Synthese 134 (3):353-362 (2003)

Jon Cogburn
Louisiana State University
In Chapter 7 of "The Taming of the True", Neil Tennant provides a new argument from Michael Dummett's "manifestation requirement" to the incorrectness of classical logic and the correctness of intuitionistic logic. I show that Tennant's new argument is only valid if one interprets crucial existence claims occurring in the proof in the manner of intuitionists. If one interprets the existence claims as a classical logician would, then one can accept Tennant's premises while rejecting his conclusion of logical revision. Thus, Tennant has provided no evidence that should convince anyone who is not already an intuitionist. Since his proof is a proof for the correctness of intuitionism, it begs the question.
Keywords Philosophy   Philosophy   Epistemology   Logic   Metaphysics   Philosophy of Language
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2004
DOI 10.1023/A:1022921622763
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,848
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Logic of Logical Revision Formalizing Dummett's Argument.Jon Cogburn - 2005 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (1):15 – 32.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
24 ( #443,173 of 2,432,815 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #464,144 of 2,432,815 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes