David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
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
|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
Graham Priest (2006). In Contradiction. Oxford University Press Uk.
P. F. Strawson (1952). Introduction to Logical Theory. New York, Wiley.
Ruth M. Kempson (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
Bas C. van Fraassen (1968). Presupposition, Implication, and Self-Reference. Journal of Philosophy 65 (5):136-152.
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.
Donald Bamber (2000). Entailment with Near Surety of Scaled Assertions of High Conditional Probability. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (1):1-74.
Stefano Aguzzoli & Agata Ciabattoni (2000). Finiteness in Infinite-Valued Łukasiewicz Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (1):5-29.
Andreas Pietz & Umberto Rivieccio (2013). Nothing but the Truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (1):125-135.
Katarina Britz, Johannes Heidema & Willem Labuschagne (2009). Semantics for Dual Preferential Entailment. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (4):433 - 446.
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.
Lou Goble (2003). Neighborhoods for Entailment. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (5):483-529.
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 downloads25 ( #147,105 of 1,789,999 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #424,764 of 1,789,999 )
How can I increase my downloads?