Abstract
AbstractThis paper critically examines logical instrumentalism as it has been put forth recently in the anti-exceptionalism about logic debate. I will argue that if one wishes to uphold the claim that logic is significantly similar to science, as the anti-exceptionalists have it, then logical instrumentalism cannot be what previous authors have taken it to be. The reason for this, I will argue, is that as the position currently stands, first, it reduces to a trivial claim about the instrumental value of logical systems, and second, by its denial that logic aims to account for extra-systemic phenomena it significantly differs from science, in contrast with the AEL agenda. I will conclude by proposing a different kind of logical instrumentalism that I take to have a broad appeal, but especially for anti-exceptionalists, for it is developed as analogous to—and thus much closer aligned with—scientific instrumentalism.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference34 articles.
1. Arenhart, J. R. B. (2020). The Problem with ‘the Background Logic Problem.’ Philosophica Critica, 6(2), 2–29.
2. Arenhart, J. R. B. (2022). Logical anti-exceptionalism meets the “logic-as-models” approach. Theoria. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12436
3. Van Benthem, J. (1999). Wider still and wider… : Resetting the Bounds of Logic. In: The European Review of Philosophy, vol. IV (ed. A. Varzi). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
4. Bueno, O., & Colyvan, M. (2004). Logical non-apriorism and the ‘law’ of non-contradiction. In G. Priest, J. Beall, & B. Armour-Garb (Eds.), The law of non-contradiction (pp. 156–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199265176.003.0010
5. Caret, C. R., & Kouri Kissel, T. (2021). Pluralistic perspectives on logic: An introduction. Synthese, 198(20), 4789–4800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02525-x
Cited by
1 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