Analysis 64 (4):318–326 (2004)
|Abstract||I argue that dialetheists have a problem with the concept of logical consequence. The upshot of this problem is that dialetheists must appeal to a hierarchy of concepts of logical consequence. Since this hierarchy is akin to those invoked by more orthodox resolutions of the semantic paradoxes, its emergence would appear to seriously undermine the dialetheic treatments of these paradoxes. And since these are central to the case for dialetheism, this would represent a significant blow to the position itself|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Samir Chopra & Eric Martin (2002). Generalized Logical Consequence: Making Room for Induction in the Logic of Science. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (3):245-280.
Wenfang Wang (2011). Against Classical Dialetheism. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (3):492-500.
William H. Hanson (1999). Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):605-616.
John Corcoran (1969). Three Logical Theories. Philosophy of Science 36 (2):153-177.
Jared Bates (1999). Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence. Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1):47-54.
Bryson Brown (1999). Yes, Virginia, There Really Are Paraconsistent Logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (5):489-500.
Matthew W. McKeon (2010). The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Pub..
Mario Gómez-Torrente (2003). Logical Consequence and Logical Expressions. Theoria 18 (2):131-144.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads84 ( #10,965 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #17,032 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?