Does Science Influence the Logic we Ought to Use: A Reflection on the Quantum Logic Controversy

Studia Logica 95 (1/2):183 - 206 (2010)
Abstract
In this article I argue that there is a sense in which logic is empirical, and hence open to influence from science. One of the roles of logic is the modelling and extending of natural language reasoning. It does so by providing a formal system which succeeds in modelling the structure of a paradigmatic set of our natural language inferences and which then permits us to extend this structure to novel cases with relative ease. In choosing the best system of those that succeed in this, we seek certain virtues of such structures such as simplicity and naturalness (which will be explained). Science can influence logic by bringing us, as in the case of quantum mechanics, to make natural language inferences about new kinds of systems and thereby extend the set of paradigmatic cases that our formal logic ought to model as simply and naturally as possible. This can alter which structures ought to be used to provide semantics for such models. I show why such a revolution could have led us to reject one logic for another through explaining why complex claims about quantum mechanical systems failed to lead us to reject classical logic for quantum logic
Keywords Quantum mechanics  quantum logic  Boolean lattices  Hilbert lattices  semantics  science
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 25,751
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Tonk, Plonk and Plink.Nuel Belnap - 1962 - Analysis 22 (6):130-134.
Effect Algebras and Unsharp Quantum Logics.D. J. Foulis & M. K. Bennett - 1994 - Foundations of Physics 24 (10):1331-1352.
Quantum Logic is Alive ∧ (It is True ∨ It is False).Michael Dickson - 2001 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S274 - S287.
Is Logic Empirical?Hilary Putnam - 1968 - Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Only If Quanta Had Logic.James H. McGrath - 1978 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1978:268 - 275.
Quantum Logic is Alive ∧ (It is True ∨ It is False).Michael Dickson - 2001 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S274 - S287.
Logic, Quantum Logic and Empiricism.John Bell & Michael Hallett - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (3):355-379.
Quantum Logic, Realism, and Value Definiteness.Allen Stairs - 1983 - Philosophy of Science 50 (4):578-602.
Is Quantum Logic Really Logic?Michael R. Gardner - 1971 - Philosophy of Science 38 (4):508-529.
Substitution and Truth in Quantum Logic.Itamar Pitowsky - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (3):380-401.
A New Approach to Quantum Logic.J. L. Bell - 1986 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1):83-99.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-06-09

Total downloads

65 ( #76,970 of 2,146,889 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #279,062 of 2,146,889 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums