribution networks. In this respect, the popular conception of a city with one center and pendular movements going in and out of the business center is likely to be an audacious simplification of what actually happens. The most prominent and visible effects of such spatial organization of economic activity in large and densely populated urban areas are characterized by severe traffic congestion, uncontrolled urban sprawl of such cities and the strong possibilities of rapidly spreading viruses biologial and social through the dense underlying networks . The mitigation of these undesirable effects depends intrinsically on our understanding of urban structure , the spatial arrangement of urban hubs and centers, and how the individuals interact with these centers. The dominant model of the industrial city is based on a monocentric structure , but contemporary cities are more complex, displaying patterns of polycentricity that require a clear typology for their understanding . One of the most important features of an urban landscape is the clustering of economic activity in many centers : the idea of the polycentric city in such terms can be traced back over one hundred years , but so far no clear quantitative definition has been proposed, apart from various methods of density thresholding based, for example, on employment . In order to characterize polycentricity, we must investigate movement data such as person flow and mobile-phone usage which offers the possibility of analyzing quantitatively various features of the spatial organization associated with individual traffic movements. More precisely, in this study, we analyze data for the London underground rail ('tube') system collected from the Oyster card (an electronic ticketing system used to record public transport passenger movements and fare tariffs within Greater London) which enables us to infer the statistical properties of individual movement patterns in a large urban setting.

# Results

World cities are among those with the most complex spatial structure. The number, the diversity of components and their localization warns us intuitively that these megapoles are far from their original historical form which is invariably represented by a simple, monocentric structure. In particular, the level of commercial and industrial activity varies strongly from one area to another. Thus flows of individuals can be thought as good proxies for the activity of an area and to this end we first checked that the flows at different stations correlate positively with other activity indicators such as counts of employees and the employee density. This shows that indicators of a different nature and on different time scales, which are also widely regarded as measures of polycentricity in large cities, are also consistent with movement data recorded over much shorter time scales.

The main results that we will discuss in this section are that (i) flows are generally of a local nature (ii) they are also organized/aggregated around polycenters and (iii) the examination and decomposition of these flows lead to the description of entangled hierarchies, and (iv) hence one likely structure describing this large metropolitan area is based on polycentrism. This perspective thus draws new insights from data that has become available from electronic sources that have so far not been utilised in analyzing the urban spatial structure and in this sense, are unprecedented in the field.

To get a preliminary grasp on the data, we observe that the flow distribution (normalized histogram of flows of individuals) is fitted by a power law with exponent $\approx 1.3$ which indicates that there is strong heterogeneity of individuals' movements in this city (for this distribution, the ratio of the two first moments has a large value $\langle w^2\rangle/\langle w\rangle^2\simeq 15.0$, which confirms this strong heterogeneity)— see Figure $1$.

Broad distribution of flows have already been observed at the inter-urban level , but it is the first time that we observe this empirically at an intra-urban level showing that, in agreement with other studies (for Madrid and for Portland, Oregon ), the movement patterns in large cities exhibit an heterogeneous organization of flows.

Spatial separation is another primary feature of movement and we show in Figure $2a$ the raw distribution of rides occurring between two stations at a given distance. This distribution can be fitted by a negative binomial law rather than a broad law such as the Levy flights suggested in .

```latex
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{./figure2.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ {\bf Ride distance distribution and propensity.} (a)
Superimposition of the distance distribution of rides (circles) and of
the distance distribution between stations (squares). The distribution
of the observed rides can be fitted by a negative binomial law of
parameters $r=2.61$ and $p=0.0273$, corresponding to a mean
$\mu=9.28$kms and standard deviation $\sigma=5.83$kms (solid
line). This distribution is not a broad law (such as a Levy flight for
example), in contrast to previous findings using indirect measures of
movement \cite{Gonzalez:2008,Brockmann:2006}. (b) Ride distance
propensity. Propensity of achieving a ride at a given distance with
respect to a null-model of randomized rides.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure*}
```

While this graph exhibits actual commuting patterns, it does not tell us much about commuter behavior, all other things being equal. Indeed, the geographical constraints are important and the distance distribution between stations (shown superimposed in Figure $2a$) could be a major factor in the ride distribution. Also, the particular flow distribution over the network is likely to bias the ride distance distribution: rides corresponding to two stations, which have respectively a large outflow and inflow, should be more likely, hence the distance between these two stations is likely to be overrepresented in the previous distribution. This bias relates to how much agents prefer to use the underground to achieve rides at a given distance. In order to estimate the part governed by the individuals behavior, we use a null-model for randomizing rides in such a way that total outflows and total inflows at each station are conserved while actual ride extremities are reshuffled (see Appendices). Put differently, the random null-model corresponds to a flow matrix that should normally occur given particular out- and inflows at stations, irrespective of agent's preferences. Dividing the real-world values by the random flow matrix (averaged over $100$ random simulations) gives the propensity (see Appendices) which is an estimate of how much the real data deviates from a random setting. Results are described in Figure $2b$. We observe that rides covering a distance of around $1$ to $3$kms are twice as likely. The propensity continuously falls to $0$ for longer rides, and is significantly less than one for rides of less than $1$km. Above a distance of $10$kms, the propensity is less than one indicating that individuals are less inclined to use the subway for longer distances. Hence, all other things being equal, people are less inclined to take the tube for rides not covering this sort of 'typical' distance.

