Philosophical Studies

, Volume 150, Issue 2, pp 161–185 | Cite as

Negation, anti-realism, and the denial defence

  • Imogen Dickie


Here is one argument against realism. (1) Realists are committed to the classical rules for negation. But (2) legitimate rules of inference must conserve evidence. And (3) the classical rules for negation do not conserve evidence. So (4) realism is wrong. Most realists reject 2. But it has recently been argued that if we allow denied sentences as premisses and conclusions in inferences we will be able to reject 3. And this new argument against 3 generates a new response to the anti-realist argument: keep 1 and 2, avoiding 4 by rejecting 3. My aim in this paper is to see how much work in the fight against anti-realism this new response can really do. I argue that there is a powerful objection to the response: 2 is in tension with the claim that denied sentences can be premisses and conclusions in inferences. But I show that, even given this objection, the new response has an important role to play.


Classical negation Intuitionist attack on classical negation Anti-realist argument from the intuitionist attack on classical negation Denial Realism Anti-realism Dummett 



Thanks to Diana Raffman and to audiences at the University of Western Ontario and Carleton University for discussion of earlier versions. Thanks to Ranpal Dosanjh for a physicist’s perspective on the material in Sect. 3.3. Many thanks to Philip Kremer for extensive comments on an earlier draft and multiple helpful discussions of this subject matter. Many thanks also to an anonymous referee for Philosophical Studies for extremely useful comments.


  1. Boghossian, P. (2000). Knowledge of logic. In P. Boghossian & C. Peacocke (Eds.), New essays on the a priori. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell, J. (2002). Reference and consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, J. (2007). If truth is dethroned, what role is left for it? In R. E. Auxier & L. E. Hahn (Eds.), Library of living philosophers: The philosophy of Michael Dummett. Chicago and LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court.Google Scholar
  4. Dummett, M. (1978). Truth and other enigmas. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  5. Dummett, M. (1991). The logical basis of metaphysics. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  6. Dummett, M. (1993). The seas of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Edgington, D. (1985). Verificationism and the manifestations of meaning. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 59, 33–52.Google Scholar
  8. Field, H. (1994). Deflationist views of meaning and content. Mind, 103, 249–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frege, G. (1979). Logic. In P. Long & R. White (trans.), Gottlob Frege: Posthumous Writings. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Frege, G. (1984). Negation. In B. McGuinness (Ed.), Gottlob Frege: Collected papers on mathematics, logic, and philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Gibbard, P. (2002). Price and Rumfitt on rejective negation and classical logic. Mind, 111, 297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hale, B. (1997). Realism and its oppositions. In B. Hale & C. Wright (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Horn, L. R. (2001). A natural history of negation (Reissue ed.). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Horwich, P. (1990). Truth. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. McDowell, J. (1998). Truth conditions, bivalence, and verificationism. In J. McDowell (Ed.), Meaning, knowledge, and reality. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Parsons, T. (1984). Assertion, denial, and the liar paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 13, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Price, H. (1983). Sense, assertion, dummett, and denial. Mind, 92, 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Restall, G. (2005). Multiple conclusions. In P. Hajek, L. Valdes-Villanueva, & D. Westerstahl (Eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress. College Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Rumfitt, I. (1997). The categoricity problem and truth-value gaps. Analysis, 57, 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rumfitt, I. (2000). Yes and No. Mind, 109, 781–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rumfitt, I. (2002). Unilateralism disarmed: A reply to Dummett and Gibbard. Mind, 111, 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smiley, T. (1996). Rejection. Analysis, 56, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tappenden, J. (1999). Negation, denial, and language change in philosophical logic. In D. Gabbay & H. Wansing (Eds.), What is negation?. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Wright, C. (1993). Realism, meaning, and truth (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations