David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (4):289-300 (2002)
My purpose in this paper is to argue that the classical notion of entailment is not suitable for non-bivalent logics, to propose an appropriate alternative and to suggest a generalized entailment notion suitable to bivalent and non-bivalent logics alike. In classical two valued logic, one can not infer a false statement from one that is not false, any more than one can infer from a true statement a statement that is not true. In classical logic in fact preserving truth and preserving non-falsity are one and the same thing. They are not the same in non-bivalent logics however and I will argue that the classical notion of entailment that preserves only truth is not strong enough for such a logic. I will show that if we retain the classical notion of entailment in a logic that has three values, true, false and a third value in between, an inconsistency can be derived that can be resolved only by measures that seriously disable the logic. I will show this for a logic designed to allow for semantic presuppositions, then I will show that we get the same result in any three valued logic with the same value ordering. I will finally suggest how the notion of entailment should be generalized so that this problem may be avoided. The strengthened notion of entailment I am proposing is a conservative extension of the classical notion that preserves not only truth but the order of all values in a logic, so that the value of an entailed statement must alway be at least as great as the value of the sequence of statements entailing it. A notion of entailment this strong or stronger will, I believe, be found to be applicable to non-classical logics generally. In the opinion of Dana Scott, no really workable three valued logic has yet been developed. It is hard to disagree with this. A workable three valued logic however could perhaps be developed however, if we had a notion of entailment suitable to non-bivalent logics
|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
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong & Amit Malhotra (2002). How to Avoid Deviance (in Logic). History and Philosophy of Logic 23 (3):215--36.
Lou Goble (2003). Neighborhoods for Entailment. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (5):483-529.
Yaroslav Shramko & Heinrich Wansing (2006). Hyper-Contradictions, Generalized Truth Values and Logics of Truth and Falsehood. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15 (4):403-424.
Katarina Britz, Johannes Heidema & Willem Labuschagne (2009). Semantics for Dual Preferential Entailment. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (4):433 - 446.
Andreas Pietz & Umberto Rivieccio (2013). Nothing but the Truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (1):125-135.
Stefano Aguzzoli & Agata Ciabattoni (2000). Finiteness in Infinite-Valued Łukasiewicz Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (1):5-29.
Donald Bamber (2000). Entailment with Near Surety of Scaled Assertions of High Conditional Probability. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (1):1-74.
Yaroslav Shramko & Heinrich Wansing (2005). Some Useful 16-Valued Logics: How a Computer Network Should Think. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (2):121 - 153.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #116,369 of 1,139,847 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #66,126 of 1,139,847 )
How can I increase my downloads?