Adding a transparent truth predicate to a language completely governed by classical logic is not possible. The trouble, as is well-known, comes from paradoxes such as the Liar and Curry. Recently, Cobreros, Egré, Ripley and van Rooij have put forward an approach based on a non-transitive notion of consequence which is suitable to deal with semantic paradoxes while having a transparent truth predicate together with classical logic. Nevertheless, there are some interesting issues concerning the set of metainferences validated by this (...) logic. In this paper, we show that this logic, once it is adequately understood, is weaker than classical logic. Moreover, the logic is in a way similar to the paraconsistent logic LP. (shrink)

Some authors have called into question the normativity of logic, using as an argument that the bridge principles for logical normativity (MacFarlane, In what sense (in any) is logic normative for thought, 2004 )? are just by-products of general epistemic principles for belief. In this paper, I discuss that suggestion from a formal point of view. I show that some important bridge principles can be derived from usual norms for belief. I also describe some possible ways to block this derivation (...) by modifying the epistemic norms or weakening the bridge principles. Finally, I discuss different philosophical interpretations of these results. (shrink)

According to methodological anti-exceptionalism, logic follows a scientific methodology. There has been some discussion about which methodology logic has. Authors such as Priest, Hjortland and Williamson have argued that logic can be characterized by an abductive methodology. We choose the logical theory that behaves better under a set of epistemic criteria. In this paper, I analyze some important discussions in the philosophy of logic, and I show that they presuppose different methodologies, involving different notions of evidence and different epistemic values. (...) I argue that, rather than having a specific methodology such as abductivism, logic can be characterized by methodological pluralism. This position can also be seen as the application of scientific pluralism to the realm of logic. (shrink)

Rejecting the Cut rule has been proposed as a strategy to avoid both the usual semantic paradoxes and the so-called v-Curry paradox. In this paper we consider if a Cut-free theory is capable of accurately representing its own notion of validity. We claim that the standard rules governing the validity predicate are too weak for this purpose and we show that although it is possible to strengthen these rules, the most obvious way of doing so brings with it a serious (...) problem: an internalized version of Cut can be proved for a Curry-like sentence. We also evaluate a number of possible ways of escaping this difficulty. (shrink)

In this paper, I will argue that Logics of Formal Inconsistency $$ can be used as very sophisticated and powerful methods of classical recapture. I will compare $LFIs$ with the well-known non-monotonic logics by Batens and Priest and the ‘shrieking’ rules of Beall. I will show that these proposals can be represented in $LFIs$ and that $LFIs$ give room to more complex and varied recapturing strategies.

Many philosophers have argued that logical pluralism is not compatible with the normativity of logic. They developed different versions of the collapse argument: if two logics are correct, then the weaker one will be normatively irrelevant. In this paper, I argue that the collapse argument is based on a controversial premise: the assumption that every logic can be characterized by the same bridge principle. I provide a solution to the collapse argument based on the modification of this premise, maintaining both (...) logical pluralism and the normativity of logic. (shrink)

In a recent paper Samir Okasha has suggested an application of Arrow’s impossibility theorem to theory choice. When epistemic virtues are interpreted as ‘voters’ in charge of ranking competing theories, and there are more than two theories at stake, the final ordering is bound to coincide with the one proposed by one of the voters, provided a number of seemingly reasonable conditions are in place. In a similar spirit, Jacob Stegenga has shown that Arrow’s theorem applies to the amalgamation of (...) evidence; the ‘voters’ here are the different sources of evidence. As with Okasha’s proposal, it is not clear how to avoid Arrow’s pessimistic conclusion.In this paper we develop a novel argument that purports to show that, in typical examples, Arrow’s result does not obtain when dealing with evidence amalgamation. The reason is that we cannot escape the well-known Duhem problem: the evidence actually confirms complex conjunctions that include various auxiliary hypotheses. We argue that confirmational holism induces us to restrict the domain of a reasonable amalgamation function, thus violating one of Arrow’s conditions. The upshot is that we are now able to see the Duhem problem under a different, positive light – namely, as a phenomenon that makes the aggregation of the evidence possible in the first place, when there are at least three options on the table. (shrink)

Logical pluralism is a general idea that there is more than one correct logic. Carnielli and Rodrigues [2019a] defend an epistemic interpretation of the paraconsistent logic N4, according to which an argument is valid in this logic just in case it necessarily preserves evidence. The authors appeal to this epistemic interpretation to briefly motivate a kind of logical pluralism: “different accounts of logical consequence may preserve different properties of propositions”. The aim of this paper is to study the prospect of (...) a logical pluralism based on different interpretations of logical systems. First, we give our analysis of what it means to interpret a logic – and make some hopefully useful distinctions along the way. Second, we present what we call an interpretational logical pluralism: there is more than one correct logic and a logic is correct only if it has some adequate interpretation. We consider four variants of this idea, bring up some possible objections, and try to find plausible solutions on behalf of the pluralist. We will argue that interpretations of logical systems provide a promising – albeit not unproblematic – route to logical pluralism. (shrink)

El dialeteísmo es la posición que afirma que hay contradicciones verdaderas. Este artículo versará sobre esa posición. En la primera sección, mencionaré los principales aportes que, en mi perspectiva, el dialeteísmo ha hecho a la lógica filosófica. En la segunda sección, analizaré el principal problema del dialeteísmo. En la tercera sección, mostraré que los argumentos a favor del dialeteísmo no llegan a establecer la verdad de esta posición. Finalmente, explicaré cuál es el tipo de paraconsistencia que considero adecuada y la (...) compararé con la posición dialeteísta. Dialetheism is the position which claims that there are true contradictions. This paper deals with this position. In the first section, I will mention the main contributions that, in my perspective, dialetheism has made to philosophical logic. In the second section, I will analyze the main problem of dialetheism. In the third section, I will show that the arguments in favor of dialetheism are not conclusive. Finally, I will explain which kind of paraconsistency I consider adequate, and I will compare it with the dialetheist position. (shrink)

In the discussion about Yablo’s Paradox, a debated topic is the status of infinitary proofs. It is usually considered that, although a realist could (with some effort) accept them, an anti-realist could not do it at all. In this paper I will argue that there are plausible reasons for an anti-realist to accept infinitary proofs and rules of inference. En la discusión sobre la Paradoja de Yablo, un tópico debatido es el estatus de las pruebas infinitarias. Se suele considerar que, (...) aunque un realista podría (con cierto esfuerzo) aceptarlas, un anti-realista no podría hacerlo en absoluto. En este artículo, argumento que hay razones plausibles para que un anti-realista acepte pruebas y reglas de inferencia infinitarias. (shrink)

En este artículo, ofrezco una caracterización del desacuerdo lógico. Segúnmi noción, los desacuerdos meramente verbales en lógica son inusuales.La mayoría de los desacuerdos lógicos son simplemente desacuerdosdescriptivos sobre el mundo o sobre el significado de los conectivos, mientrasque otros son desacuerdos evaluativos sobre la noción de validez.

En este artículo argumento en contra del pluralismo lógico modalista de Bueno y Shalkowski. En la primera parte muestro que no está bien motivado, al menos si su motivación surge de las objeciones que le hacen al enfoque de Beall y Restall. Defiendo la posición de Beall y Restall contra estas objeciones apelando a los requisitos de necesidad y normatividad, que no fueron bien comprendidos por Bueno y Shalkowski. En la segunda parte analizo la posición modalista y doy argumentos en (...) su contra. Muestro que los ejemplos ofrecidos por Bueno y Shalkowski no justifican un pluralismo lógico, sino un monismo lógico basado en la lógica clásica en el que algunos contextos inferenciales pueden ser internalizados. Muestro que tales inter-nalizaciones son muy plausibles para los ejemplos que dan los autores: el manejo de bases de datos y el análisis de conceptos epistémicos. In this paper, I argue against the modalist logical pluralism of Bueno and Shalkowski. In the first part, I show that it is not well motivated, at least if its motivation comes from the objections they raise against the approach of Beall and Restall. I defend the position of Beall and Restall against these objections, resorting to the requisites of necessity and normativity, which were misunderstood by Bueno and Shalkowski. In the second part, I analyze the modalist position and provide some arguments against it. I show that the examples offered by Bueno and Shalkowski do not justify a logical pluralism, but rather a logical monism based on classical logic where some inferential contexts can be internalized. I show that these internalizations are very plausible for the two examples the authors provide: database management and the analysis of epistemic concepts. (shrink)

En este artículo, exploro la posibilidad de aplicar los métodos y resultados de la Agregación de Juicios al problema del desacuerdo lógico. Es decir, desarrollo y evalúo maneras en que individuos que desacuerdan lógicamente pueden generar una lógica colectiva. Pruebo una versión de la paradoja discursiva, donde el voto por mayoría en un grupo de lógicos estructurales puede generar lógicas subestructurales, y luego elaboro un resultado de imposibilidad más general. Más adelante, analizo diferentes maneras de evitar la paradoja, en particular (...) aquellas que apelan a restricciones de dominio. Finalmente, analizo brevemente la aplicación de estos resultados al debate sobre paradojas semánticas. (shrink)

