Q:

Aristotelian logic vs. propositional logic and other controversies in philosophical logic

As we all know until late XIX century, only offical logic was the Aristotelian logic. Also it's known fact that many scholars were aware of existance of propositional logic and disregarded it ex catedra. I'm looking for some reference regarding examples of irrational resistance against some new ideas in logic. In particular I'm looking not only for some kind of survey about this topic but also for some anecdotes and stories about it.

A:

It's a bit of an exageration to say that there was a clear consensus regarding Aristotelian logic up through the late 19th century.
Throughout the middle ages, scholars argued over the correct interpretation of Aristotle's Organon.  SEP has a nice summary in its article, Medieval Theories of the Syllogism.  In particular, Peter of Abelard held there were multiple forms of negation and rejected the logical equivalence of "extinctive" double negation in certain cases (here's an excerpt from the Cambridge Companion to Abelard regarding his logic).
Abelard also embraced a form of relevance logic: the idea that in an argument the premises must somehow relate to the conclusion.  This anticipates formal relevance logic in the 20th century; see SEP for details.  Subsequently Abelard and other medieval logicians tended to reject ex contradictione quodlibet, otherwise known as Hilbert's "Principle of Explosion".  Graham Priest has a brief history of this in his SEP entry on Paraconsistent Logic.
A related to semantic issue is the slow adoption of the truth functional interpretation of logical connectives.  While this was embraced by Stoics (along with bivalence), it was essentially forgotten by the middle ages.  As consequentialist readings of Aristotle came to dominate, it eventually found a resurgence.
Modal logic was also a point of contention for the ancients.  Under modern interpretations of modal logic, it seems that Aristotle's ideas regarding the validity and invalidity of certain BARBARA patterns make no sense (here is a little exposition on this).
Finally, bivalence was not universally accepted - the Catuskoti can be understood as a precursor to modern Dunn/Belnap 4 valued logic.

