David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Logic 40 (3):333-355 (2011)
This paper argues that logical inferentialists should reject multiple-conclusion logics. Logical inferentialism is the position that the meanings of the logical constants are determined by the rules of inference they obey. As such, logical inferentialism requires a proof-theoretic framework within which to operate. However, in order to fulfil its semantic duties, a deductive system has to be suitably connected to our inferential practices. I argue that, contrary to an established tradition, multiple-conclusion systems are ill-suited for this purpose because they fail to provide a 'natural' representation of our ordinary modes of inference. Moreover, the two most plausible attempts at bringing multiple conclusions into line with our ordinary forms of reasoning, the disjunctive reading and the bilateralist denial interpretation, are unacceptable by inferentialist standards.
|Keywords||Inferentialism Logical constants Logical consequence Multiple conclusions|
|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
David Bostock (1997). Intermediate Logic. Oxford University Press.
Robert B. Brandom (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Harvard University Press.
Rudolf Carnap (1943). Formalization of Logic. Cambridge, Mass.,Harvard University Press.
Michael Dummett (2002). ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and ‘Can't Say’. Mind 111 (442):289-296.
Citations of this work BETA
Edwin Mares & Francesco Paoli (2014). Logical Consequence and the Paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic 43 (2-3):439-469.
Similar books and articles
Julien Murzi & Ole Thomassen Hjortland (2009). Inferentialism and the Categoricity Problem: Reply to Raatikainen. Analysis 69 (3):480-488.
D. J. Shoesmith (1978). Multiple-Conclusion Logic. Cambridge University Press.
Owen Griffiths (2013). Problems for Logical Pluralism. History and Philosophy of Logic 34 (2):170 - 182.
Ole T. Hjortland (2009). The Structure of Logical Consequence : Proof-Theoretic Conceptions. Dissertation, University of St Andrews
Timothy Williamson (2012). Boghossian and Casalegno on Understanding and Inference. Dialectica 66 (2):237-247.
Marcus Rossberg & Daniel Cohnitz (2009). Logical Consequence for Nominalists. Theoria. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 24 (2):147-168.
Florian Steinberger (2013). On the Equivalence Conjecture for Proof-Theoretic Harmony. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 54 (1):79-86.
Matthew W. McKeon (2010). The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Pub..
K. Warmbrod (1999). Logical Constants. Mind 108 (431):503 - 538.
Ken Warmbrōd (1999). Logical Constants. Mind 108 (431):503 - 538.
John MacFarlane, Logical Constants. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Ignacio Jane (1997). Theoremhood and Logical Consequence. Theoria 12 (1):139-160.
Peter Milne (1994). Classical Harmony: Rules of Inference and the Meaning of the Logical Constants. Synthese 100 (1):49 - 94.
Added to index2011-06-19
Total downloads10 ( #140,553 of 1,096,585 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #37,677 of 1,096,585 )
How can I increase my downloads?