Incertidumbre Lógica: Pluralismo Lógico y Consecuencia Lógica

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29105/aitas2.3-32

Keywords:

Uncertainty, Logic, Consequence, Pluralism

Abstract

It is traditionally thought that logic leaves no room for uncertainty. The validity of arguments and whether a statement is a logical truth or not are typically not issues that invite reasons for doubt. In this paper, I argue that, despite its widespread acceptance, this view is difficult to maintain. I offer two main reasons for this conclusion: (a) In light of the plurality of logics, there are significant disagreements about the validity of arguments. (b) It is similarly difficult to reconcile the view that logic is certain with considerations to the effect that logical consequence, arguably the central concept of logic, cannot be analyzed. The very nature of logical consequence is, thus, open for doubt. After giving some illustrations in support of (a), I discuss a dilemma for the adequacy of any conceptual analysis of logical consequence, in support of (b), and respond to some possible objections. In the end, logic is what it is independently of any certainty. I close with some reflections as to why this is not a bad outcome.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Azzouni, J. [1994]: Metaphysical Myths, Mathematical Practice: The Ontology and Epistemology of the Exact Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Azzouni, J. [2004]: Deflating Existential Consequence: A Case for Nominalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Azzouni, J. [2006]: Tracking Reason: Proof, Consequence, and Truth. New York: Oxford University Press.

Azzouni, J. [2022]: “Why Deflationary Nominalists and Logical Conventionalists Should Adopt Syntactic Characterizations of Logic and Consequence”, paper available at https://jodyazzouni.com.

Beall, JC, and Restall, G. [2006]: Logical Pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boolos, G., Burgess, J., and Jeffrey, R. [2007]: Computability and Logic (Fifth edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Presss

Bueno, O. [2005]: “Dirac and the Dispensability of Mathematics”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36, pp. 465-490.

Bueno, O. [2008]: “Nominalism and Mathematical Intuition”, Protosociology 25, pp. 89-107.

Bueno, O. [2010]: “Is Logic A Priori?”, Harvard Review of Philosophy 17, pp. 105-117.

Bueno, O. [2013]: “Nominalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 edition). URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/nominalism-mathematics/.

Bueno, O. [2020]: “Contingent Abstract Objects”, in J.L. Falguera and C. Martínez-Vidal (eds.), Abstract Objects. Cham: Springer, pp. 91-109.

Bueno, O. [2021]: “Modality and the Plurality of Logics”, in Bueno, O., and Shalkowski, S. (eds.), Handbook of Modality. London: Routledge, pp. 319-327.

Bueno, O. [2022]: “Revising Logics”, in Jean-Yves Béziau, Jean-Pierre Desclés, Amirouche Moktefi, and Anca Christine Pascu (eds.), Logic in Question. Dordrecht: Birkhäuser.

Bueno, O., and Shalkowski, S. [2009]: “Modalism and Logical Pluralism”, Mind 118, pp. 295-321.

Bueno, O., and Shalkowski, S. [2013]: “Logical Constants: A Modalist Approach”, Noûs 47, pp. 1-24.

Bueno, O., and Vivanco, M. [2019]: “La Lógica y Sus Aplicaciones: ¿Platonismo o No-Platonismo?”, Andamios 16, pp. 19-41.

da Costa, N.C.A. [1994]: Ensaio sobre os Fundamentos da Lógica. [Essay on the Foundations of Logic.] (Second edition; originally published in 1979.) São Paulo: Hucitec.

da Costa, N.C.A., and Bueno, O. [2001]: “Paraconsistency: Towards a Tentative Interpretation”, Theoria 16, pp. 119-145.

da Costa, N.C.A., Bueno, O., and French, S. [1998]: “Is there a Zande Logic?”, History and Philosophy of Logic 19, pp. 41-54.

Divers, J. [2002]: Possible Worlds. London: Routledge.

Etchemendy, J. [1990]: The Concept of Logical Consequence. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

French, S., and Krause, D. [2006]: Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical, and Formal Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, D. [1986]: On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lowe, E.J. [1987]: “Not a Counterexample to Modus Ponens”, Analysis 47, pp. 44-47.

McGee, V. [1985]: “A Counterexample to Modus Ponens”, Journal of Philosophy 82, pp. 462-471.

McGee, V. [1992]: “Two Problems with Tarski’s Theory of Consequence”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 92, pp. 273-292.

Priest, G. [2006]: In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent. (Second, expanded edition.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sagi, G. [2014]: “Models and Logical Consequence”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 43, pp. 943-964.

Shalkowski, S. [1994]: “The Ontological Ground of the Alethic Modality”, The Philosophical Review 103, pp. 669-688.

Sher, G. [1991]: The Bounds of Logic: A Generalized Viewpoint. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Sher, G. [2003]: “A Characterization of Logical Constants Is Possible”, Theoria 18, pp. 189–198.

Tarski, A. [1936/1983]: “On the Concept of Logical Consequence”, in Tarski, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. (Second edition, edited by John Corcoran.) Indianapolis: Hackett.

Tarski, A. [1986]: “What are Logical Notions” (edited by John Corcoran), History and Philosophy of Logic 7, pp. 143-154.

Published

2022-07-01

How to Cite

Bueno, O. (2022). Incertidumbre Lógica: Pluralismo Lógico y Consecuencia Lógica. Aitias, Revista De Filosofía Del CEH, 2(3), 129–161. https://doi.org/10.29105/aitas2.3-32

Publication Facts

Metric
This article
Other articles
Peer reviewers 
3
2.4

Reviewer profiles  N/A

Author statements

Author statements
This article
Other articles
Data availability 
N/A
16%
External funding 
No
32%
Competing interests 
N/A
11%
Metric
This journal
Other journals
Articles accepted 
84%
33%
Days to publication 
23
145

Indexed in

Editor & editorial board
profiles
Publisher 
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León