Semantic justifications of the classical rules of logical inference typically make use of a notion of bivalent truth, understood as a property guaranteed to attach to a sentence or its negation regardless of the prospects for speakers to determine it as so doing. For want of a convincing alternative account of classical logic, some philosophers suspicious of such recognition-transcending bivalence have seen no choice but to declare classical deduction unwarranted and settle for a weaker system; intuitionistic logic in particular, buttressed (...) by assertion-conditional semantics, is often considered to enjoy a degree of meaning-theoretical respectability unattainable by classical logic.The decision to forgo the classical inference rules is not always made lightly. Thus, Dummett: " In the resolution of the conflict between [the view that generally accepted classical modes of inference ought to be theoretically accommodated, and the demand that any such accommodation be achieved without recourse to bivalence] lies, as I see it, one of the most fundamental and intractable problems in the theory of meaning; indeed, in all philosophy. "The present article ventures to suggest that the conflict need not be irresoluble. Helping ourselves only to such conceptual resources as are standardly invoked by proponents of intuitionistic logic, we shall formulate a rudimentary meaning theory for a selection of logical constants, define a relation of valid inferability, and prove that the latter includes all of classical first-order logic. The result is essentially that reported in Sandqvist as Theorem 2.20.2. TheoryWe will be considering a standard-syntax first-order language with ⊃, ⊥ and ∀ as its only primitive logical constants. We assume countable supplies of individual constants, individual functors , and predicates , as well as a denumerably infinite set of individual variables. By a basic 1 formula we will mean one that …[Full Text of this Article]. (shrink)

Intuitionistic sentential logic is shown to be sound and complete with respect to a semantics centered around extensions of atomic bases (i.e. sets of inference rules for atomic sentences). The result is made possible through a non-standard interpretation of disjunction, whereby, roughly speaking, a disjunction is taken to hold just in case every atomic sentence that follows from each of the disjuncts separately holds; it is argued that this interpretation makes good sense provided that rules in atomic bases are conceived (...) of as being accepted hypothetically rather than categorically. (shrink)

It seems plausible, even truistic, that when an agent is faced with the choice of giving up one belief or another, the decision should be based on the relative strengths of these beliefs along some dimension of doxastic merit. This said, however, two non-trivial questions arise: (1) Which dimension? (2) How should the contraction outcome be affected by the distribution of beliefs along this dimension?

A constructive proof is provided for the claim that classical first-order logic admits of a natural deduction formulation featuring the subformula property.

This paper offers an interpretation of multiple-conclusion sequents as a kind of meta-inference rule: just as single-conclusion sequents represent inferences from sentences to sentences, so multiple-conclusion sequents represent a certain kind of inference from single-conclusion sequents to single-conclusion sequents. The semantics renders sound and complete the standard structural rules of reflexivity, monotonicity (or thinning), and transitivity (or cut). The paper is not the first one to attempt to account for multiple-conclusion sequents without invoking notions of truth or falsity—but unlike earlier (...) such efforts, which have typically helped themselves to primitive notions of both acceptance and rejection, the present one makes do with the former alone. For technical reasons, the treatment is limited to sequents with non-empty succedents. (shrink)

Expanding on a discussion by Hansson, this paper treats of Goodman's and Lewis' accounts of counterfactual conditionals, comparing the senses in which these theories may be accused of circularity. While I do maintain that in this respect Lewis has an edge over Goodman, the paper's aim is not so much to reach a firm conclusion as to disentangle some previously conflated aspects of the issue. It is also suggested that the importance of avoiding circularity may vary depending on the philosophical (...) purpose of one's analysis. (shrink)

The article approaches cut elimination from a new angle. On the basis of an arbitrary inference relation among logically atomic formulae, an inference relation on a language possessing logical operators is defined by means of inductive clauses similar to the operator-introducing rules of a cut-free intuitionistic sequent calculus. The logical terminology of the richer language is not uniquely specified, but assumed to satisfy certain conditions of a general nature, allowing for, but not requiring, the existence of infinite conjunctions and disjunctions. (...) We investigate to what extent structural properties of the given atomic relation are preserved through the extension to the full language. While closure under the Cut rule narrowly construed is not in general thus preserved, two properties jointly amounting to closure under the ordinary structural rules, including Cut, are. -/- Attention is then narrowed down to the special case of a standard first-order language, where a similar result is obtained also for closure under substitution of terms for individual parameters. Taken together, the three preservation results imply the familiar cut-elimination theorem for pure first-order intuitionistic sequent calculus. -/- In the interest of conceptual economy, all deducibility relations are specified purely inductively, rather than in terms of the existence of formal proofs of any kind. (shrink)