A Defense of Second-Order Logic

Axiomathes 20 (2-3):365-383 (2010)
Second-order logic has a number of attractive features, in particular the strong expressive resources it offers, and the possibility of articulating categorical mathematical theories (such as arithmetic and analysis). But it also has its costs. Five major charges have been launched against second-order logic: (1) It is not axiomatizable; as opposed to first-order logic, it is inherently incomplete. (2) It also has several semantics, and there is no criterion to choose between them (Putnam, J Symbol Logic 45:464–482, 1980 ). Therefore, it is not clear how this logic should be interpreted. (3) Second-order logic also has strong ontological commitments: (a) it is ontologically committed to classes (Resnik, J Phil 85:75–87, 1988 ), and (b) according to Quine (Philosophy of logic, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, 1970 ), it is nothing more than “set theory in sheep’s clothing”. (4) It is also not better than its first-order counterpart, in the following sense: if first-order logic does not characterize adequately mathematical systems, given the existence of non - isomorphic first-order interpretations, second-order logic does not characterize them either, given the existence of different interpretations of second-order theories (Melia, Analysis 55:127–134, 1995 ). (5) Finally, as opposed to what is claimed by defenders of second-order logic [such as Shapiro (J Symbol Logic 50:714–742, 1985 )], this logic does not solve the problem of referential access to mathematical objects (Azzouni, Metaphysical myths, mathematical practice: the logic and epistemology of the exact sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994 ). In this paper, I argue that the second-order theorist can solve each of these difficulties. As a result, second-order logic provides the benefits of a rich framework without the associated costs.
Keywords Second-order logic  Nonstandard models  Semantics  Reference  Putnam  Quine  Azzouni
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10516-010-9101-4
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,810
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
Meaning and the Moral Sciences.Hilary Putnam - 1978 - Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Philosophy of Logic.W. V. Quine - 1970 - Harvard University Press.
Mathematics as a Science of Patterns.D. Resnik Michael - 1997 - New York ;Oxford University Press.

View all 25 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Higher-Order Logic or Set Theory: A False Dilemma.S. Shapiro - 2012 - Philosophia Mathematica 20 (3):305-323.
Is Hintikka's Logic First-Order?Matti Eklund & Daniel Kolak - 2002 - Synthese 131 (3):371 - 388.
Pure Second-Order Logic with Second-Order Identity.Alexander Paseau - 2010 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (3):351-360.
A Critical Appraisal of Second-Order Logic.Ignacio Jané - 1993 - History and Philosophy of Logic 14 (1):67-86.
Second-Order Logic and Foundations of Mathematics.Jouko Vaananen - 2001 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 7 (4):504-520.
Strong Logics of First and Second Order.Peter Koellner - 2010 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 16 (1):1-36.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
141 ( #35,170 of 2,202,780 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #61,822 of 2,202,780 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature