Abstract
AbstractMotivated by weaknesses with traditional accounts of logical epistemology, considerable attention has been paid recently to the view, known as anti-exceptionalism about logic (AEL), that the subject matter and epistemology of logic may not be so different from that of the recognised sciences. One of the most prevalent claims made by advocates of AEL is that theory choice within logic is significantly similar to that within the sciences. This connection with scientific methodology highlights a considerable challenge for the anti-exceptionalist, as two uncontentious claims about scientific theories are that they attempt to explain a target phenomenon and (at least partially) prove their worth through successful predictions. Thus, if this methodological AEL is to be viable, the anti-exceptionalist will need a reasonable account of what phenomena logics are attempting to explain, how they can explain, and in what sense they can be said to issue predictions. This paper makes sense of the anti-exceptionalist proposal with a new account of logical theory choice, logical predictivism, according to which logics are engaged in both a process of prediction and explanation.
Funder
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Norges Forskningsråd
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference70 articles.
1. Anderson, A.R., & Belnap, N.D. (1975). Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity volume 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2. Ayer, A.J. (1936). Language truth and logic. New York: Dover.
3. Belnap, N.D. (1960). Entailment and relevance. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 25(2), 144–146.
4. Bogen, J., & Woodward, J. (1988). Saving the phenomena. The Philosophical Review, 97(3), 303–352.
5. Boghossian, P. (2000) In Paul Boghossian, C. P. (Ed.), Knowledge of logic, (pp. 229–254). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cited by
30 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献