Inference as an explication and as a counterpart of consequence
| Abstract | Logic is usually considered to be the study of logical consequence – of the most basic laws governing how a statement’s truth depends on the truth of other statements. Some of the pioneers of modern formal logic, notably Hilbert and Carnap, assumed that the only way to get hold of the relation of consequence was to reconstruct it as a relation of inference within a formal system built upon explicit inferential rules. Even Alfred Tarski in 1930 seemed to foresee no kind of consequence other than one induced by a set of inference rules: "Let A be an arbitrary set of sentences of a particular discipline. With the help of certain operations, the so-called rules of inference, new sentences are derived from the set A, called the.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesPeter Pagin (2012). Assertion, Inference, and Consequence. Synthese 187 (3):869-885.
Peter Roeper (2010). Reasoning with Truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (3).
Grzegorz Malinowski (2009). Beyond Three Inferential Values. Studia Logica 92 (2):203 - 213.
B. G. Sundholm (1998). Inference, Consequence, Implication: A Constructivist's Perspective. Philosophia Mathematica 6 (2):178-194.
Charles B. Cross (2003). Nonmonotonic Inconsistency. Artificial Intelligence 149 (2):161-178.
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.
Herman Jurjus & Harrie de Swart (2001). Implication with Possible Exceptions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (2):517-535.
Matthew W. McKeon (2010). The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Pub..
Michael Freund & Daniel Lehmann (1994). Nonmonotonic Reasoning: From Finitary Relations to Infinitary Inference Operations. Studia Logica 53 (2):161 - 201.
I. L. Humberstone (1993). Functional Dependencies, Supervenience, and Consequence Relations. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2 (4):309-336.
Ole T. Hjortland (2009). The Structure of Logical Consequence : Proof-Theoretic Conceptions. Dissertation, University of St Andrews
J. K. Kabziński, M. Porębska & A. Wroński (1981). On the {↔, ∼} -Reduct of the Intuitionistic Consequence Operation. Studia Logica 40 (1):55 - 66.
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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-12-22Total downloads19 ( #64,434 of 549,196 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,418 of 549,196 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
