The Boundary Stones of Thought: An Essay in the Philosophy of Logic, by Ian Rumfitt [Book Review]

Mind 127 (505):265-276 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In his book The Boundary Stones of Thought, Ian Rumfitt considers five arguments in favour of intuitionistic logic over classical logic. Two of these arguments are based on reflections concerning the meaning of statements in general, due to Michael Dummett and John McDowell. The remaining three are more specific, concerning statements about the infinite and the infinitesimal, statements involving vague terms, and statements about sets.Rumfitt is sympathetic to the premisses of many of these arguments, and takes some of them to be effective challenges to Bivalence, the following principle: Each statement is either true or false.However, he argues that counterexamples to Bivalence do not immediately lead to counterexamples to Excluded Middle, and so do not immediately refute classical logic; here, Excluded Middle is taken to be the following principle: For each statement A, is true.Much...
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
FRITBS-3
Upload history
Archival date: 2018-01-22
View other versions
Added to PP index
2017-11-05

Total views
134 ( #30,735 of 53,523 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #36,808 of 53,523 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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