Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T23:42:00.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PLURALISM IN LOGIC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

HARTRY FIELD
HARTRY FIELD*
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department, New York University
*
*PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, 5 WASHINGTON PLACE, NEW YORK, NY 10003. E-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A number of people have proposed that we should be pluralists about logic, but there are several things this can mean. Are there versions of logical pluralism that are both high on the interest scale and also true? After discussing some forms of pluralism that seem either insufficiently interesting or quite unlikely to be true, the paper suggests a new form which might be both interesting and true; however, the scope of the pluralism that it allows logic is extremely narrow.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 342 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beall, J. C., & Restall, G. (2006). Logical Pluralism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boolos, G. (1985). Nominalist platonism. Philosophical Review, 94, 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1934). Logische Syntax der Sprache. Translated into English by Smeaton, A. (1959), as The Logical Syntax of Language. Paterson, NJ: Littlefield Adams. Page reference to this version.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M. (1978). Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2008). Saving Truth From Paradox. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, H. (2009a). Epistemology without metaphysics. Philosophical Studies, 143, 249–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, H. (2009b). What is the normative role of logic? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary, 83.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1967). Informal rigor and completeness proofs. In Lakatos, I., editor. Problems in the Philosophy of Mathematics, 138–71. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. (2002). Paraconsistent logic. In Gabbay, D., and Guenther, F., editors. Handbook of Philosophical Logic (second edition), Vol. 6, 287–393. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1968). Is logic empirical? In Cohen, R., and Wartofsky, M., editors. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 5. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1936). Über den Begriff der Logischen Folgerung. Translated into English by Woodger, J.H. (1956) as “On the concept of logical consequence”. In Tarski, A. Logic, Semantics and Metamathematics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar