Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In Defence Of The Dog: Response To Restall

  • Chapter
Book cover Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science

Part of the book series: Logic, Epistemology, And The Unity Of Science ((LEUS,volume 1))

Abstract

Greg Restall challenges the relevantist to explain the Dog's reasoning in pursuing the Man down the right fork, having only verified that the Man did not take the left fork. I do so, showing thereby not only what the relevantist must mean by validity, but why Restall's pluralism is an incoherent and untenable position.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Read, S.: 1988, Relevant Logic, Oxford, Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, S.: 1998, ‘The Irrelevance of the Concept of Relevance to the Concept of Relevant Consequence’, Conference on Knowledge, Logic, Information, Darmstadt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, S.: 1981a, ‘Validity and the Intensional Sense of ‘and’ ’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59, 301–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, S.: 1981b, ‘What is Wrong with Disjunctive Syllogism?’, Analysis 41, 66–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restall, G.: 2002, ‘Carnap's Tolerance, Meaning and Logical Pluralism’, Journal of Philosophy 99, 426–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restall, G.: 2001, ‘Constructive Logic, Truth and Warranted Assertability’, The Philosophical Quarterly 51, 474–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restall, G.: 2004, ‘Logical Pluralism and the Preservation of Warrant’, this volume, pp. 163–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Restall, G.: 1997, ‘Paraconsistent Logics!’, Bulletin of the Section of Logic of the Polish Academy of Sciences 26, 156–163.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Logic and Metaphysics, University of St Andrews, Fife KY16 8RA, Scotland, U.K

    Stephen Read

Authors
  1. Stephen Read
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. King's College London, U.K.

    Dov M. Gabbay

  2. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

    Jean Paul van Bendegem

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Read, S. (2009). In Defence Of The Dog: Response To Restall. In: Rahman, S., Symons, J., Gabbay, D.M., Bendegem, J.P.v. (eds) Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Logic, Epistemology, And The Unity Of Science, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2808-3_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2808-3_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2486-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2808-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation