Proof-Theoretic Semantics, Self-Contradiction, and the Format of Deductive Reasoning

Topoi 31 (1):77-85 (2012)
Abstract
From the point of view of proof-theoretic semantics, it is argued that the sequent calculus with introduction rules on the assertion and on the assumption side represents deductive reasoning more appropriately than natural deduction. In taking consequence to be conceptually prior to truth, it can cope with non-well-founded phenomena such as contradictory reasoning. The fact that, in its typed variant, the sequent calculus has an explicit and separable substitution schema in form of the cut rule, is seen as a crucial advantage over natural deduction, where substitution is built into the general framework
Keywords Proof-theoretic semantics  Paradoxes  Sequent calculus  Natural deduction  Cut rule
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,357
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    View all 9 references

    Citations of this work BETA
    Similar books and articles
    Ross Thomas Brady (2010). Free Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (5):511 - 529.
    Paul Piwek (2007). Meaning and Dialogue Coherence: A Proof-Theoretic Investigation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (4):403-421.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2012-03-31

    Total downloads

    11 ( #112,987 of 1,088,783 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,783 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.