The paradoxes of self reference have to be dealt with by anyone seeking to give a satisfactory account of the logic of truth, of properties, and even of sets of numbers. Unfortunately, there is no widespread agreement as to how to deal with these paradoxes. Some approaches block the paradoxical inferences by rejecting as invalid a move that classical logic counts as valid. In the recent literature, this deviant logic analysis of the paradoxes has been called into question.This disagreement motivates (...) a re-examination of the philosophy of formal logic and the status of logical truths and rules. In this paper I do some of this work, and I show that this gives us the means to defend the deviant approaches against such criticisms. As a result I hope to show that these analyses of the paradoxes are worthy of more serious consideration than they have so far received. (shrink)

We answer some problems set by Priest in [11] and [12], in particular refuting Priest's Conjecture that all LP-models of Th(N) essentially arise via congruence relations on classical models of Th(N). We also show that the analogue of Priest's Conjecture for I δ₀ + Exp implies the existence of truth definitions for intervals [0,a] ⊂ₑ M ⊨ I δ₀ + Exp in any cut [0,a] ⊂e K ⊆ M closed under successor and multiplication.

This paper criticises necessitarianism, the thesis that there is at least one necessary truth; and defends possibilism, the thesis that all propositions are contingent, or that anything is possible. The second section maintains that no good conventionalist account of necessity is available, while the third section criticises model theoretic necessitarianism. The fourth section sketches some recent technical work on nonclassical logic, with the aim of weakening necessitarian intuitions and strengthening possibilist intuitions. The fifth section considers several a prioristic attempts at (...) demonstrating that there is at least one necessary proposition and finds them inadequate. The final section emphasises the epistemic aspect of possibilism. (shrink)

Guided by questions of scope, this paper provides an overview of what is known about both the scope and, consequently, the limits of Gödel’s famous first incompleteness theorem.

Elimination of quantifiers is shown to fail dramatically for a group of well‐known mathematical theories (classically enjoying the property) against a wide range of relevant logical backgrounds. Furthermore, it is suggested that only by moving to more extensional underlying logics can we get the property back.