Logical Particularism

  • Gillman Payette
  • Nicole WyattEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Innovations in Philosophy book series (PIIP)


Logics—that is to say logical systems—are generally conceived of as describing the logical forms of arguments as well as endorsing certain principles or rules of inference specified in terms of these forms. From this perspective, a correct logic is a system which captures only (and perhaps all of) the correct principles, and good—that is, logical—reasoning is reasoning which at the level of logical form conforms to the principles of a correct logic. In contrast, as logical particularists we reject the idea that logical validity is a property of logical forms or schema, and instead take validity to be a property of particular inferences. In this chapter, we describe and defend this radically different approach to validity and explore the particularist understanding of the relationship between logical systems and logical reasoning.


Logical particularism Logical generalism Logical pluralism Global logical pluralism Local logical pluralism Logical nihilism Validity Logical consequence Logical form Modelling Natural language consequence Explanation 


  1. Beall, J., and G. Restall. 2006. Logical Pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bokulich, A. 2011. How Scientific Models Can Explain. Synthese 180 (1): 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cantwell, J. 2008. Changing the Modal Context. Theoria 74 (4): 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castañeda, H.N. 1981. The Paradoxes of Deontic Logic: The Simplest Solution to All of Them in One Fell Swoop. In New Studies in Deontic Logic, ed. R. Hilpinen, 37–85. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook, R.T. 2002. Vagueness and Mathematical Precision. Mind 111 (442): 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2010. Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom: A Tour of Logical Pluralism. Philosophy Compass 5 (6): 492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cozic, M., and B. Hill. 2015. Representation Theorems and the Semantics of Decision-Theoretic Concepts. Journal of Economic Methodology 22 (3): 292–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cullity, G., and R. Holton. 2002. Particularism and Moral Theory. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 76: 169–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dancy, Jonathan. 2013. Moral Particularism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edn.), ed. E.N. Zalta. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  10. Dreier, J. 2009. Practical Conditionals. In Reasons for Action, ed. D. Sobel and S. Wall, 116–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dummett, M. 1991. The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Field, H. 2015. What Is Logical Validity? In Foundations of Logical Consequence, ed. C.R. Caret and O.T. Hjortland, 33–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fine, K. 2012. The Pure Logic of Ground. Review of Symbolic Logic 5 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franks, C. 2010. Cut as Consequence. History and Philosophy of Logic 31 (4): 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2015. Logical Nihilism. In Logic Without Borders: Essays on Set Theory, Model Theory, Philosophical Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. A. Villaveces, R. Kossak, J. Kontinen, and A. Hirvonen, 147–166. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Giere, R.N. 2004. How Models Are Used to Represent Reality. Philosophy of Science 71 (5): 742–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godfrey-Smith, P. 2009. Models and Fictions in Science. Philosophical Studies 143 (1): 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haack, S. 1978. Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hindriks, F. 2008. False Models as Explanatory Engines. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 38 (3): 334–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iemhoff, R., and G. Metcalfe. 2009. Proof Theory for Admissible Rules. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 159 (1–2): 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jennings, R.E., and P.K. Schotch. 1984. The Preservation of Coherence. Studia Logica 43 (1–2): 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jennings, R.E., B. Brown, and P. Schotch, eds. 2009. On Preserving: Essays on Preservationism and Paraconsistency. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kolodny, N., and J. MacFarlane. 2010. Ifs and Oughts. Journal of Philosophy 107 (3): 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lakatos, I. 1976. Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Larvor, B. 2001. What Is Dialectical Philosophy of Mathematics? Philosophia Mathematica 9 (2): 212–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2008. Moral Particularism and Scientific Practice. Metaphilosophy 39 (4–5): 492–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGee, V. 1985. A Counter Example to Modus Ponens. Journal of Philosophy 82 (9): 462–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McKeever, S., and M. Ridge. 2005. The Many Moral Particularisms. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35 (1): 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norton, J.D. 2003. A Material Theory of Induction. Philosophy of Science 70 (4): 647–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ———. 2010. There Are No Universal Rules for Induction. Philosophy of Science 77 (5): 765–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Odenbaugh, J. 2005. Idealized, Inaccurate but Successful: A Pragmatic Approach to Evaluating Models in Theoretical Ecology. Biology and Philosophy 20 (2–3): 231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Payette, G., and P.K. Schotch. 2007. On Preserving. Logica Universalis 1 (2): 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Payette, G., and N. Wyatt. 2018. How Do Logics Explain? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (1): 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Priest, G. 2014. Logical Pluralism: Another Application for Chunk and Permeate. Erkenntnis 79 (SUPPL.2): 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Read, S. 1994. Formal and Material Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 (2): 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Russell, G. 2017. An Introduction to Logical Nihilism. In Logic, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Congress, ed. H. Leitgeb, I. Niiniluoto, P. Seppäla, and E. Sober, 1–10. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Searle, J.R., and D. Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sen, A. 1970. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden Day.Google Scholar
  39. Shapiro, S. 2014. Varieties of Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, Peter. 2011. Squeezing Arguments. Analysis 71 (1): 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stokhof, M. 2007. Hand or Hammer? On Formal and Natural Languages in Semantics. Journal of Indian Philosophy 35 (5–6): 597–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Benthem, J. 1997. Correspondence Theory. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, ed. D.M. Gabay and F. Guenthner, vol. 2, 2nd ed., 325–408. Dordrecht: Klewer.Google Scholar
  43. Woody, A.I. 2013. How Is the Ideal Gas Law Explanatory? Science & Education 22 (7): 1563–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. ———. 2014. Chemistry’s Periodic Law: Rethinking Representation and Explanation After the Turn to Practice. In Science After the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science, ed. L. Soler, S. Zwart, M. Lynch, and V. Israel-Jost, 123–150. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2015. Re-Orienting Discussions of Scientific Explanation: A Functional Perspective. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 52: 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wyatt, N., and G. Payette. 2018. Logical Pluralism and Logical Form. Logique et Analyse 241: 25–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations