David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Petr Hájek, Luis Valdés-Villanueva & Dag Westerståhl (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. College Publications (2005)
Our topic is the notion of logical consequence: the link between premises and conclusions, the glue that holds together deductively valid argument. How can we understand this relation between premises and conclusions? It seems that any account begs questions. Painting with very broad brushtrokes, we can sketch the landscape of disagreement like this: “Realists” prefer an analysis of logical consequence in terms of the preservation of truth . “Anti-realists” take this to be unhelpful and o:er alternative analyses. Some, like Dummett, look to preservation of warrant to assert [9, 36]. Others, like Brandom , take inference as primitive, and analyse other notions in terms of it. There is plenty of disagreement on the “realist” side of the fence too. It is one thing to argue that logical consequence involves preservation of truth. It is another to explain how far truth must be preserved. Is the preservation essentially modal (in all circumstances ) or analytic (vouchsafed by..
|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
Jc Beall (2015). Free of Detachment: Logic, Rationality, and Gluts. Noûs 49 (2):410-423.
Mark Jago (2013). The Problem of Rational Knowledge. Erkenntnis (S6):1-18.
Greg Restall (2012). A Cut-Free Sequent System for Two-Dimensional Modal Logic, and Why It Matters. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163 (11):1611-1623.
Lionel Shapiro (2015). Naive Structure, Contraction and Paradox. Topoi 34 (1):75-87.
Jaroslav Peregrin (2006). Meaning as an Inferential Role. Erkenntnis 64 (1):1-35.
Similar books and articles
Lionel Shapiro (2011). Deflating Logical Consequence. Philosophical Quarterly 61 (243):320-342.
Greg Restall (2004). Logical Pluralism and the Preservation of Warrant. In S. Rahman (ed.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Dordrecht, Kluwer 163--173.
Victoria F. Shaw (1996). The Cognitive Processes in Informal Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 2 (1):51 – 80.
William H. Hanson (1999). Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):605-616.
D. J. Shoesmith (1978). Multiple-Conclusion Logic. Cambridge University Press.
Isabelle Vadeboncoeur & Henry Markovits (1999). The Effect of Instructions and Information Retrieval on Accepting the Premises in a Conditional Reasoning Task. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (2):97 – 113.
Matthew W. McKeon (2010). The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Pub..
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads48 ( #85,412 of 1,792,848 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #80,460 of 1,792,848 )
How can I increase my downloads?