Skip to main content
Log in

Logical Consequence and the Paradoxes

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

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.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allo, P., & Mares, E. (2012). Informational semantics as a third alternative. Erkenntnis, 77(2), 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Allwein, G., & Dunn, J.M. (1993). Kripke models for linear logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58(2), 514–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, A.R., & Belnap, N.D. (1975). Entailment (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Avron, A. (1991). Simple consequence relations. Information and Computation, 92, 105–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Avron, A. (1988). The semantics and proof theory of linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 57(2–3), 161–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beall, J.C. (2009). Spandrels of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Beall J.C., & Murzi J. (forthcoming). Two flavors of curry paradox. Journal of Philosophy. http://philpapers.org/rec/BEATFO-4. Accessed 12 Mar 2013.

  9. 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.

  10. Blok, W.J., & Jónsson, B. (2006). Equivalence of consequence operations. Studia Logica, 83(1–3), 91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Blok, W.J., & Pigozzi, D. (1989). Algebraizable logics. Providence: Memoirs of the AMS.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brady, R. (2006). Universal logic. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Curry, H.B. (1942). The inconsistency of certain formal logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 7, 115–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dunn, J.M. (1987). Relevant predication 1: the formal theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 16(4), 347–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Field, H. (2003). A revenge-immune solution to the semantic paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32, 139–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Field, H. (2008). Saving truth from paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Freytes, H. (2013). Equational type characterization for sigma complete MV algebras. Algebra Universalis. Online First.

  18. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gabbay, D.M. (1996). Labelled deductive systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Galatos, N., Jipsen, P., Kowalski, T., Ono, H. (2007). Residuated lattices: An algebraic glimpse on substructural logics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Girard, J.-Y. (1987). Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50, 1–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Goldblatt, R. (1974). Semantic analysis of orthologic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 3, 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Grishin, V.N. (1982). Predicate and set-theoretic calculi based on logics without contractions. Mathematics of the URSS Izvestija, 18, 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gyuris, V. (1999). Variations of algebraizability. PhD thesis. Chicago: The University of Illinois at Chicago.

  25. Hajek, P. (2005). On arithmetic in Cantor-Łukasiewicz fuzzy set theory. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 44(6), 763–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Humberstone, L. (2011). The connectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Humberstone, L. (2006). Variations on a theme of Curry. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 47(1), 101–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hinnion, R., & Libert, T. (2003). Positive abstraction and extensionality. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 68(3), 828–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lewis, C.I. (1917). The issues concerning material implication. Journal of Philosophy, 14(13), 350–356.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lewis, C.I., & Langford, C.H. (1932). Symbolic logic. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mares, E. (1992). Semantics for relevance logic with identity. Studia Logica, 51, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mares, E. (2004). Relevant logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Mares, E., & Goldblatt, R. (2006). An alternative semantics for quantified relevant logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71, 163–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Meyer, R.K., Routley, R.D., Dunn, J.M. (1979). Curry’s paradox. Analysis, 39, 124–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Montagna, F. (2004). Storage operators and multiplicative quantifiers in many-valued logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14, 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Hearn, P.W., & Pym, D.J. (2002). The semantics and proof theory of the logic of bunched implications. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ono, H. (1993). Semantics for substructural logics. In K. Dosen, & P. Schröder-Heister (Eds.), Substructural logics (pp. 259–291). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Paoli, F. (2002). Substructural logics: A primer. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Paoli, F. (2007). Implicational paradoxes and the meaning of logical constants. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 85, 553–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Prawitz, D. (1977). Meaning and proof. Theoria, 43, 2–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Priest, G. (2006). In contradiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Read, S. (1988). Relevant logic. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Restall, G. (2000). An introduction to substructural logics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Restall, G. (2012). Assertion, denial, and nonclassical theories. In K. Tanaka, & et al. (Eds.), Paraconsistency: Logic and applications (pp. 81–100). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Restall, G. (2010). On t and u, and what they can do. Analysis, 70(4), 673–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rogerson, S., & Butchart, S. (2002). Naïve comprehension and contracting implications. Studia Logica, 71(1), 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Schröder-Heister, P. (2003). On the notion of assumption in logical systems. In Proceedings of GAP.5. Bielefeld.

  50. Schröder-Heister, P. (2012). Proof-theoretic semantics, self-contradiction, and the format of deductive reasoning. Topoi, 31, 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Schröder-Heister, P. (2012). Proof-theoretic semantics. Entry in E. Zalta. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

  52. Scott, D. (1971). On engendering an illusion of understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 68(21), 787–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Shapiro, L. (2011). Deflating logical consequence, Philosophical Quarterly, 61(243), 320–342.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Shapiro, S. (2003). The guru, the logician and the deflationist: truth and logical consequence. Noûs, 37(1), 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shoesmith, D.J., & Smiley, T.J. (1978). Multiple-conclusion logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Skolem, T. (1963). Studies on the axiom of comprehension. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 4(3), 162–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Steinberger, F. (2011). Why conclusions should remain single. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40, 333–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Tarski, A. (1956). On the concept of logical consequence. In Logic, semantics, metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938 (pp. 409–420). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wansing, H. (1993). The logic of information structures. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Zardini, E. (2011). Truth without contra(di)ction. Review of Symbolic Logic, 4, 498–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Paoli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-013-9268-4

Keywords

Navigation