In addition to being strongly heterogenous, rides are therefore to some extent essentially local. At a more aggregated level, and in order to infer the city structure at a larger scale, we can study the distribution of incoming (or outgoing) flows for a given station. We show in the Figure $3$ the rank-ordered total flows (Zipf plots) for the morning peak hours on a lin-log graph displaying an exponential decay (Flows for evening peak hours ($5$pm-$8$pm) reveal a roughly inverse pattern, the total outflow is concentrated on a few centers, and similarly but less markedly, the same occurs for total inflows).

The exponential decay of these plots demonstrate that most of the total flows are concentrated on a few stations. Indeed, an exponential decay of the form $e^{-r/r_0}$, where $r$ is the rank, is a signature of the existence of a scale $r_0$. In this case, the exponential fit shows that the number of important inflow stations is of order $n\sim
r_0^{in}\sim 45$ and larger for outflow stations. During the morning peak hours, essentially, stations that generate a large inflow have a smaller outflow, and vice-versa. Also, rides are statistically balanced over the entire day, which suggests that rides are essentially round trips. From this analysis, we can conclude that the activity is concentrated in a small number of centers dispersed over the city. Using the exponential distribution of flows, we can then define multiple centers acting as sources or sinks depending on the time of day.

To examine further this polycentric structure, we will aggregate different stations if their inflow is large and they are spatially close to one another. Various clustering methods could be used and we choose one of the simplest described in the appendices. This clustering yields a hierarchical, descending decomposition of inflows with respect to an increasing share of the total inflow in the network. We summarize the results of this process in the dendrogram shown in Figure $4$.

```latex
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.9]{./figure4.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ {\bf Hierarchical organization of the
    activity: Polycenters.} Breakdown of centers in terms of
  underlying stations and inflows.  We gather stations by descending
  order of total inflow and we aggregate the stations to centers when
  taking into account more and more stations. In this process, all
  stations within $1,500$ meters of an already-defined center are
  aggregated to this main center. This yields the dendrogram shown
  here which highlights the hierarchical nature of the polycentric
  organization of this urban system. The bold names to the left of the
  aggregates --- such as ``\emph{West End}'' for the group of stations
  around Oxford Circus --- are used throughout the paper as convenient
  labels to denote the polycenters.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure*}
```

This dendrogram highlights the hierarchical organization of urban polycentricity. The number of centers is not an absolute quantity, but depends on an observation scale as measured here by the percentage of inflow. As we consider higher percentages of the total inflow, more centers are taken into account, which leads to centers as an aggregate of multiple sub-centers with smaller inflows. In other words, this is equivalent to saying that at large spatial scales, we observe one large center corresponding to the whole city, and when we decrease the scale of observation, multiple centers appear, which are themselves composed of smaller centers. This hierarchical nature is crucial and indicates that we cannot define a center by applying a threshold rule (e.g., an area is a center if the population or employment density is larger than some threshold ), but that it can only be defined according to a given scale.

We represent the ten most important polycenters defined in the dendrogram of Figure $4$, and show the corresponding propensity to anisotropy comparing actual flows with the null model defined above (see the appendices). This comparison shows that the actual flows are in general very different from what is obtained using the random null model. We study the relative orientation of the incoming flow (normalized by its corresponding quantity given by the null model) and picture it by eight-segment compasses, which we show in Figure $5$ on the central and inner London underground map.

```latex
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.5]{./figure5.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ {\bf The London subway (tube) system: polycenters and basins
    of attraction.} In the inset, we show the entire tube network
  while in the main figure, we zoom in on the central part of
  London. We represent the ten most important polycenters defined in
  the dendrogram of Figure~$3$, and show the corresponding propensity
  to anisotropy comparing actual flows with the null model defined in
  the text. A propensity of $1$ means that there is no deviation in a
  given direction with respect to the null model. Circles correspond
  to various levels of identical propensity values: the thicker circle
  in the middle corresponds to $1$, inner circles correspond to
  propensities of $0.2$ and $0.5$, and outer circles to $2$ and
  $5$. The anisotropy is essentially in opposite directions from the
  center, thus showing a strong bias towards the suburbs for
  peripheral centers essentially, rather than for central
  centers. Moreover, most stations control their own regions and seem
  to have their own distinctive basins of attraction.}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure*}
```

The absence of any bias would give a fully isotropic compass with all segments of radius equal to one (propensity equal to $1$). The anisotropy is essentially in opposite directions from the center, thus showing a strong bias towards the suburbs essentially for peripheral rather than for central centers.

We now examine how the flows are distributed into and outside centers, focusing on the morning peak hours. We first aggregate the flows by centers by computing the total flow incoming to a certain center $C$: $$w_{iC}=\sum_{j\in C}w_{ij}$$ In this aggregated view, we thus represent movements by a directed network where flows go from single stations (the "sources") to centers, which are groups of stations.

We then rank all flows $w_{iC}$ in a decreasing order, thereby focusing on paths of decreasing importance as if we were detailing a map starting with highways, then concentrating on roads, and then on streets. We consider the $N$ most important flows such that the corresponding sum of flows is a given percentage $W$ of the total flow in the network. For example, if we consider the flows up to $W=20\%$ of the total flow, we obtain the structure that we show in Figure $6$ (it should be noted that we kept the 'station-to-center' flows such that they represent $20\%$ of the total flow, which is different from keeping the most important station-to-station flows such as it is done for the Figure $4$ precisely in order to define those 'centers'. We thus cannot directly compare these Figures $4$ and $6$).

At this scale, it is clear that we have three main centers and sources (with various outdegree values), which mostly correspond to intermodal rail-subway connections. Adding more links, we reach a fraction $W =
40\%$ of the total flow and we then investigate smaller flows at a finer scale. We see that we have new sources appearing at this level and new connections from sources that were present at $W=20\%$.

We can summarize this result with the graph shown in Figure $7$ where we divide the centers into three groups according to their inflow (decreasing from first Group I to the last Group III).

In other words (see Figure $4$), Group I gathers centers with the most important *total* inflow namely the *West End*, *City* and *Mid-town*. Group II gathers the next three centers *Parliament*, *Government* and *Docklands* while Group III gathers the other centers such as the *Northern stations*, *West London*, *Museums* and the *Western stations*. This figure shows that for more than $80\%$ of the sources, the most important link (ie. the $1$st link) connects to a center of Group I. Conversely for more than $80\%$ of the sources, the least important link (ie. $10$th link) goes to a center of Group III. The flow structure thus follows an original yet simple pattern when we explore smaller and smaller weights.

We can quantify in a more precise way how the structure of flows evolves when we investigate smaller flows by exploring the list of flows $w_{iC}$ in decreasing order and by introducing the transition matrix $T$, which describes how the outdegree of a source varies with increasing $W$ (see Appendices). When we explore smaller flows, the analysis of the T-matrix shows that the pattern of connections from sources to centers becomes richer and more complex, but can nonetheless be described by the simple iterative process described above: the most important link of a source goes to the most important centers, the second most important link connects to the second most important centers, and so on. It is interesting to note that even if the organization of flows follows a simple iterative scheme, it leads to a complex and rich structure, which is not strictly hierarchical since it mixes different levels of flows consisting of different orders of magnitude. In addition, the fact that the most important flows always connect to the same center naturally leads to the question of efficiency and congestion in such a system. In this respect, London appears as a 'natural' city as opposed to an 'artificial' city for which flows would be constructed according to an optimized, hierarchical schema .

# Discussion

World cities such as London have tended to defy understanding hitherto because simple hierarchical subdivision has ignored the fact that their polycentricity subsumes a pattern of nested urban movements. Using the Oyster data we can identify multiple centers in London, then describe the traffic flowing into these centers as a simple hierarchic decomposition of multiple flows at various scales. In other words, these movements define a series of subcenters at different levels where the complex pattern of flows can be unpacked using our simple iterative scheme based on the representation of ever finer scales defined by smaller weights. Casual observation suggests that this kind of complexity might apply to other world cities such as Paris, New York or Tokyo where spatial structure tends to reveal patterns of polycentricity considerably more intricate than cities lower down the city size hierarchy. Our approach needs to be extended of course to other modes of travel, which will complement and enrich the analysis of polycentricity. The Oyster card is already used on buses and has just expanded beyond the tube system to cover other modes of travel such as surface rail in Greater London. With GPS traffic systems monitoring, in time, all such movements will be captured, extending our ability to understand and plan for the complexity that defines the contemporary city.

# Acknowledgments

The Oyster card data was collected by Transport for London (TfL), and we are grateful for their permission to use it in this paper. We also thank Cecilia Mascolo for access to TfL and the Oyster card data, and Andrew Hudson-Smith for providing the London underground map.

# Appendices

## Data

Our analysis of individual movements is based on a dataset describing the entire underground service between $31$ March $2008$ and $6$ April $2008$ encompassing a total of $11.22$ million trips from $2.03$ million individual Oyster card IDs. For each trip, the data includes the origin and destination for individual passengers as well as the corresponding time of the trip. We stress that the data we obtained from Transport for London (TfL) is completely anonymized without any possibility of trace back to individuals. Besides, we only have individual trajectories, but not the history of the trajectories over a long period of time which then could provide the capability of identifying individuals from the electoral register and business directories. From this dataset, we build the (origin/destination) flow matrix $w_{ij}$, which gathers the aggregated number of rides leaving a station $i$ to a station $j$ over a given period of time. The analysis of these flow matrices in several time intervals for every single day in the dataset shows that the commuting patterns during weekdays present a regular and distinctive pattern in contrast to travel at weekends. As a result, we focus our study on the commuting patterns during weekdays.

## The null model, propensity, and anisotropy

*The null model*

The subway infrastructure imposes a certain number of physical constraints which can affect various distributions. This is for example the case of the ride distribution where rides between two stations with large outflow and inflow, respectively, are likely to be over-represented. As such the ride distribution could simply be a result of the peculiar subway spatial structure. In order to eliminate this type of biases, we use for comparison a null-model constructed in the following way. We randomize rides in a such a way that the total outflow and total inflow of each station is conserved while actual ride extremities are reshuffled. This model is basically a configuration model which preserves the total number of incoming and outgoing links for each station and where each link corresponds to a given ride. Put differently, the random setting corresponds to a flow matrix (obtained here by an average over $100$ random simulations) that should normally occur given particular out- and in-flow heterogeneity at stations, irrespective of agent preferences.

*The ride propensity*

We can then divide the real values of flows $w_{ij}$ by the random flow matrix which yields an estimate of how much the real data deviates from a random setting (at fixed inflow-outflow constraints). For the ride distribution we then obtain the *ride propensity* $R$ shown in Figure $1b$ $$R(d)=\frac{1}{N(d)}\sum_{ij/d(i,j)=d}\frac{w_{ij}}{w^{nm}_{ij}}$$ where $w^{nm}_{ij}$ is the number of individuals going from $i$ to $j$ in the null model, $d(i,j)$ represents the distance on the network between $i$ and $j$, and where $N(d)$ is the number of pairs of nodes at distance $d$. This propensity gives an estimate of how much the real data deviates from a random flow assignment with the same geographical and flow constraints. In other words, when the propensity is equal to one the observed flows are entirely due to the geographical and flow structure of the network. Conversely when the propensity is smaller or larger than $1$, the flows reflect non-uniform preferences for rides of certain distance.

*The anisotropy propensity*

We used the null model in order to extract the part due to the behavior of the commuters in their ride distribution. We can also study the relative orientation of the incoming flow normalized by its corresponding quantity given by the null model which gives the anisotropy $A$ due to the commuters behavior $$A(\theta)=\frac{1}{N(\theta)}\sum_{ij/\widehat{iOj}=\theta}\frac{w_{ij}}{w^{nm}_{ij}}$$ where $\theta$ is a particular direction (we binned the angle in eight equal intervals so to represent an eight-segment compass) and where the sum is over the $N(\theta)$ nodes $i$ and $j$ such that the angle of $i-j$ is given by $\theta$. The absence of any bias would give a fully isotropic compass with all segments of radius equal to one (anisotropy propensity equal to $1$).

## Identifying the polycenters

Clustering methods for point in spaces has been the subject of many studies and are used in many different fields. In particular, in computational biology and bioinformatics, clustering is used to build group of genes with related expression patterns. Many different methods were developped and the most common ones are hierarchical clustering methods (such as those based on K-means and their derivatives, see for example ). Here, we are in a slightly different position. The stations are clearly located in space and thus Euclidean distance appears as the natural distance measure (a necessary ingredient for clustering methods). Yet these stations are also characterized by their inflow. For this reason, the usual methods are not directly applicable and we thus adopted the simplest clustering method which we describe as follows. We first gather stations by descending order of total inflow, thereby defining centers of decreasing importance. In order to account for geographical proximity of groups of stations, indicating subsets of distinct stations belonging to a single geographical center, we aggregate all stations within a distance $r_c$ of an already-defined center. In this way we systematically increase the total flow associated with these centers and we continue this process until we capture a large percentage of the total flow. We thus chose to stop at $60$ percent of the total flow in order to avoid to include too many details and too much noise.

We varied the value of $r_c$ from $1$ to $2$ kms and observed that our results were stable. This stability probably comes from the fact that the inter-distance station is of order $1.2$kms for London in $2008$ and corresponds to some psychological threshold above which individuals prefer to take the subway if they can choose. The results discussed above are obtained with $r_c=1500$ meters.

## The T matrix

We face here a difficult problem: we have a complete weighted directed network featuring flows from stations to centers, and the goal is to extract some meaningful information. We started with the analysis of the dominant flows and we would like to understand how the flows are structured when we explore smaller values. In order to do this, we introduce a 'transition 'matrix $T$ which characterizes quantitatively the changes in the flow structure when we explore the list of flows $w_{iC}$ going from a station $i$ to a center $C$ in decreasing order of importance. In what follows, when we talk of 'total flow at $W$', we mean that we consider only the most important flows $w_{iC}$ so that we reach a total fraction $W$ of the total flow on the whole network of station-to-center flows. When the total flow goes from $W$ to $W+\delta W$, the elements $t_{ij}$ of $T$ represent the number of sources with outdegree $i$ at $W$ and with outdegree $j$ at $W+\delta W$. Note that $i$ starts at $i=0$ while $j$ starts at $j=1$ ( $T$ only denotes sources that have a strictly positive outdegree at $W+\delta W$).

As an example, when we go from $W=20\%$ to $W+\Delta W=40\%$, the $T$ matrix is $$T=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
37 & 12 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
4  & 9  & 4 & 1 & 0\\
0  & 4  & 2 & 1 & 2\\
0  & 0  & 0 & 2 & 1\\
0  & 0  & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0  & 0  & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eq:tt}$$

The matrix $T$ is composed of three parts (see Figure $8$).

The first part, $A$, consists of new sources appearing when we increase the total flow, and corresponds to the first line of $t_{ij}$ where $i=0$. The second part, $S$, consists of sources where the outdegree stays invariant when we change from $W$ to $W +\delta W$ (i.e., the diagonal $t_{ii}$). The third part, $M$, consists of sources that were already present at the $W$ level and the outdegree changes during the process from $W$ to $W + \delta W$ (i.e., the upper triangle $t_{ij}$ where $j>i$). We can compute the number of sources in each of these types and plot them. A proper $T$ matrix is a $(N+1)\times N$ matrix (in Eq. , $N=5$), as the $T$ matrix is made of a row vector ($A$) and an upper triangular matrix ($S$, $M$ and the zeros) because a source that feeds $n$ centers cannot become a source feeding $n'<n$ centers when transitioning to a larger inflow-cut $W+dW$. The row vector $A$ indicates sources that were not feeding centers before, and now feed some centers, , sources that were non-existent for a lower inflow-cut, hence the extra initial row represented by vector $A$. Thus, '$37$' means that after the transition (at the new inflow-cut), there are $37$ new sources feeding one center, $12$ new sources feeding two, $1$ new source feeding three. The '$9$' on the second row means that $9$ sources that used to feed one center, now feed two, and so on. The row $A$ is thus given by $$A=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
37 & 12 & 1 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)$$ and the diagonal is $$S=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
4 & 4 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)$$ The upper triangular matrix $M$ is given by $$M=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
9 & 4 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 2 & 1 & 2\\
0 & 0 & 2 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\end{array}
\right)$$

In the case of the transition $20\%\rightarrow 40\%$, the major phenomenon is the appearance of new sources ($37$ in this case) followed by sources feeding new centers.

Figure $9$a shows the number of new sources ($A$ in the matrix $T$) and the sources that change type ($S$).

We observe that there is a continuous addition of new sources along with connections to new and old centers. Besides, for a total flow less than $50\%$, there is a relatively stable proportion of sources (about $20\%$) whose outdegree varies when $W$ increases. When we zoom into finer scales (i.e., larger values of the total flow $W$), new sources appear and connect preferentially to the existing largest centers, while the existing sources connect to the new centers through secondary connections. This yields two types of connection only. The first type goes from new sources to old centers, and the second type from old sources to new centers.


abstract: I have developed a pedagogy and textbook for teaching logic centered on what I call "logical worldviews". A logical worldview examines the close connection between philosophical commitments and the logical principles and method for a particular historical logical system. The class examines multiple historical logical worldviews to show how philosophical positions and logical systems have been closely intertwined, and how changes in philosophical positions have over time yielded corresponding changes in the development of logic. Such an approach has great benefits for teaching logic to undergraduates.
author: Creighton Rosental
title: Teaching Logics through Their Philosophical Commitments: "Logical Worldviews"

# A "New" Approach to Teaching Logic to Undergraduates: Logical Worldviews

Since 2006, I have developed an approach to teaching logic to undergraduate philosophy majors that bases logic instruction in the philosophical background underpinning historic logical systems. Starting in 2013, I expanded this pedagogical approach to a general education introductory logic class, which is open to students of any major and at any stage of their college career. This curricular development has culminated in a textbook designed for an introductory logic course that can be used by teachers with minimal or no experience in the history of logic.

In the textbook I present a re-contextualization of classical formal logic as just one of many approaches to logic, each having its own philosophical commitments and unique value. I suggest that there is more to logic than is construed by only considering its contemporary formal aspects; after all, formalism in mathematics and logic is a relatively recent innovation, adopted in part because of other, non-mathematical considerations and commitments.

I hold that the history of logical thought includes a series of logics, or logical systems, each of which has non-formal philosophical commitments. I further hold that these commitments are not separate and independent add-ons to the logical system, but that the logical method and fundamental principles of the system are shaped and determined by these commitments. Though a historical logic can be considered formally and in the abstract, such a perspective yields an inaccurate account of what the logical system was intended to do by its author, of the true power of its methods of reasoning, and of the precise meaning of the logical principles employed. When the logical system is considered in conjunction with the intertwined philosophical commitments, I characterize this broader conceptualization as a "logical worldview."

# Using Philosophy to Better Understand a Logical System

It will be useful at this point to consider a particular example, and Aristotle is perhaps the best place to start: after all, as the first to fully develop a logical worldview, many later logics were (as I present in the textbook) a response to rejecting one or more Aristotelian philosophical commitments. What follows is a very brief (and incomplete) characterization of some of the philosophical commitments in Aristotle's logic.[^1]

-   Theory of truth: Correspondence. Propositions are true if and only if they correspond to how the world actually is; false otherwise. Somewhat anachronistically, we might refer to propositions as being true if and only if they correspond to facts about the world. This view also includes bivalence – propositions are either true or false.[^2]

-   Access to truth: Direct Realism. Human beings can directly access the world, and the properties and entities they perceive are (generally, in principle) the same as the actual properties and entities that exist in the world.[^3]

-   Theory of mind: Simple Apprehension and Judgment. The human mind has a capacity to discern the true properties of things. Further, we are capable of abstracting from particular properties to universal forms shared by more than one individual entity, and recombining such forms in the imagination and in memory. Finally, we can combine previously unseen combinations of forms and judge whether or not such propositions correspond to reality. [^4]

-   Metaphysics: Substances, Forms and a Hierarchical Ontology. In Aristotle's account, the world is constituted by individual entities, or primary substances, each of which has a number of properties, or forms. Substances can be grouped together into secondary substances, or species, for which some forms are essential, others not. Species can be grouped together into a higher-order grouping, or genus, which have their own essential forms. Collectively the interconnection of species and genus through essential forms constitutes a hierarchical ontology, which is rationally discernible.[^5]

In my textbook I explain how these (and other) features of Aristotle's philosophical worldview determine the specifics of his formal logic. I'll sketch this dependence briefly here.

First, individual substances and their forms are the fundamental perceivable elements of reality. Collectively, these are referred to as "terms", which are the atoms of Aristotle's logical system.

Second, propositions are assertions about the actual facts of the world. Any fact will fundamentally involve two components: an identified subject and one of its forms. Since propositions correspond to these fundamental facts, every proposition will have only two terms: a subject term (what the proposition is about), and a predicate term (what is being said of that subject).

Third, through experience, induction, abstraction, and natural talent, humans are capable of discerning some of the essential qualities of substances. This allows us to generalize beyond particular substances to be able to quantify the scope of the assertion (all, some, one) and whether the subject and predicate are linked (affirmation) or separated (denial).

