Logical Partisanhood

Philosophical Studies 176 (5):1203-1224 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
A natural suggestion and increasingly popular account of how to revise our logical beliefs treats revision of logic analogously to the revision of scientific theories. I investigate this approach and argue that simple applications of abductive methodology to logic result in revision-cycles, developing a detailed case study of an actual dispute with this property. This is problematic if we take abductive methodology to provide justification for revising our logical framework. I then generalize the case study, pointing to similarities with more recent and popular heterodox logics such as naïve logics of truth. I use this discussion to motivate a constraint—logical partisanhood—on the uses of such methodology: roughly: both the proposed alternative and our actual background logic must be able to agree that moving to the alternative logic is no worse than staying put.
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
WOOLP-7
Upload history
First archival date: 2018-01-17
Latest version: 2 (2018-02-23)
View other versions
Added to PP index
2018-01-17

Total views
246 ( #25,665 of 2,448,678 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #46,981 of 2,448,678 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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