David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 35 (1-3):391 - 437 (1991)
This paper presents an outline of a new theory of relevant deduction which arose from the purpose of solving paradoxes in various fields of analytic philosophy. In distinction to relevance logics, this approach does not replace classical logic by a new one, but distinguishes between relevance and validity. It is argued that irrelevant arguments are, although formally valid, nonsensical and even harmful in practical applications. The basic idea is this: a valid deduction is relevant iff no subformula of the conclusion is replaceable on some of its occurrences by any other formula salva validitate of the deduction. The paper first motivates the approach by showing that four paradoxes seemingly very distant from each other have a common source. Then the exact definition of relevant deduction is given and its logical properties are investigated. An extension to relevance of premises is discussed. Finally the paper presents an overview of its applications in philosophy of science, ethics, cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence.
|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
Ken Gemes (2007). Verisimilitude and Content. Synthese 154 (2):293 - 306.
Victor Gijsbers (2007). Why Unification is Neither Necessary nor Sufficient for Explanation. Philosophy of Science 74 (4):481-500.
G. Schurz (2008). Patterns of Abduction. Synthese 164 (2):201 - 234.
Joe Morrison (2010). Just How Controversial is Evidential Holism? Synthese 173 (3):335-352.
Gregor Betz (2013). Revamping Hypothetico-Deductivism: A Dialectic Account of Confirmation. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 78 (5):991-1009.
Similar books and articles
Michael Barker (2001). The Proof Structure of Kant's A-Deduction. Kant-Studien 92 (3):259-282.
J. Czelakowski & W. Dziobiak (1999). Deduction Theorems Within RM and its Extensions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (1):279-290.
Gerhard Schurz (1994). Relevant Deduction and Hypothetico-Deductivism: A Reply to Gemes. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 41 (2):183 - 188.
Susan Haack (1976). The Justification of Deduction. Mind 85 (337):112-119.
Marek Tokarz (1979). Deduction Theorems for RM and its Extensions. Studia Logica 38 (2):105 - 111.
Michael Gabbay, Some Formal Considerations on Gabbay's Restart Rule in Natural Deduction and Goal-Directed Reasoning.
M. W. Bunder (1982). Deduction Theorems for Weak Implicational Logics. Studia Logica 41 (2-3):95 - 108.
E. A. Sidorenko (1983). The Strong Proof From Hypotheses and Conditionals: Some Theorems of Deduction for Relevant Systems. Studia Logica 42 (2-3):165 - 171.
Ewa Orlowska (1992). Relational Proof System for Relevant Logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (4):1425-1440.
Ross T. Brady (1993). Rules in Relevant Logic — II: Formula Representation. Studia Logica 52 (4):565 - 585.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #130,548 of 1,699,828 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #269,935 of 1,699,828 )
How can I increase my downloads?