Several philosophers have argued that the logic of set theory should be intuitionistic on the grounds that the open-endedness of the set concept demands the adoption of a nonclassical semantics. This paper examines to what extent adopting such a semantics has revisionary consequences for the logic of our set-theoretic reasoning. It is shown that in the context of the axioms of standard set theory, an intuitionistic semantics sanctions a classical logic. A Kripke semantics in the context of a weaker axiomatization (...) is then considered. It is argued that this semantics vindicates an intuitionistic logic only insofar as certain constraints are put on its interpretation. Wider morals are drawn about the restrictions that this places on the shape of arguments for an intuitionistic revision of the logic of set theory. (shrink)

Some philosophers have argued that the open-endedness of the set concept has revisionary consequences for the semantics and logic of set theory. I consider (several variants of) an argument for this claim, premissed on the view that quantification in mathematics cannot outrun our conceptual abilities. The argument urges a non-standard semantics for set theory that allegedly sanctions a non-classical logic. I show that the views about quantification the argument relies on turn out to sanction a classical semantics and logic after (...) all. More generally, this article constitutes a case study in whether the need to account for conceptual progress can ever motivate a revision of semantics or logic. I end by expressing skepticism about the prospects of a so-called non-proof-based justification for this kind of revisionism about set theory. (shrink)

Different formal tools are useful for different purposes. For example, when it comes to modelling degrees of belief, probability theory is a better tool than classical logic; when it comes to modelling the truth of mathematical claims, classical logic is a better tool than probability theory. In this paper I focus on a widely used formal tool and argue that it does not provide a good model of a phenomenon of which many think it does provide a good model: I (...) shall argue that while supervaluationism may provide a model of probability of truth, or of assertability, it cannot provide a good model of truth -- supertruth cannot be truth. The core of the argument is that an adequate model of truth must render certain connectives truth-functional (at least in certain circumstances) -- and supervaluationism does not do so (in those circumstances). (shrink)