[kiriakasis]

They do not have monopoly, but have a right to a technical usage, which in this case is just short for formal logic.

As far as I know there is no formal equivalent of Hegel's logic. This is not a criticism (my favourite thinker is Jung) but is still a relevant distinction.

[claudiawerner]

Of course, though my point was about the term "logic" in general rather than "formal logic". I am happy to say that Hegel's logic isn't a formal logic, but it's not exactly what we know to be "informal logic" either (i.e arguments and fallacies). Funnily enough, a Boolean opposition between formal and informal logic doesn't seem to include the full range of possible values...

[YorkshireSeason]

Nobody has a monopoly of meaning.

Ultimately meaning closely tracks use. But if you want to maximise the probability of being understood, then it's wise to use a term in the way that the audience you are talking to is using it. And on a comp-sci centric site like Hacker News, that means to understand "logic" in the sense of formally valid truth-preserving inferences. All the more so since the post I was replying to, and my own clearly were arguing about formal logic.

As an aside, there have been attempts at formalising logical approaches a little more in the tradition of Hegel [1], maybe started in earnest by Paul Lorenzen. But this only got real traction in the 1990s with Girard's linear logic [2] game semantics of logic [3]. The tradition of game semantics is firmly within the Fregean tradition of logic as formal logic.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-dialogical/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_logic

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_semantics