Advertisement

Deflationism About Logic

  • Christopher Blake-TurnerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Logical consequence is typically construed as a metalinguistic relation between (sets of) sentences. Deflationism is an account of logic that challenges this orthodoxy. In Williamson’s recent presentation of deflationism, logic’s primary concern is with universal generalizations over absolutely everything. As well as an interesting account of logic in its own right, deflationism has also been recruited to decide between competing logics in resolving semantic paradoxes. This paper defends deflationism from its most important challenge to date, due to Ole Hjortland. It then presents two new problems for the view. Hjortland’s objection is that deflationism cannot discriminate between distinct logics. I show that his example of classical logic and supervaluationism depends on equivocating about whether the language includes a “definitely” operator. Moreover, I prove a result that blocks this line of objection no matter the choice of logics. I end by criticizing deflationism on two fronts. First, it cannot do the work it has been recruited to perform. That is, it cannot help adjudicate between competing logics. This is because a theory of logic cannot be as easily separated from a theory of truth as its proponents claim. Second, deflationism currently has no adequate answer to the following challenge: what does a sentence’s universal generalization have to do with its logical truth? I argue that the most promising, stipulative response on behalf of the deflationist amounts to an unwarranted change of subject.

Keywords

Philosophy of logic Deflationism Deflationism about logic Williamson Hjortland Anti-exceptionalism Metavalidity Meta-argument Meta-argumentative equivalence Abduction Truth 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper has benefitted from discussion with Jared Henderson, Nathan Kellen, Gurpreet Rattan, and participants of the Society for Exact Philosophy annual conference at the University of Connecticut in 2018. I am also grateful to Joanna Lawson, Erik Stei, and Simon Varey for reading drafts. Special thanks are due to Gillian Russell. The idea for the paper came from participating in her Philosophy of Logic graduate class at UNC in the spring semester of 2017. She also provided extremely helpful feedback, and much-needed encouragement, at multiple stages of the writing and rewriting process. Finally, thank you to two anonymous reviewers, whose generous comments improved the paper greatly.

References

  1. 1.
    Cobreros, P., Égré, P., Ripley, D., van Rooij, R. (2013). Reaching transparent truth. Mind, 122(488), 841–866.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzt110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dicher, B. (2018). Variations on intra-theoretical logical pluralism: internal versus external consequence. Philosophical Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1199-z.
  3. 3.
    Etchemendy, J. (1999). The concept of logical consequence. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fine, K. (1972). Vagueness, truth and logic. Synthese, 30(3/4), 265–300. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20115033.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haack, S. (1978). Philosophy of logics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hjortland, O.T. (2016). Anti-exceptionalism about logic. Philosophical Studies, 174(3), 631–658.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0701-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maddy, P. (2014). The logical must: Wittgenstein on logic. Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199391752.001.0001.
  8. 8.
    Priest, G. (1979). The logic of paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 219–241.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00258428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Priest, G. (2006). Doubt truth to be a liar. Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/0199263280.001.0001.
  10. 10.
    Quine. W.V. (1986). Philosophy of logic, 2 edn. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Read, S. (1988). Relevant logic: a philosophical examination of inference. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russell, G. (2015). The justification of the basic laws of logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44(6), 793–803.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-015-9360-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shapiro, L. (2011). Deflating logical consequence. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(243), 320–342.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.678.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tarski, A. (1936/1956). On the concept of logical consequence, chapter 16. In Woodger, J.H. (Ed.) (trans) Logic, semantics, metamathematics: papers from 1923 to 1938 (pp. 409–420): Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Williamson, T. (2013). Modal logic as metaphysics. Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552078.001.0001.
  17. 17.
    Williamson, T. (2017). Semantic paradoxes and abductive methdology, chapter 13. In Armour-Garb, B. (Ed.) Reflections on the liar (pp. 325-346): Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williamson, T. (2018). Supervaluationism and good reasoning. THEORIA, 33 (3), 521–537.  https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.18490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations