Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems
- Autores
- Tajer, Diego; Fiore, Camillo Giuliano
- Año de publicación
- 2022
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- Logical pluralism is a general idea that there is more than one correct logic. Carnielli and Rodrigues [2019a] defend an epistemic interpretation of the paraconsistent logic N4, according to which an argument is valid in this logic just in case it necessarily preserves evidence. The authors appeal to this epistemic interpretation to briefly motivate a kind of logical pluralism: “different accounts of logical consequence may preserve different properties of propositions”. The aim of this paper is to study the prospect of a logical pluralism based on different interpretations of logical systems. First, we give our analysis of what it means to interpret a logic - and make some hopefully useful distinctions along the way. Second, we present what we call an interpretational logical pluralism: there is more than one correct logic and a logic is correct only if it has some adequate interpretation. We consider four variants of this idea, bring up some possible objections, and try to find plausible solutions on behalf of the pluralist. We will argue that interpretations of logical systems provide a promising - albeit not unproblematic - route to logical pluralism.
Fil: Tajer, Diego. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas. - Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas; Argentina
Fil: Fiore, Camillo Giuliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas. - Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas; Argentina - Materia
-
COLLAPSE ARGUMENT
INTERPRETATIONS OF LOGICAL SYSTEMS
LOGICAL PLURALISM
PURE AND APPLIED LOGICS - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/202687
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
id |
CONICETDig_3bfef75f73b256744cd92e2b4f2dcaad |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/202687 |
network_acronym_str |
CONICETDig |
repository_id_str |
3498 |
network_name_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
spelling |
Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical SystemsTajer, DiegoFiore, Camillo GiulianoCOLLAPSE ARGUMENTINTERPRETATIONS OF LOGICAL SYSTEMSLOGICAL PLURALISMPURE AND APPLIED LOGICShttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6Logical pluralism is a general idea that there is more than one correct logic. Carnielli and Rodrigues [2019a] defend an epistemic interpretation of the paraconsistent logic N4, according to which an argument is valid in this logic just in case it necessarily preserves evidence. The authors appeal to this epistemic interpretation to briefly motivate a kind of logical pluralism: “different accounts of logical consequence may preserve different properties of propositions”. The aim of this paper is to study the prospect of a logical pluralism based on different interpretations of logical systems. First, we give our analysis of what it means to interpret a logic - and make some hopefully useful distinctions along the way. Second, we present what we call an interpretational logical pluralism: there is more than one correct logic and a logic is correct only if it has some adequate interpretation. We consider four variants of this idea, bring up some possible objections, and try to find plausible solutions on behalf of the pluralist. We will argue that interpretations of logical systems provide a promising - albeit not unproblematic - route to logical pluralism.Fil: Tajer, Diego. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas. - Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas; ArgentinaFil: Fiore, Camillo Giuliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas. - Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas; ArgentinaAkademicka Platforma Czasopism2022-02-07info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/202687Tajer, Diego; Fiore, Camillo Giuliano; Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems; Akademicka Platforma Czasopism; Logic And Logical Philosophy; 31; 2; 7-2-2022; 209-2341425-3305CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.12775/LLP.2022.007info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://apcz.umk.pl/LLP/article/view/37081info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T09:51:03Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/202687instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 09:51:03.948CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems |
title |
Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems |
spellingShingle |
Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems Tajer, Diego COLLAPSE ARGUMENT INTERPRETATIONS OF LOGICAL SYSTEMS LOGICAL PLURALISM PURE AND APPLIED LOGICS |
title_short |
Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems |
title_full |
Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems |
title_fullStr |
Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems |
title_full_unstemmed |
Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems |
title_sort |
Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems |
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Tajer, Diego Fiore, Camillo Giuliano |
author |
Tajer, Diego |
author_facet |
Tajer, Diego Fiore, Camillo Giuliano |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Fiore, Camillo Giuliano |
author2_role |
author |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
COLLAPSE ARGUMENT INTERPRETATIONS OF LOGICAL SYSTEMS LOGICAL PLURALISM PURE AND APPLIED LOGICS |
topic |
COLLAPSE ARGUMENT INTERPRETATIONS OF LOGICAL SYSTEMS LOGICAL PLURALISM PURE AND APPLIED LOGICS |
purl_subject.fl_str_mv |
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6 |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
Logical pluralism is a general idea that there is more than one correct logic. Carnielli and Rodrigues [2019a] defend an epistemic interpretation of the paraconsistent logic N4, according to which an argument is valid in this logic just in case it necessarily preserves evidence. The authors appeal to this epistemic interpretation to briefly motivate a kind of logical pluralism: “different accounts of logical consequence may preserve different properties of propositions”. The aim of this paper is to study the prospect of a logical pluralism based on different interpretations of logical systems. First, we give our analysis of what it means to interpret a logic - and make some hopefully useful distinctions along the way. Second, we present what we call an interpretational logical pluralism: there is more than one correct logic and a logic is correct only if it has some adequate interpretation. We consider four variants of this idea, bring up some possible objections, and try to find plausible solutions on behalf of the pluralist. We will argue that interpretations of logical systems provide a promising - albeit not unproblematic - route to logical pluralism. Fil: Tajer, Diego. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas. - Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas; Argentina Fil: Fiore, Camillo Giuliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas. - Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas; Argentina |
description |
Logical pluralism is a general idea that there is more than one correct logic. Carnielli and Rodrigues [2019a] defend an epistemic interpretation of the paraconsistent logic N4, according to which an argument is valid in this logic just in case it necessarily preserves evidence. The authors appeal to this epistemic interpretation to briefly motivate a kind of logical pluralism: “different accounts of logical consequence may preserve different properties of propositions”. The aim of this paper is to study the prospect of a logical pluralism based on different interpretations of logical systems. First, we give our analysis of what it means to interpret a logic - and make some hopefully useful distinctions along the way. Second, we present what we call an interpretational logical pluralism: there is more than one correct logic and a logic is correct only if it has some adequate interpretation. We consider four variants of this idea, bring up some possible objections, and try to find plausible solutions on behalf of the pluralist. We will argue that interpretations of logical systems provide a promising - albeit not unproblematic - route to logical pluralism. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-02-07 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/202687 Tajer, Diego; Fiore, Camillo Giuliano; Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems; Akademicka Platforma Czasopism; Logic And Logical Philosophy; 31; 2; 7-2-2022; 209-234 1425-3305 CONICET Digital CONICET |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/202687 |
identifier_str_mv |
Tajer, Diego; Fiore, Camillo Giuliano; Logical Pluralism and Interpretations of Logical Systems; Akademicka Platforma Czasopism; Logic And Logical Philosophy; 31; 2; 7-2-2022; 209-234 1425-3305 CONICET Digital CONICET |
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.12775/LLP.2022.007 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://apcz.umk.pl/LLP/article/view/37081 |
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ar/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ar/ |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Akademicka Platforma Czasopism |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Akademicka Platforma Czasopism |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET) instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
reponame_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
collection |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
instname_str |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar |
_version_ |
1842269070691401728 |
score |
13.13397 |