Logical pluralism is commonly described as the view that there is more than one correct logic. It has been claimed that, in order for that view to be interesting, there has to be at least a potential for rivalry between the correct logics. This paper offers a detailed assessment of this suggestion. I argue that an interesting version of logical pluralism is hard, if not impossible, to achieve. I first outline an intuitive understanding of the notions of rivalry and correctness. (...) I then discuss a natural account of rivalry in terms of disagreement about validity claims and the argument from meaning variance that has been raised against it. I explore a more refined picture of the meaning of validity claims that makes use of the character-content distinction of classical two dimensional semantics. There are three ways in which pluralists can use that framework to argue for the view that different logics may be rivals but could nevertheless be equally correct. I argue that none of them is convincing. (shrink)

This paper presents a new view of logical pluralism. This pluralism takes into account how the logical connectives shift, depending on the context in which they occur. Using the Question-Under-Discussion Framework as formulated by Craige Roberts, I identify the contextual factor that is responsible for this shift. I then provide an account of the meanings of the logical connectives which can accommodate this factor. Finally, I suggest that this new pluralism has a certain Carnapian flavour. Questions about the meanings of (...) the connectives or the best logic outside of a specified context are not legitimate questions. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to give a general solution to the paradoxes of the material conditional, including the paradoxes generated by embedded conditionals. The solution consists in a pragmatic reinterpretation of the formal languages of classical logic LK and relevant logic LR as presented in Paoli. In particular I argue that the material conditional in the classical logic LK captures the truth conditions of “if...then”, but ignores certain pragmatic enrichments that are associated to it, while relevant logic LR (...) can give a systematic diagnostic of the cases in which a conditional is pragmatically enriched and those cases in which it is not. This diagnostic shows the reason why the paradoxes seem unacceptable and why they are, nevertheless, truth-preserving. This reinterpretation will also cover the solution that Paoli gives to McGee’s paradoxes of the Modus Ponens. (shrink)

The goal of the paper is to discuss whether substructural non-contractive accounts of the truth-theoretic paradoxes can be philosophically motivated. First, I consider a number of explanations that have been offered to justify the failure of contraction and I argue that they are not entirely compelling. I then present a non-contractive theory of truth that I’ve proposed elsewhere. After looking at some of its formal properties, I suggest an explanation of the failure of structural contraction that is compatible with it.