Justification of Logics and Conceptual Frameworks

Abstract

Abstract Because of the development of non-classical alternatives to classical logic, the traditional view that classical logic expresses a priori necessities of thinking is no longer tenable. What is needed are non-circular strategies for the higher justification of a system of logic. This is the major theme of Chapter 8. In the case of the justification of logic, the requirement of non-circularity seems to be hopeless, because every argument or evidence for or against a given logic already presupposes a logic for describing that argument or evidence. Yet, technical means for a possible solution to this problem were developed in recent decades. They lie in the possibility of translations between different logics. In Chapter 8, the method of translation is applied as a strategy for an optimality justification of classical logic, by demonstrating that all major systems of non-classical logic are translatable into classical logic. This shows that classical logic is representationally optimal. A few non-classical logics are likewise representationally optimal, but the situation is not symmetrical, since classical logic has some unique ceteris paribus advantages as a unifying metalogic. In the final section of Chapter 8, criteria for the optimal choice of systems of non-logical concepts are developed. It is argued that one can break out of the ‘prison of language’ by considering the process of ostensive learning of observation concepts. An analysis of certain independence properties involved in this learning process enables a novel solution to Goodman’s and Miller’s problem of language relativity.