逻辑不确定性:逻辑多元主义和逻辑结果

Otávio Bueno
{"title":"逻辑不确定性:逻辑多元主义和逻辑结果","authors":"Otávio Bueno","doi":"10.29105/aitas2.3-32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is traditionally thought that logic leaves no room for uncertainty. The validity of arguments and whether a statement is a logical truth or not are typically not issues that invite reasons for doubt. In this paper, I argue that, despite its widespread acceptance, this view is difficult to maintain. I offer two main reasons for this conclusion: (a) In light of the plurality of logics, there are significant disagreements about the validity of arguments. (b) It is similarly difficult to reconcile the view that logic is certain with considerations to the effect that logical consequence, arguably the central concept of logic, cannot be analyzed. The very nature of logical consequence is, thus, open for doubt. After giving some illustrations in support of (a), I discuss a dilemma for the adequacy of any conceptual analysis of logical consequence, in support of (b), and respond to some possible objections. In the end, logic is what it is independently of any certainty. I close with some reflections as to why this is not a bad outcome.","PeriodicalId":31490,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Estudios de Genero La Ventana","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incertidumbre Lógica: Pluralismo Lógico y Consecuencia Lógica\",\"authors\":\"Otávio Bueno\",\"doi\":\"10.29105/aitas2.3-32\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is traditionally thought that logic leaves no room for uncertainty. The validity of arguments and whether a statement is a logical truth or not are typically not issues that invite reasons for doubt. In this paper, I argue that, despite its widespread acceptance, this view is difficult to maintain. I offer two main reasons for this conclusion: (a) In light of the plurality of logics, there are significant disagreements about the validity of arguments. (b) It is similarly difficult to reconcile the view that logic is certain with considerations to the effect that logical consequence, arguably the central concept of logic, cannot be analyzed. The very nature of logical consequence is, thus, open for doubt. After giving some illustrations in support of (a), I discuss a dilemma for the adequacy of any conceptual analysis of logical consequence, in support of (b), and respond to some possible objections. In the end, logic is what it is independently of any certainty. I close with some reflections as to why this is not a bad outcome.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista de Estudios de Genero La Ventana\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista de Estudios de Genero La Ventana\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29105/aitas2.3-32\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Estudios de Genero La Ventana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29105/aitas2.3-32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

传统上认为逻辑没有不确定性的余地。论证的有效性和一个陈述是否为逻辑真理通常不会引起怀疑的理由。在本文中,我认为,尽管这种观点被广泛接受,但很难维持。我为这一结论提供了两个主要原因:(a)鉴于逻辑的多元性,关于论证的有效性存在重大分歧。(b)同样难以调和逻辑是确定的这一观点与逻辑结果(可以说是逻辑的中心概念)无法分析的考虑。因此,逻辑结果的本质是值得怀疑的。在给出支持(a)的一些例子之后,我讨论了支持(b)的逻辑结果的任何概念分析的充分性的困境,并回应了一些可能的反对意见。最后,逻辑是独立于任何确定性的东西。最后,我想谈谈为什么这不是一个坏结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Incertidumbre Lógica: Pluralismo Lógico y Consecuencia Lógica
It is traditionally thought that logic leaves no room for uncertainty. The validity of arguments and whether a statement is a logical truth or not are typically not issues that invite reasons for doubt. In this paper, I argue that, despite its widespread acceptance, this view is difficult to maintain. I offer two main reasons for this conclusion: (a) In light of the plurality of logics, there are significant disagreements about the validity of arguments. (b) It is similarly difficult to reconcile the view that logic is certain with considerations to the effect that logical consequence, arguably the central concept of logic, cannot be analyzed. The very nature of logical consequence is, thus, open for doubt. After giving some illustrations in support of (a), I discuss a dilemma for the adequacy of any conceptual analysis of logical consequence, in support of (b), and respond to some possible objections. In the end, logic is what it is independently of any certainty. I close with some reflections as to why this is not a bad outcome.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
“Resulta aberrante su actuar”: Mujeres acusadas de delincuencia organizada uerpos violables, cuerpos descartables. Mujeres que se inyectan drogas y prohibicionismo en México El alfa es el cirujano: Estereotipos de género y prestigio en las especialidades médicas Cuidar bajo tierra. La experiencia de mujeres cuidadoras que laboran en la economía popular dentro del Metro de la Ciudad de México “Enfermó y toda la familia enfermamos, todos colapsamos”. Cuidados en la enfermedad y los impactos en la salud de las madres cuidadoras
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1