Fourth, through our capacity to discern the ontological structure of reality, we are able (in principle) to choose any two propositions and connect them by means of something in the hierarchy that links them (a middle term). The fundamental form of reasoning from one proposition (with two terms) and another (sharing one of those terms) is through a bridge proposition, sharing a "middle" term with our premise and conclusion. This is the minimum size of an argument productive of new knowledge, and thus the syllogistic form must have three propositions sharing exactly three distinct terms.

This is a rough and quick sketch of how Aristotle's philosophical commitments determine the form of his logical method, which culminates in the syllogism. This perspective on Aristotle's logical worldview also helps to explain many other curiosities about Aristotle's logic that have perplexed many trying to understand his logic. I can't get into them in detail here, but here are a few positions in Aristotle's logic that are explained by considering his philosophical commitments.

-   Reduction to the first figure. Rather than be satisfied with identifying valid syllogistic moods, he takes great pains to reduce them to four figure one moods. He does so because he believes that these four moods are the fundamental natural and self-evident reasoning patterns for human beings.[^6]

-   The missing fourth figure and two moods. In inventorying valid moods, Aristotle neglects to identify two valid moods in figure one and figure four altogether. These moods do not fit the " natural" reasoning patterns determined by Aristotle's view and are thus neglected as inappropriate forms of human reason.[^7]

-   Existential import. Many have found that Aristotle's inference that "All S are P" implies " Some S is P" to be logically invalid. However, given his philosophical commitments, no universal claim could ever be made without first establishing the truth of the particular, so the truth of the universal will always imply the particular.

Though this exposition of this logical worldview is seriously abridged, it should demonstrate that the form, method and logical principles of Aristotle's logic are heavily dependent on Aristotle's philosophical commitments. Those who wish to teach Aristotle's logic to students can use the logical worldview in order to have Aristotle's logic make much more sense to students, and show how his logic is closely connected to many of Aristotle's other philosophical positions.

# Using Philosophical Commitments to Explain Transitions from One Logical System to Another

I'll briefly discuss how later logical systems can be understood as having rejected or modified some part or other of Aristotle's logical worldview. I'm not suggesting that these later logics were the result of simply abandoning some philosophical commitment or other of Aristotle's; rather, by rejecting one or more commitments, new opportunities for logical method are opened up, which in combination with some innovations led to new ways to do and conceive logic. I'll briefly consider here two logical worldviews post-Aristotle.

*Bacon's rejection of Aristotle's theory of mind: a motivation for natural history and modern natural sciences.* In Bacon's *New Organon*, he takes Aristotelian philosophers to task for relying too heavily on our natural capacity to understand the forms present in reality and argues that nature is far too subtle for our unaided sensory and cognitive capacities. He argues that we must develop new instruments to enhance our senses (microscopes, thermometers, etc.) and to enhance our cognitive discernment of what we are seeing by means of experiments.[^8] Since our capacity to naturally discern the forms in reality is flawed, we must develop a new logical technique, which is basically induction from a very large number of particular instances towards generalizations of increasing universality and confidence.[^9] Therefore, the syllogism, which relies on gathering information about forms and then deducing new truths is for Bacon the wrong logical method. Bacon does not reject Aristotle's other philosophical commitments mentioned above, and to varying degrees and with some modification, the natural sciences still endorse a correspondence theory of truth, a capacity to discern forms of substances, and a hierarchical ontology.

*Boole's rejection of Aristotle's Direct Realism and metaphysics: an effort to mathematize logic.* To a great extent Newton's mathematical approach to physics follows similar rejections as Boole, but for the sake of what will soon become clear, Boole's contribution to logic is easier to present to students. Starting with the Early Modern philosophers in the 17th century and culminating in the modern approach to science in the 19th, the rejection of Direct Realism became fairly common. Philosophers were no longer inclined to believe that we had direct access to the substances and forms through our senses exactly as they are in reality. Because we lacked the capacity to see the world as it actually was, Boole changed the focus of logic from terms to classes in his seminal work The Laws of Thought. Instead of the logical atom being a term, which required discerning the true forms of individuals, he made the fundamental element the class, a collection of individuals gathered in some (perhaps unknowable, perhaps arbitrary) way. One could identify a class without having to know exactly what was required for membership. His particular brilliance was to show that the logical method of Aristotle could be encompassed within an algebra for classes. By shifting from term to class, Boole needed a new logical method, which he found in algebra. Though Boole mathematized logic, one should note that he did not abandon Aristotle's philosophical commitments completely: he still largely conceived of reality as being metaphysically ordered in a hierarchy, and also that truth was established by correspondence. Further, he did believe that he had discovered the "laws of thought": the actual laws by which human minds reasoned, maintaining a close link between logic and theory of mind.[^10]

I hope that these two brief sketches outline how disparate logical systems in history may appear to be radically different, but that their differences are in part due to rejecting or modifying some basic philosophical (and non-logical) positions. These transitions can show students that historical logics are not useless or obsolete; instead, they are evolutionary predecessors to later logics (and ultimately contemporary classical logic). [^11] These historical logics can still be valuable and useful to the contemporary student, should one embrace the philosophical commitments underlying the logical worldview.

