Synthese 193 (10) (2016)

Authors
Michaelis Michael
University of New South Wales
Abstract
Priest and others have presented their “most telling” argument for paraconsistent logic: that only paraconsistent logics allow non-trivial inconsistent theories. This is a very prevalent argument; occurring as it does in the work of many relevant and more generally paraconsistent logicians. However this argument can be shown to be unsuccessful. There is a crucial ambiguity in the notion of non-triviality. Disambiguated the most telling reason for paraconsistent logics is either question-begging or mistaken. This highlights an important confusion about the role of logic in our development of our theories of the world. Does logic chart good reasoning or our commitments? We also consider another abductive argument for paraconsistent logics which also is shown to fail
Keywords Philosophy of logic  Classical logic  Challenges to classical logic
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-015-0935-6
Options
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: 63,110
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

Logic for Equivocators.David Lewis - 1982 - Noûs 16 (3):431-441.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Qual a motivação para se defender uma teoria causal da memória?César Schirmer Dos Santos - 2018 - In Juliano Santos do Carmo & Rogério F. Saucedo Corrêa (eds.), Linguagem e cognição. Pelotas: NEPFil. pp. 63-89.
In Pursuit of the Non-Trivial.Colin R. Caret - 2021 - Episteme 18 (2):282-297.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Paraconsistency Everywhere.Greg Restall - 2002 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 43 (3):147-156.
Yes, Virginia, There Really Are Paraconsistent Logics.Bryson Brown - 1999 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (5):489-500.
Paraconsistent Logic.David Ripley - 2015 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 44 (6):771-780.
Paraconsistent Logic!Jean-Yves Béziau - 2006 - Sorites 17:17-25.
Negation and Paraconsistent Logics.Soma Dutta & Mihir K. Chakraborty - 2011 - Logica Universalis 5 (1):165-176.
Paraconsistent logics!Greg Restall - 1997 - Bulletin of the Section of Logic 26 (3):156-163.
Paraconsistent Logics Included in Lewis’ S4.Gemma Robles & José M. Méndez - 2010 - Review of Symbolic Logic 3 (3):442-466.
Ideal Paraconsistent Logics.O. Arieli, A. Avron & A. Zamansky - 2011 - Studia Logica 99 (1-3):31-60.
Ways Things Can't Be.Greg Restall - 1997 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38 (4):583-596.
On Partial and Paraconsistent Logics.Reinhard Muskens - 1999 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 40 (3):352-374.
[Omnibus Review].F. G. Asenjo - 1991 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (4):1503-1504.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-10-08

Total views
36 ( #299,583 of 2,448,110 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #451,143 of 2,448,110 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes