Another way logic might be normative

Synthese:1-21 (2021)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Is logic normative for reasoning? In the wake of work by Gilbert Harman and John MacFarlane, this question has been reduced to: are there any adequate bridge principles which link logical facts to normative constraints on reasoning? Hitherto, defenders of the normativity of logic have exclusively focussed on identifying adequate validity bridge principles: principles linking validity facts—facts of the form 'gamma entails phi'—to normative constraints on reasoning. This paper argues for two claims. First, for the time being at least, Harman’s challenge cannot be surmounted by articulating validity bridge principles. Second, Harman’s challenge can be met by articulating invalidity bridge principles: principles linking invalidity facts of the form 'gamma does not entail phi' to normative constraints on reasoning. In doing so, I provide a novel defence of the normativity of logic.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
EVEAWL
Upload history
Archival date: 2021-02-24
View other versions
Added to PP index
2021-02-21

Total views
61 ( #52,470 of 2,448,214 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
23 ( #28,448 of 2,448,214 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.