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
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...
No keywords specified (fix it)
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2018-01-22
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
175 ( #37,985 of 69,147 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #50,375 of 69,147 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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