En este artículo, analizo las principales respuestas que se han dado al argumento finitista de Etchemendy, y muestro que ninguna de ellas es exitosa. Primero, describo y critico las propuestas que intentan resolverlo apelando a consideraciones modales. Estas soluciones fallan porque presuponen un finitismo demasiado débil, donde se acepta la existencia de infinitos conjuntos o de mundos posibles con infinitos objetos. Pero hay versiones más fuertes del finitismo que reintroducen el problema. Luego considero las soluciones que apelan a categorías semánticas. (...) Una de ellas categoriza incorrectamente este problema como un desacuerdo sobre el significado de los cuantificadores. La otra solución falla porque, si fuera tomada en serio, tendría efectos muy nocivos para la lógica en general. Finalmente argumento que la mejor solución es morder la bala y aceptar que la lógica no debería ser fuertemente independiente de algunos asuntos que tradicionalmente fueron considerados como 'extralógicos'. In this paper, I analyze the main replies that have been given to Etchemendy's finitist argument, and I show that none of them is successful. First, I describe and criticize the proposals that try to solve the problem by appealing to modal considerations. These solutions fail because they presuppose a very weak finitism, where the existence of infinitely many sets, or possible words with infinitely many objects, is accepted. But there are stronger versions of finitism that reintroduce the problem. Then I consider the solutions which appeal to semantical categories. One of them incorrectly categorizes the problem as a disagreement in the meaning of the quantifiers. The other fails because, if taken seriously, it would have harmful effects on logic in general. Finally I argue that the best solution is to bite the bullet and accept that logic shouldn't be strongly independent from some issues which were traditionally considered as 'extra-logical'. (shrink)

The relation between logic and rationality has recently re-emerged as an important topic of discussion. Following the ideas of Broome [1999] and MacFarlane [2004], the debate focused on providing rational requirements, which work as bridges between logic and epistemic norms. However, as Broome [2014] and Way [2011] observed, the usual requirements cannot capture some important aspects of rationality, such as how one can rationally believe something on the basis of believing something else. Broome [2014] proposed a few additional principles for (...) this purpose. In this paper I develop a more systematic family of basing permissions using the recent notion of grounding. In particular, I claim that if Γ grounds A, and you believe Γ, then rationality permits you to believe A on the basis of believing Γ. (shrink)

Intuitions play a significant role in debates about logic. In this paper, I analyze how legitimate is that practice. In the first part of the paper, I distinguish between theoretical and pretheoretical intuitions, and argue that some pretheoretical intuitions are not to be taken into account in logic. Particularly, our pretheoretical intuitions about the concept of validity are not of much importance, since we don’t have a uniform or clear concept of validity in the natural language to be elucidated. Nevertheless, (...) I argue that, since logical connectives are more homogeneously used in our ordinary speech, we can appeal to pretheoretical intuitions to establish their meaning in a logical theory. In the second part of the paper, I consider and reply to four objections to this moderate proposal. Two of them try to show that, if this position is adopted, then the pretheoretical intuitions about the connectives are completely unreliable and useless. One of them argues that this mixed position is unstable: pretheoretical intuitions about the connectives are also pretheoretical intuitions about validity. The last problem is related to the definition of validity and the possibility of revising it. (shrink)

Intuitions play a significant role in debates about logic. In this paper, I analyze how legitimate is that practice. In the first part of the paper, I distinguish between theoretical and pretheoretical intuitions, and argue that some pretheoretical intuitions are not to be taken into account in logic. Particularly, our pretheoretical intuitions about the concept of validity are not of much importance, since we don’t have a uniform or clear concept of validity in the natural language to be elucidated. Nevertheless, (...) I argue that, since logical connectives are more homogeneously used in our ordinary speech, we can appeal to pretheoretical intuitions to establish their meaning in a logical theory. In the second part of the paper, I consider and reply to four objections to this moderate proposal. Two of them try to show that, if this position is adopted, then the pretheoretical intuitions about the connectives are completely unreliable and useless. One of them argues that this mixed position is unstable: pretheoretical intuitions about the connectives are also pretheoretical intuitions about validity. The last problem is related to the definition of validity and the possibility of revising it. (shrink)

In this paper, I explore the possibility of applying the methods and results of Judgement Aggregation to the problem of logical disagreement. I develop and evaluate different ways in which individuals who logically disagree can generate a collective logic. I prove a version of the discursive paradox, where the majority voting of a group of structural logicians can give rise to a substructural logic; then I develop a more general impossibility result. After this, I analyze different ways to avoid the (...) paradox, in particular some methods which appeal to domain restrictions. Finally, I consider the application of these results to the discussion on semantic paradoxes. (shrink)

En ocasiones, las paradojas involucran principios constitutivos del significado. Priest sostiene que en todos los casos deberíamos retener los principios y aceptar las contradicciones resultantes, mientras que Eklund sugiere modificar los principios en todos los casos. En este artículo, afirmo que las diferentes respuestas son adecuadas para las distintas paradojas. En particular, para paradojas del tipo del mentiroso, es mejor quedarse con el esquema T, que caracteriza el significado de “verdadero”, y aceptar las conclusiones contradictorias; mientras que para la paradoja (...) sorites, uno debería modificar la premisa problemática de Tolerancia. Finalmente, elaboro una solución para la paradoja sorites, que contiene elementos del supervaluacionismo y de la teoría de la revisión. (shrink)