There is a strong case to be made for thinking that an obscure logic, KR, is better than classical logic and better than any relevant logic. The argument for KR over relevant logics is that KR counts disjunctive syllogism valid, and this is the biggest complaint about relevant logics. The argument for KR over classical logic depends on the normativity of logic and the paradoxes of implication. The paradoxes of implication are taken by relevant logicians to justify relevant logic, but (...) considerations on the normativity of logic show that only some of the paradoxes of implication are genuine. KR avoids all the genuine paradoxes of implication, unlike classical logic. Overall, KR avoids the genuine paradoxes of implication and avoids the major objection to relevant logics. This combination of features provides strong reason to give KR a place in the conversation about the right logic. (shrink)

Substructural logics are logics obtained from a sequent formulation of intuitionistic or classical logic by rejecting some structural rules. The substructural logics considered here are linear logic, relevant logic and BCK logic. It is proved that first-order variants of these logics with an intuitionistic negation can be embedded by modal translations into S4-type extensions of these logics with a classical, involutive, negation. Related embeddings via translations like the double-negation translation are also considered. Embeddings into analogues of S4 are obtained with (...) the help of cut elimination for sequent formulations of our substructural logics and their modal extensions. These results are proved for systems with equality too. (shrink)