Logical theory revision through data underdetermination: an anti-exceptionalist exercise

Sanderson Molick

doi:10.5007/1808-1711.2021.e80110

Authors

Sanderson Molick Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Ruhr-University of Bochum (RUB)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2021.e80110

Abstract

The anti-exceptionalist debate brought into play the problem of what are the relevant data for logical theories and how such data affects the validities accepted by a logical theory. In the present paper, I depart from Laudan's reticulated model of science to analyze one aspect of this problem, namely of the role of logical data within the process of revision of logical theories. For this, I argue that the ubiquitous nature of logical data is responsible for the proliferation of several distinct methodologies for logical theories. The resulting picture is coherent with the Laudanean view that agreement and disagreement between scientific theories take place at different levels. From this perspective, one is able to articulate other kinds of divergence that considers not only the inferential aspects of a given logical theory, but also the epistemic aims and the methodological choices that drive its development.

References

Aberdein, A. and Read, S. 2009. The Philosophy of Alternative Logics. In: The Development of Modern Logic: 613–723. Oxford University Press.

Batens, D. 1999. Inconsistency-adaptive logics. In Essays dedicated to the memory of Helena Rasiowa:445-472. Springer.

Batens, D. 2017. Pluralism in scientific problem solving: why inconsistency is no big deal. Humana.Mente 32(1): 149–177.

Beall, J.C. and Restall, G. 2006. Logical Pluralism. Oxford University Press.

Blake-Turner, C. and Russell, G. 2018. Synthese.

Carnielli, W. and Rodrigues, A. 2012. What contradictions say (and what they say not). CLE e-Prints, 12(2).

Carnielli, W. and Rodrigues, A. 2019. An epistemic approach to paraconsistency: a logic of evidence and truth. Synthese. 196(9):3789-3813.

Da Costa, N., Béziau, J.Y-. and Bueno, O. 1995. Aspects of paraconsistent logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 3(4):597-614.

Da Costa, N., Krause, D. and Bueno, O. 2007. Paraconsistent logics and paraconsistency. Philosophy of Logic, 5:655-781.

Floridi, L. 2003. Informational realism. In Selected Papers from Conference on Computers and Philosophy, 37:7-12. Australian Computer Society, Inc.

Haack, S. 1974. Deviant Logic: Some philosophical issues. Cambridge University Press.

Hjortland, O.T. 2017. Anti-exceptionalism about logic. Philosophical Studies, 174(3):631-658.

Hjortland, O.T. 2019. What counts as evidence for a logical theory? The Australasian Journal of Logic, 16(7):250-282.

Laudan, L. 1978. Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. University of California Press.

Laudan, L. 1984. Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. University of California Press.

Lakatos, I. 1978. The methodology of scientific research programmes. Philosophical papers, 1:250.

Mares, E.D. 2004. Semantic dialetheism. In: The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, Editors: Graham Priest, JC Beall and Bradley Armour-Garb. Oxford University Press.

Priest, G. 2002. Paraconsistent logic. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic: 287–393. Springer.

Priest, G. 2006. In Contradiction. Oxford University Press.

Priest, G. 2014. Contradictory concepts. In: Logic, Reasoning and Rationality: 197–215. Springer.

Rosenberg, A. 2011. Philosophy of Science: A contemporary introduction. Routledge.

Routley, R. 1980. The choice of logical foundations: non-classical choices and the ultralogical choice. Studia Logica, 39(1):77-98.

Stanford, K. 2017. Underdetermination of scientific theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/scientific-underdetermination/

Tahko, T.E. 2009. The law of non-contradiction as a metaphysical principle. Australasian Journal of Logic, 7:32-47.

Thagard, P. 1982. From the descriptive to normative in psychology and logic. Philosophy of Science, 49(1):24-42.

Wansing, H. and Odintsov, S. 2016. On the methodology of paraconsistent logics. In: Logical Studies of Paraconsistent Reasoning in Science and Mathematics: 175-204. Springer.

Williamson, T. 2017. Semantic paradoxes and abductive methodology. Reflections on the Liar :325-346.