This paper presents an outline of a new theory of relevant deduction which arose from the purpose of solving paradoxes in various fields of analytic philosophy. In distinction to relevance logics, this approach does not replace classical logic by a new one, but distinguishes between relevance and validity. It is argued that irrelevant arguments are, although formally valid, nonsensical and even harmful in practical applications. The basic idea is this: a valid deduction is relevant iff no subformula of the conclusion (...) is replaceable on some of its occurrences by any other formula salva validitate of the deduction. The paper first motivates the approach by showing that four paradoxes seemingly very distant from each other have a common source. Then the exact definition of relevant deduction is given and its logical properties are investigated. An extension to relevance of premises is discussed. Finally the paper presents an overview of its applications in philosophy of science, ethics, cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence. (shrink)

This book was designed primarily as a textbook; though the author hopes that it will prove to be of interests to others beside logic students. Part I of this book covers the fundamentals of the subject the propositional calculus and the theory of quantification. Part II deals with the traditional formal logic and with the developments which have taken that as their starting-point. Part III deals with modal, three-valued, and extensional systems.

In this note I respond to Hartley Slater's argument 12 to the e ect that there is no such thing as paraconsistent logic. Slater's argument trades on the notion of contradictoriness in the attempt to show that the negation of paraconsistent logics is merely a subcontrary forming operator and not one which forms contradictories. I will show that Slater's argument fails, for two distinct reasons. Firstly, the argument does not consider the position of non-dialethic paraconsistency which rejects the possible truth (...) of any contradictions. Against this position Slater's argument has no bite at all. Secondly, while the argument does show that for dialethic paraconsistency according to which contradictions can be true, certain other contradictions must be true, I show that this need not deter the dialethic paraconsistentist from their position. (shrink)

R. K. Meyer once gave precise form to the question of whether relevant implication can be defined in any modal system, and his answer was `no'. In the present paper, we extend S4, first with propositional quantifiers, to the system S4π+; and then with definite propositional descriptions, to the system S4π+ lp . We show that relevant implication can in some sense be defined in the modal system S4π+ lp , although it cannot be defined in S4π+.

R. K. Meyer once gave precise form to the question of whether relevant implication can be defined in any modal system, and his answer was `no'. In the present paper, we extend $\mathbf{S4}$, first with propositional quantifiers, to the system $\mathbf{S4\pi}+$; and then with definite propositional descriptions, to the system $\mathbf{S4\pi}+^{lp}$. We show that relevant implication can in some sense be defined in the modal system $\mathbf{S4\pi}+^{lp}$, although it cannot be defined in $\mathbf{S4\pi}+$.