Disagreement about logic from a pluralist perspective

Philosophical Studies 177 (11):3329-3350 (2020)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2019-11-25
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
73 ( #39,769 of 52,923 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
17 ( #33,504 of 52,923 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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