Abstract:History in fast-forward.Logic and argumentation are a natural combination.Though the precise origins of logic are hidden in the mists of antiquity, reflection on patterns in legal or philosophical debate may have been one of the driving forces in the genesis of the discipline.But afterwards, the main emphasis over time shifted to consequence relations in an abstract universe of propositions, and the formal systems to which these give rise.Though contacts were never lost entirely between logic and the realities of discussion and debate, the twentieth century saw a deep split.Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958) pointed out how actual reasoning may be more like weaving a piece of cloth from many threads than forging a chain with links in linear mathematical proof style, and rhetoric and informal logic then took their own course.Likewise, Toulmin (1958) made a powerful case of how legal procedure and functional schemas -'formalities' rather than logical form -may be the best paradigm for understanding argumentation.Both critics have inspired follow-up frameworks that continue to flourish today (cf.Walton and Krabbe 1995;van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004).But this split was not inevitable, and it was not forever.Already Lorenzen (1955) used innovative game-theoretical models of dialogue to investigate the foundations of logic, and in more recent times, Dung (1995) introduced formal models of argumentation in a setting of Artificial Intelligence, which turned out to have strong connections to computational logics.Gabbay's programme.Dov Gabbay believes that the interface with argumentation may be the last frontier, where modern logic finds its proper generality and impact on human reasoning practice (cf.Gabbay and Woods 2002).Over the past decade, he has developed a paradigm of networks that applies to reasoning at many levels, from unconscious neural nets in the brain to conscious reasoning of many kinds.As the three papers in this issue show, there is a wealth of substance here, as will be clear to any reader of 'Equational Approach to Argumentation Networks', 'Temporal, Numerical and Meta-Level Dynamics in Argumentation Networks' and 'Model and Temporal Argumentation Networks'.Gabbay's networks unify across different fields, from logic programmes to dynamical systems.They also come with interesting technical properties, including an equational algebraic analysis of connection strength, where stable states can be found by applying the Brouwer fixed-point theorem.Moreover, when network activity is studied as proceeding over time, logic returns at a higher level, too -as a description for the resulting behaviours, and various interesting new modal and temporal languages have emerged in this investigation by Gabbay and his coworkers, as demonstrated in the papers just mentioned.Clearly, this is an immense intellectual space to explore, and at the same time, Gabbay has engaged in an impressive community-building effort, through a stream of books and papers, including handbooks that pull separate research clans together.If you asked me, my stated opinion

Logic in Practice

Logic in Games

A Mini-Guide to Logic in Action

Logic:A Growing and Changing Concept

Logic Modelling

Logic in Mathematics and Computer Science

Logic considered fun

Logical Dynamics Meets Logical Pluralism?

Logic As Programming

The Gamut of Dynamic Logics

The Nets of Reason

The Logic Is an Ax——What's the Logic and Why should We Study the Logic

Logic in A Social Setting

Where is Logic Going, and Should It?

Teaching Logic for Computer Science: Are We Teaching the Wrong Narrative?

Computational logic: its origins and applications

The logic of practice

Logic, Mind and Cognition——On the Development of Logic in the post-Frege Time

Logic and Reasoning: Do the Facts Matter?

Interatomic potentials for atomistic simulations of the Ti-Al system