I'm a little disconcerted by the fact that no-one involved in this is a mathematician, full stop. At least three of those involved seem to have joint appointments in math and philosophy (Antonelli, Arana, and Avigad). While the aim of the text to be suitable for non-mathematician philosophy majors means that a heavy bias towards philosophers is probably both inevitable and correct, I would like to see at least one just-mathematician to make sure that it really deserves its description as mathematical logic.
(Maybe I am being unfair to those jointly appointed. I am a mathematician, but not a logician, so I don't have a proper sense of what such an appointment means.)
(Maybe I am being unfair to those jointly appointed. I am a mathematician, but not a logician, so I don't have a proper sense of what such an appointment means.)