The paper studies the relation between systems of modal logic and systems of consequential implication, a non-material form of implication satisfying "Aristotle's Thesis" (p does not imply not p) and "Weak Boethius' Thesis" (if p implies q, then p does not imply not q). Definitions are given of consequential implication in terms of modal operators and of modal operators in terms of consequential implication. The modal equivalent of "Strong Boethius' Thesis" (that p implies q implies that p does not imply (...) not q) is identified. (shrink)

Jonathan Lowe has argued that a particular variation on C.I. Lewis' notion of strict implication avoids the paradoxes of strict implication. We show that Lowe's notion of implication does not achieve this aim, and offer a general argument to demonstrate that no other variation on Lewis' notion of constantly strict implication describes the logical behaviour of natural-language conditionals in a satisfactory way.

In this introduction, we offer an overview of main systems developed in the growing literature on connexive logic, and also point to a few topics that seem to be collecting attention of many of those interested in connexive logic. We will also make clear the context to which the papers in this special issue belong and contribute.

This paper provides a proof-theoretic study of quantified non-normal modal logics. It introduces labelled sequent calculi based on neighbourhood semantics for the first-order extension, with both varying and constant domains, of monotone NNML, and studies the role of the Barcan formulas in these calculi. It will be shown that the calculi introduced have good structural properties: invertibility of the rules, height-preserving admissibility of weakening and contraction and syntactic cut elimination. It will also be shown that each of the calculi introduced (...) is sound and complete with respect to the appropriate class of neighbourhood frames. In particular, the completeness proof constructs a formal derivation for derivable sequents and a countermodel for non-derivable ones, and gives a semantic proof of the admissibility of cut. (shrink)

Of the various accounts of negation that have been offered by logicians in the history of Western logic, that of negation as cancellation is a very distinctive one, quite different from the explosive accounts of modern "classical" and intuitionist logics, and from the accounts offered in standard relevant and paraconsistent logics. Despite its ancient origin, however, a precise understanding of the notion is still wanting. The first half of this paper offers one. Both conceptually and historically, the account of negation (...) as cancellation is intimately connected with connexivist principles such as ¬( ¬). Despite this, standard connexivist logics incorporate quite different accounts of negation. The second half of the paper shows how the cancellation account of negation of the first part gives rise to a semantics for a simple connexivist logic. (shrink)

In this paper, we shall consider the so-called cancellation view of negation and the inferential role of contradictions. We will discuss some of the problematic aspects of negation as cancellation, such as its original presentation by Richard and Valery Routley and its role in motivating connexive logic. Furthermore, we will show that the idea of inferential ineffectiveness of contradictions can be conceptually separated from the cancellation model of negation by developing a system we call qLPm, a combination of Graham Priest’s (...) minimally inconsistent Logic of Paradox with q-entailment as introduced by Grzegorz Malinowski. (shrink)

In many actual arguments, the conclusion seems intuitively to follow from the premisses, even though we cannot show that it follows logically. The traditional approach to evaluating such arguments is to suppose that they have an unstated premiss whose explicit addition will produce an argument where the conclusion does follow logically. But there are good reasons for doubting that people so frequently leave the premisses of their arguments unstated. The inclination to suppose that they do stems from the belief that (...) the only way in which an argument's conclusion can follow definitely from its premisses is to follow logically. I argue that this belief is mistaken. I propose a revision of the current generic conception of logical consequence, and its variant specifications, to avoid the paradoxes of strict implication. The revised conception can then be naturally extended to include also what we might call 'enthymematic consequence'. This concept is a kind of consequence, whose properties merit investigation. (shrink)