Skip to main content
Log in

A Hierarchy of Classical and Paraconsistent Logics

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we will present a number of technical results concerning Classical Logic, ST and related systems. Our main contribution consists in offering a novel identity criterion for logics in general and, therefore, for Classical Logic. In particular, we will firstly generalize the ST phenomenon, thereby obtaining a recursively defined hierarchy of strict-tolerant systems. Secondly, we will prove that the logics in this hierarchy are progressively more classical, although not entirely classical. We will claim that a logic is to be identified with an infinite sequence of consequence relations holding between increasingly complex relata: formulae, inferences, metainferences, and so on. As a result, the present proposal allows not only to differentiate Classical Logic from ST, but also from other systems sharing with it their valid metainferences. Finally, we show how these results have interesting consequences for some topics in the philosophical logic literature, among them for the debate around Logical Pluralism. The reason being that the discussion concerning this topic is usually carried out employing a rivalry criterion for logics that will need to be modified in light of the present investigation, according to which two logics can be non-identical even if they share the same valid inferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barrio, E., Pailos, F., Szmuc, D. (Forthcoming). A recovery operator for non-transitive approaches. Review of Symbolic Logic. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020318000369.

  2. Barrio, E., Pailos, F., Szmuc, D. (Forthcoming). Substructural logics, pluralism and collapse. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01963-3.

  3. Barrio, E., Pailos, F., Szmuc, D. (2018). What is a paraconsistent logic? In Carnielli, W., & Malinowski, J. (Eds.) Between consistency and inconsistency, trends in logic (pp. 89–108). Dordrecht: Springer.

  4. Barrio, E., Rosenblatt, L., Tajer, D. (2015). The logics of strict-tolerant logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44(5), 551–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Blok, W., & Jónsson, B. (2006). Equivalence of consequence operations. Studia Logica, 83(1), 91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chemla, E., Egré, P., Spector, B. (2017). Characterizing logical consequence in many-valued logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 27(7), 2193–2226.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cobreros, P., Egré, P., Ripley, D., van Rooij, R. (2012). Tolerance and Mixed Consequence in the S’valuationist Setting. Studia logica, 100(4), 855–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cobreros, P., Egré, P., Ripley, D., van Rooij, R. (2012). Tolerant, classical, strict. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(2), 347–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cobreros, P., Egré, P., Ripley, D., van Rooij, R. (2014). Priest’s motorbike and tolerant identity. In Ciuni, R., Wansing, H., Willkommen, C. (Eds.) Recent trends in logic (pp. 75–83). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Cobreros, P., Egré, P., Ripley, D., van Rooij, R. (2014). Reaching transparent truth. Mind, 122(488), 841–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dicher, B., & Paoli, F. (Forthcoming). The original sin of proof-theoretic semantics. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02048-x.

  12. Dicher, B., & Paoli, F. (Forthcoming). ST, LP, and tolerant metainferences. In Başkent, C., & Ferguson, T.M. (Eds.) Graham priest on dialetheism and paraconsistency. Dordrecht: Springer.

  13. Girard, J.-Y. (1987). Proof theory and logical complexity. Napoli: Bibliopolis.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Humberstone, L . (1996). Valuational semantics of rule derivability. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25(5), 451–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Keefe, R. (2014). What logical pluralism cannot be? Synthese, 191(7), 1375–1390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pailos, F. (Forthcoming). A family of metainferential logics. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics. https://doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2018.1534486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pailos, F. (Forthcoming). A fully classical truth theory characterized by substructural means. The Review of Symbolic Logic. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020318000485.

  18. Priest, G. (2006). Logic: one or many? In Woods, J., & Brown, B. (Eds.) Logical consequence: rival approaches. Proceedings of the 1999 conference of the society of exact philosophy. Stanmore: Hermes.

  19. Pynko, A. (2010). Gentzen’s cut-free calculus versus the logic of paradox. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 39(1/2), 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Read, S., & Kenyon, T. (2006). Monism: the one true logic. In de Vidi, D. (Ed.) A logical approach to philosophy: essays in memory of Graham Solomon. Dordrecht: Springer.

  21. Ripley, D. (2012). Conservatively extending classical logic with transparent truth. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(02), 354–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ripley, D. (2013). Paradoxes and failures of cut. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91(1), 139–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ripley, D. (2015). Comparing substructural theories of truth. Ergo, 2(13), 299–328.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rosenblatt, L. Non-contractive classical logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. Forthcoming.

  25. Williamson, T. (1987). Equivocation and existence. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 88, 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wintein, S. (2016). On all strong Kleene generalizations of classical logic. Studia Logica, 104(3), 503–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Woods, J. (2018). Intertranslatability, theoretical equivalence, and perversion. Thought, 7(1), 58–68.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zardini, E. (2013). Naive modus ponens. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 42(4), 575–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The material included in this article has been presented at the Formal Methods in Philosophy workshop held in Munich as a part of a DFG-MINCYT collaboration project, at the Kolloquium Logik und Erkenntnistheorie of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum, at the Liars, Curries and Beyond workshop held in UNAM, at the 2nd Workshop on Dialetheism and Paraconsistency held in the University of Kyoto, and at VII Workshop On Philosophical Logic held in Buenos Aires. Thanks to the audiences of these events for their comments and helpful feedback. In addition, we are thankful to thank Bogdan Dicher, Luis Estrada González, Thomas Ferguson, Melvin Fitting, Andreas Fjellstad, Rohan French, Hitoshi Omori, Francesco Paoli, Graham Priest, Greg Restall, Dave Ripley, and the members of the Buenos Aires Logic Group for discussing previous versions of this work. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for this journal, whose suggestions helped to substantially improve the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo Alejandro Barrio.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barrio, E.A., Pailos, F. & Szmuc, D. A Hierarchy of Classical and Paraconsistent Logics. J Philos Logic 49, 93–120 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-019-09513-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-019-09513-z

Keywords

Navigation