Graduate studies at Western
Theoria 18 (2):171-177 (2003)
|Abstract||The time-honored view that logic is a non-empirical enterprise is still widely accepted, but it is not always recognized that there are (at least) two distinct ways in which this view can be made precise. One way focuses on the knowledge we can have of logical matters, the other on the nature of the logical consequence relation itself. More specifically; the first way embodies the claim that knowledge of whether the logical consequence relation holds in a particular case is knowledge that can be had a priori (if at all). The second way presupposes a distinction between structural and non-structural properties and relations, and it holds that logical consequence is to be defined exdusively in terms of the former. It is shown that the two ways are not coextensive by giving an example of a logic that is non-empirical in the second way but not in the first|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Otávio Bueno & Scott A. Shalkowski (2009). Modalism and Logical Pluralism. Mind 118 (470):295-321.
Corine Besson (2009). Logical Knowledge and Gettier Cases. Philosophical Quarterly 59 (234):1-19.
Manuel Bremer (2008). Transcendental Logic Redefined. Review of Contemporary Philosophy 7.
Jc Beall & Greg Restall (2000). Logical Pluralism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (4):475 – 493.
Jc Beall & Greg Restall (2006). Logical Pluralism. Oxford University Press.
William H. Hanson (1999). Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):605-616.
Nick Zangwill (2010). Science and Ethics: Demarcation, Holism and Logical Consequences. European Journal of Philosophy 18 (1):126-138.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #107,564 of 740,407 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,454 of 740,407 )
How can I increase my downloads?