David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavior and Philosophy 23 (2):57 - 62 (1995)
The argument of this paper rests on the distinction between two types of what are, loosely speaking, logical claims: A general (speaker-independent) claim that some favoured principle of inference is both truth-preserving, and consistent with certain others. A claim by a particular speaker that he/she has reasonable deductive grounds for concluding that some particular statement is true. The first is a matter of pure logic—a question of what (allegedly) follows from what. The second is a matter of epistemic logic—a question of whether someone has, or more generally, whether there are, reasonable deductive grounds for concluding that something is the case. I shall argue that this distinction has a crucial bearing on the disagreement between classical logicians and non-classical logicians, which is essentially a disagreement about inferential behaviour. The argument is laid out in a manner designed to maximise the chances of any errors being detected. The paper concludes with some considerations of the relevance of relevant logic to the psychologist investigating inference behaviour.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David M. Godden (2005). Psychologism in the Logic of John Stuart Mill: Mill on the Subject Matter and Foundations of Ratiocinative Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 26 (2):115-143.
Tyler Burge (2003). Logic and Analyticity. Grazer Philosophische Studien 66 (1):199-249.
Ken Akiba (2000). Logic and Truth. Journal of Philosophical Research 25:101-123.
John Bell & Michael Hallett (1982). Logic, Quantum Logic and Empiricism. Philosophy of Science 49 (3):355-379.
Stephen Read (2006). Monism: The One True Logic. In D. de Vidi & T. Kenyon (eds.), A Logical Approach to Philosophy: Essays in Memory of Graham Solomon. Springer.
Peter Schroeder-Heister (1984). Popper's Theory of Deductive Inference and the Concept of a Logical Constant. History and Philosophy of Logic 5 (1):79-110.
Danilo Suster (2012). Informal Logic and Informal Consequence. In Trobok Majda, Miscevic Nenad & Zarnic Berislav (eds.), Between logic and reality : modeling inference, action and understanding, (Logic, epistemology, and the unity of science, vol. 25). Springer. 101--120.
Jan Dejnožka (2010). The Concept of Relevance and the Logic Diagram Tradition. Logica Universalis 4 (1):67-135.
Dov M. Gabbay (ed.) (2002). Handbook of the Logic of Argument and Inference: The Turn Towards the Practical. Elsevier.
D. S. Clarke (1973). Deductive Logic. Carbondale,Southern Illinois University Press.
David Sherry (2006). Formal Logic for Informal Logicians. Informal Logic 26 (2):199-220.
Gilbert Harman (2009). Field on the Normative Role of Logic. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109 (1pt3):333 - 335.
Jaroslav Peregrin (2008). What is the Logic of Inference? Studia Logica 88 (2):263 - 294.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads1 ( #437,916 of 1,100,860 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #289,727 of 1,100,860 )
How can I increase my downloads?