This dissertation offers a proof of the logical possibility of testing empirical/factual theories that are inconsistent, but non-trivial. In particular, I discuss whether or not such theories can satisfy Popper's principle of falsifiablility. An inconsistent theory Ƭ closed under a classical consequence relation implies every statement of its language because in classical logic the inconsistency and triviality are coextensive. A theory Ƭ is consistent iff there is not a α such that Ƭ ⊢ α ∧ ¬α, otherwise it is inconsistent. (...) We say, instead, that Ƭ is non-trivial iff there is at least one α such that Ƭ ⊢ α, otherwise we say that it trivial. This happens because classical logic satisfies the principle of explosion, according ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet (from a contradiction anything follows). Under these conditions inconsistent classical theories would be compatible with any well-formed formula, which makes them useless for science. There are, however, so-called paraconsistent logics in which the principle of explosion does not generally hold and in which a theory can be (simply) inconsistent, but also absolutely consistent. It is in this logical framework that we can prove that some inconsistent theories can be falsifiable. (shrink)

In the paper, we tackle the matter of non-classical logics, in particular, paraconsistent ones, for which not every formula follows in general from inconsistent premisses. Our benchmark is Jaśkowski’s logic, modeled with the help of discussion. The second key origin of this paper is the matter of being tabular, i.e. being adequately expressible by finitely many finite matrices. We analyse Jaśkowski’s non-tabular discussive (discursive) logic $ \textbf {D}_{2}$, one of the first paraconsistent logics, from the perspective of a trivalent tabular (...) logic. We are motivated to step down from the ongoing modal $ \textbf {S5}$-perspective of developing $ \textbf {D}_{2}$ both by certain mysteries that have been surrounding it and by gaps in Jaśkowski’s arguments contra the multivalent tabular perspective. Although Jaśkowski’s idea to use $ \textbf {S5}$ in order to define $ \textbf {D}_{2}$ is very attractive since it allows one to benefit from the tools and results of modal logic, it also gives a ‘non-direct’ formulation and, as it appeared later, is superfluous with respect to what is meant to be achieved since one can define the very same logic but using modal logics weaker than S5. It is also known, due to Kotas, that discussive logic is not finite-valued. So, in light of Kotas’s result that $ \textbf {D}_{2}$ is non-tabular, we propose to associate it with a few dozen discussive formulae that Jaśkowski unequivocally and illustratively suggests to be its theorems or non-theorems rather than with axioms of its modern axiomatizations (one of which Kotas employs) in order to be capable of performing a computer-aided brute-force search for suitable trivalent matrices in the cases of one and two designated values. As a result, we find trivalent matrices with two designated values that might be dubbed ‘discussive’ because they meet Jaśkowski’s suggestion to validate and invalidate the litmus theorems and non-theorems, respectively, despite the fact that none of them validates all the negation axioms in the modern axiomatizations of $ \textbf {D}_{2}$. The matrices found are then analysed along with highlighting the ones that were previously mentioned in the literature. We conclude the paper with a comparative analysis of Omori’s results and a test of Karpenko’s hypothesis. (shrink)

Jaśkowski's discussive (discursive) logic D2 is historically one of the first paraconsistent logics, i.e., logics which 'tolerate' contradictions. Following Jaśkowski's idea to define his discussive logic by means of the modal logic S5 via special translation functions between discussive and modal languages, and supporting at the same time the tradition of paracomplete logics being the counterpart of paraconsistent ones, we present a paracomplete discussive logic D2p.

We outline the rather complicated history of attempts at axiomatizing Jaśkowski’s discussive logic $$\mathbf {D_2}$$ D2 and show that some clarity can be had by paying close attention to the language we work with. We then examine the problem of axiomatizing $$\mathbf {D_2}$$ D2 in languages involving discussive conjunctions. Specifically, we show that recent attempts by Ciuciura are mistaken. Finally, we present an axiomatization of $$\mathbf {D_2}$$ D2 in the language Jaśkowski suggested in his second paper on discussive logic, by (...) following a remark of da Costa and Dubikajtis. We also deal with an interesting variant of $$\mathbf {D_2}$$ D2, introduced by Ciuciura, in which negation is also taken to be discussive. (shrink)

A non-Fregean framework aims to provide a formal tool for reasoning about semantic denotations of sentences and their interactions. Extending a logic to its non-Fregean version involves introducing a new connective $$\equiv $$ ≡ that allows to separate denotations of sentences from their logical values. Intuitively, $$\equiv $$ ≡ combines two sentences $$\varphi $$ φ and $$\psi $$ ψ into a true one whenever $$\varphi $$ φ and $$\psi $$ ψ have the same semantic correlates, describe the same situations, or (...) have the same content or meaning. The paper aims to compare non-Fregean paraconsistent Grzegorczyk’s logics (Logic of Descriptions $$\textsf{LD}$$ LD, Logic of Descriptions with Suszko’s Axioms $$\textsf{LDS}$$ LDS, Logic of Equimeaning $$\textsf{LDE}$$ LDE ) with non-Fregean versions of certain well-known paraconsistent logics (Jaśkowski’s Discussive Logic $$\textsf{D}_2$$ D 2, Logic of Paradox $$\textsf{LP}$$ LP, Logics of Formal Inconsistency $$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$ LFI 1 and $$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$ LFI 2 ). We prove that Grzegorczyk’s logics are either weaker than or incomparable to non-Fregean extensions of $$\textsf{LP}$$ LP, $$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$ LFI 1, $$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$ LFI 2. Furthermore, we show that non-Fregean extensions of $$\textsf{LP}$$ LP, $$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$ LFI 1, $$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$ LFI 2, and $$\textsf{D}_2$$ D 2 are more expressive than their original counterparts. Our results highlight that the non-Fregean connective $$\equiv $$ ≡ can serve as a tool for expressing various properties of the ontology underlying the logics under consideration. (shrink)