Over the years, I have taught and analyzed a number of different historical logical systems and perspectives by means of a close examination of their philosophical commitments. In addition to those systems mentioned above, I have found that at least the following logical approaches can be analyzed in this way: Medieval faith and reason, propositional and predicate logic, mathematical physics (a la Newton), Ancient/Medieval problem of universals, nominalism, Leibniz's logical innovations, logical fatalism, logical atomism, logicism, and the theory of relations. I anticipate many more, if not most, historical logics and logical issues would also be amenable to this pedagogical approach.

# Pedagogical Benefits of Teaching Logical Worldviews

In teaching introductory formal logic to undergraduates one may have encountered the following scenario: those students who have an affinity to formal reasoning (e.g. math, computer science, and science students) take rather well to logic, but other students (e.g. humanities and social science students) struggle. This should not be too surprising, given the mathematical basis for contemporary formal logic. But what to do with those students left behind? And though the power and flexibility of formal logic is well demonstrated, especially relative to earlier approaches to logic (such as Aristotelian logic), students that are not mathematically inclined find formal logic both confusing and limiting. Such students may be capable of reasoning well, and may have a great deal of experience and success in reasoning, but often find that their previously successful reasoning practices are not well captured by the methods found in classical formal logic. One solution to this mis-fit is addressed by courses in informal logic (sometimes called "critical thinking"). And though such an approach to reasoning more closely fits the more natural, intuitive, and practical forms of reasoning of interest to many college students, it typically achieves this result by minimizing or avoiding formal reasoning altogether.

The contemporary setting of formal logic in introductory undergraduate education is a difficult, if not paradoxical one. Students not already open to formal reasoning often find formal logic not very " useful", and many struggle to see the value or purpose of learning it. This is further compounded when formal logic is taught by philosophy departments, a discipline that otherwise frequently engages in applied reasoning in a variety of fields of contemporary relevance (science, religion, art, ethics, etc.), and in " big" questions that are quite meaningful to students in their lives ("What is the meaning of life?" "What is the best life one can live?" "What is the right thing to do?"). It is rare for a logic class to turn from the study of formal reasoning methods to connecting those to issues of current interest ("informal" or philosophical reasoning), and so students who do ultimately learn formal logic have great difficulty applying their new skills to questions of particular interest to them, unless they continue on with more advanced philosophy courses.

By understanding logical systems and methods in the context of their philosophical commitments, students are exposed to the close connection between logic and philosophy. They learn why logic has the method it does, which helps them engage and understand the material more deeply than simply challenging them to master the mathematical methods of contemporary formal logic. Further, students learning logical worldviews are more capable of knitting together formal logic and " informal" or philosophical reasoning, as these approaches are explicitly linked. Finally, logical worldviews demonstrate how logic is closely connected to philosophy, and it is rather easy to introduce philosophical questions of interest to students in the midst of learning a logical system.[^12]

# Benefits of Teaching Logical Worldviews to History of Philosophy

Most logic textbooks, and by implication, most undergraduate logic classes teach a system of formal logic developed in the 20th century (except, in some cases, a cursory examination of syllogistic reasoning). This approach to logic has some disturbing implications for the 2,500 years of philosophical reasoning that preceded the 20th century. The considerate student (as well as many professors) may draw any or all of the following conclusions about pre-20th century logical reasoning:

1.  Logic from these time periods was either wrong, incomplete, or unacceptably limited in scope and methods. After all, if such logics were suitable, why develop contemporary formal logic that encompasses and surpasses such logics?

2.  By extension from this first point, philosophical reasoning based on earlier logics could similarly be considered to be flawed, obsolete, or otherwise useless. Some schools of philosophical thought have explicitly embraced this perspective (e.g. the Logical Positivists); today, this perspective is often implicit in attitudes about historical philosophy from a wide variety of fields (every so often one will make such an assertion explicitly, as Stephen Hawking recently did).[^13]

3.  Many contemporary philosophers (students and professors) educated in contemporary formal logic enough to use it to parse examples of natural reasoning will use it to parse examples of philosophical reasoning that pre-dates mathematical logic. This is anachronistic to say the least, and results in a misleading conception of the actual reasoning made by these historic figures. Further, it is likely to construe historical philosophy in a bad light, since it makes it appear that these historical figures engaged regularly in invalid reasoning for most of the intellectual history of Western thought.

For some, these considerations are not of much concern: many do, in fact, believe that history is rife with examples of bad reasoning, just as up to the scientific revolution, history was plagued with examples of bad science. This perspective is reinforced by the (mostly legitimate) observation that some of history's most highly regarded philosophical reasoners seem to have made grave errors in their knowledge claims (Aristotle is a significant target here).

In math and science an ahistorical perspective may be appropriate: after all, most science and math textbooks teach the completed current state of knowledge, not the long and difficult (and in many cases wrong) path that led us here. Outside of these fields, however, the value of accurately understanding past perspectives is more apparent: many areas of study in the humanities and social sciences to this day engage well-reasoned theories dating back to Ancient Greece.

Setting concerns about history of philosophy aside, a large number of people presently endorse Aristotle's philosophical commitments enumerated above and teachers would likely find that most of those people would have little problem with syllogistic reasoning. In contrast, I expect that most teachers of logic find that many students find much of contemporary formal logic counter-intuitive and alien to how they reason. In contrast, logical worldviews can help the logic teacher show that in certain philosophical contexts, particular historic logics may be the best approach; but that should those philosophical commitments be rejected or disproved in other reasoning contexts, different logics are called for. A student's intuitive reasoning can be embraced rather than replaced, which would certainly seem to be a desirable outcome for a logic class.

# Benefits for the Teacher of Logic

I'd like to finish up by discussing a few benefits for the logic teacher who adopts this approach. I've designed the textbook to contain a number of different modules, each examining a different logical worldview. As I complete more modules, the textbook will fill up with a fair number of unique instances of logical systems spanning the last 2,500 years. Each module contains several key components: (1) an inventory of the philosophical commitments of the logical system; (2) a trace of the connection between the philosophical commitments and the development and form of the logical method and principles employed; (3) an introduction and discussion of some interesting philosophical issues that arise under this worldview.

Each module is designed to be teachable by those with only a minimal expertise in the history of philosophy.[^14] The characterization of a logical worldview does depend on a historical interpretation of the philosophy and logic under study, but a background in historical scholarship is not required in order to understand or teach the main components of each module. Instead, anyone with a good background in philosophy should be able to comprehend and easily teach the first and third components (inventory of philosophical commitments, and linkage to philosophical issues). The second component of each module (tracing the connection between the philosophy and the logic) is more subtle and complex, but should be within reach for anyone experienced in teaching logic.

Modules are designed to be able to be taught independently, although many are closely related to others. This allows the teacher to pick and choose a path through the history of logic, and thereby emphasize the impact of different philosophical views on the development of logic and/or our understanding of certain logical concepts and methods. For example, in a logic class that culminates in teaching propositional and predicate logic, one might start with Aristotle and then pick modules that progressively show how logic became more mathematical and abstract (by for instance, selecting logical worldviews of Leibniz, Boole and Russell as transitional modules). On the other hand, a course interested in the logic of the scientific method might feature the logical worldviews of Aristotle, Medieval faith and reason, Bacon, and Newton.

In conclusion, I have found this approach to be of great benefit to students and to myself by expanding teaching of logic beyond the boundaries of formal methods and systems. Students seem to derive a deeper understanding of logic by seeing how it connects with other philosophical positions. Further, this approach helps make logic more comprehensible to the broad pool of students who are either disinclined or not well suited towards the strictly formal, mathematical approaches to teaching logic so commonly taught today.

[^1]: Here and throughout this paper, I present the philosophical views in an introductory and casual manner, to match the form in which they are presented in the textbook. Though some of these Aristotelian interpretations are contested by scholars of Aristotle, a close and well-defended history of Aristotle's logical and philosophical positions would not be to the point. What matters for the sake of this pedagogical approach is that philosophically and historically inexperienced students see that Aristotle's logical system is amenable to being better understood by framing it in terms of philosophical positions that Aristotle (plausibly) held.

[^2]: See Aristotle *Categories* chapter 14.

[^3]: See Aristotle *de Anima*, particularly Book II chapter 12 through Book III chapter 4.

[^4]: See Aristotle *On Interpretation* chapter 1 and Posterior Analytics Book II chapter 19.

[^5]: See Aristotle *Categories*; also *Metaphysics.*

[^6]: See Aristotle *Prior Analytics* Book II chapters 1-15.

[^7]: For a good discussion of this issue see Lynn E. Rose, " Aristotle's Syllogistic and the Fourth Figure," *Mind* vol. 74, no. 295 (July 1965): 382-389.

[^8]: He makes this case over the course of Book I.

[^9]: This technique is laid out in Book II.

[^10]: See Boole *The Laws of Thought* chapter 1. As an interesting philosophical divergence into the history of computing and artificial intelligence, I often have students learn and discuss the development of logic machines in the 1870s following Boole's logical system. These machines prompted a brief but lively debate amongst American logicians such as C. S. Peirce as to whether machines that followed the laws of thought actually were thinking. (see C. S. Peirce, "Logical Machines," *The American Journal of Psychology*, vol. 1, no. 1 (Nov. 1887): 165-170) The view seemed generally to be in the affirmative. Eventually, however, those doing algebra of logic dropped their commitment to linking logic to laws of thinking. (see, for example, chapter 1 in Louis Couturat, *The Algebra of Logic* (Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 1914))

[^11]: By the way, in my textbook I use logical worldviews to show how contemporary propositional logic results from abandoning a commitment to a correspondence theory of truth and the resulting modification of the algebraic method of Boole's logic. This philosophical position is partly inspired by formalism – often identified with Giuseppe Peano and many of his Italian colleagues. See Paolo Mancosu, Richard Zach, and Calixto Badesa, "The Development of Mathematical Logic from Russell to Tarski, 1900-1935" in *The Development of Modern Logic*, edited by Leila Haaparanta, p. 318-470. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

[^12]: For example, students can explore logical fatalism (and their more philosophically interesting versions concerning free will and determinism or divine foreknowledge) by exploring the consequences of Aristotle's commitment to a correspondence theory of truth and bivalence. Also, students can better understand Anselm's ontological argument and Guanilo's reply by seeing how Anselm's position is grounded in Aristotle's own reductio proofs, and Guanilo's on Aristotle's theory of mind and direct realism.

[^13]: See Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, *The Grand Design* (New York: Bantam Books, 2010) chapter 1: "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

[^14]: As mentioned earlier, this involves presenting a simplistic interpretation which historians of philosophy might find unsupported by sufficient research and scholarship. However, most textbooks are likely subject to the same complaint, and thus this publication genre permits, if not requires, such oversimplification.