Abstract
We group the existing variants of the familiar set-theoretical and truth-theoretical paradoxes into two classes: connective paradoxes, which can in principle be ascribed to the presence of a contracting connective of some sort, and structural paradoxes, where at most the faulty use of a structural inference rule can possibly be blamed. We impute the former to an equivocation over the meaning of logical constants, and the latter to an equivocation over the notion of consequence. Both equivocation sources are tightly related, and can be cleared up by adopting a particular substructural logic in place of classical logic. We then argue that our perspective can be justified via an informational semantics of contraction-free substructural logics.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allo, P. (2011). The The realism-antirealism debate in the age of alternative logics. In S. Rahman, et al. (Eds.), On when a disjunction is informative: Ambiguous connectives and pluralism (pp. 1–23). Berlin: Springer.
Allo, P., & Mares, E. (2012). Informational semantics as a third alternative. Erkenntnis, 77(2), 167–185.
Allwein, G., & Dunn, J.M. (1993). Kripke models for linear logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58(2), 514–545.
Anderson, A.R., & Belnap, N.D. (1975). Entailment (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Avron, A. (1991). Simple consequence relations. Information and Computation, 92, 105–139.
Avron, A. (1988). The semantics and proof theory of linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 57(2–3), 161–184.
Beall, J.C. (2009). Spandrels of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beall J.C., & Murzi J. (forthcoming). Two flavors of curry paradox. Journal of Philosophy. http://philpapers.org/rec/BEATFO-4. Accessed 12 Mar 2013.
Behounek, L., Cintula, P., Horcik, R. (2009). Strong quantifiers and exponentials in deductive fuzzy logic: Presented at the Czech-Japanese joint fuzzy logic workshop, Hakusan.
Blok, W.J., & Jónsson, B. (2006). Equivalence of consequence operations. Studia Logica, 83(1–3), 91–110.
Blok, W.J., & Pigozzi, D. (1989). Algebraizable logics. Providence: Memoirs of the AMS.
Brady, R. (2006). Universal logic. Stanford: CSLI.
Curry, H.B. (1942). The inconsistency of certain formal logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 7, 115–117.
Dunn, J.M. (1987). Relevant predication 1: the formal theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 16(4), 347–381.
Field, H. (2003). A revenge-immune solution to the semantic paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32, 139–177.
Field, H. (2008). Saving truth from paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freytes, H. (2013). Equational type characterization for sigma complete MV algebras. Algebra Universalis. Online First.
Gabbay, D.M. (1969). Semantic proof of the Craig interpolation theorem for intuitionistic logic and extensions, part I. In Proceedings of the 1969 logic colloquium (pp. 391–401). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Gabbay, D.M. (1996). Labelled deductive systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galatos, N., Jipsen, P., Kowalski, T., Ono, H. (2007). Residuated lattices: An algebraic glimpse on substructural logics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Girard, J.-Y. (1987). Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50, 1–102.
Goldblatt, R. (1974). Semantic analysis of orthologic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 3, 19–35.
Grishin, V.N. (1982). Predicate and set-theoretic calculi based on logics without contractions. Mathematics of the URSS Izvestija, 18, 41–59.
Gyuris, V. (1999). Variations of algebraizability. PhD thesis. Chicago: The University of Illinois at Chicago.
Hajek, P. (2005). On arithmetic in Cantor-Łukasiewicz fuzzy set theory. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 44(6), 763–782.
Humberstone, L. (2011). The connectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Humberstone, L. (2006). Variations on a theme of Curry. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 47(1), 101–131.
Hinnion, R., & Libert, T. (2003). Positive abstraction and extensionality. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 68(3), 828–836.
Lewis, C.I. (1917). The issues concerning material implication. Journal of Philosophy, 14(13), 350–356.
Lewis, C.I., & Langford, C.H. (1932). Symbolic logic. New York: Dover.
Mares, E. (1992). Semantics for relevance logic with identity. Studia Logica, 51, 1–20.
Mares, E. (2004). Relevant logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mares, E., & Goldblatt, R. (2006). An alternative semantics for quantified relevant logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71, 163–187.
Meyer, R.K., Routley, R.D., Dunn, J.M. (1979). Curry’s paradox. Analysis, 39, 124–128.
Montagna, F. (2004). Storage operators and multiplicative quantifiers in many-valued logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14, 299–322.
O’Hearn, P.W., & Pym, D.J. (2002). The semantics and proof theory of the logic of bunched implications. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ono, H. (1993). Semantics for substructural logics. In K. Dosen, & P. Schröder-Heister (Eds.), Substructural logics (pp. 259–291). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paoli, F. (2002). Substructural logics: A primer. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Paoli, F. (2007). Implicational paradoxes and the meaning of logical constants. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 85, 553–579.
Prawitz, D. (1977). Meaning and proof. Theoria, 43, 2–40.
Priest, G. (2006). In contradiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Read, S. (1988). Relevant logic. Oxford: Blackwell.
Restall, G. (1995). Information flow and relevant logic. In J. Seligman, & D. Westerståhl (Eds.), Logic, language and computation: The 1994 moraga proceedings (pp. 463–477). Stanford: CSLI Press.
Restall, G. (2000). An introduction to substructural logics. London: Routledge.
Restall, G. (2008). Curry’s, revenge: The costs of non-classical solutions to the paradoxes of self-reference. In J.C. Beall (Ed.), The revenge of the liar (pp. 262–271). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Restall, G. (2012). Assertion, denial, and nonclassical theories. In K. Tanaka, & et al. (Eds.), Paraconsistency: Logic and applications (pp. 81–100). Berlin: Springer.
Restall, G. (2010). On t and u, and what they can do. Analysis, 70(4), 673–676.
Rogerson, S., & Butchart, S. (2002). Naïve comprehension and contracting implications. Studia Logica, 71(1), 119–132.
Schröder-Heister, P. (2003). On the notion of assumption in logical systems. In Proceedings of GAP.5. Bielefeld.
Schröder-Heister, P. (2012). Proof-theoretic semantics, self-contradiction, and the format of deductive reasoning. Topoi, 31, 77–85.
Schröder-Heister, P. (2012). Proof-theoretic semantics. Entry in E. Zalta. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
Scott, D. (1971). On engendering an illusion of understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 68(21), 787–807.
Shapiro, L. (2011). Deflating logical consequence, Philosophical Quarterly, 61(243), 320–342.
Shapiro, S. (2003). The guru, the logician and the deflationist: truth and logical consequence. Noûs, 37(1), 113–132.
Shoesmith, D.J., & Smiley, T.J. (1978). Multiple-conclusion logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skolem, T. (1963). Studies on the axiom of comprehension. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 4(3), 162–179.
Steinberger, F. (2011). Why conclusions should remain single. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40, 333–355.
Tarski, A. (1956). On the concept of logical consequence. In Logic, semantics, metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938 (pp. 409–420). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wansing, H. (1993). The logic of information structures. Berlin: Springer.
Zardini, E. (2011). Truth without contra(di)ction. Review of Symbolic Logic, 4, 498–535.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mares, E., Paoli, F. Logical Consequence and the Paradoxes. J Philos Logic 43, 439–469 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-013-9268-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-013-9268-4