-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Franci MangravitiAbstract:
How many logics do logical pluralists adopt, or are allowed to adopt, or ought to adopt, in arguing for their view? These metatheoretical questions lurk behind much of the discussion on logical pluralism, and have a direct bearing on normative issues concerning the choice of a correct logic and the characterization of valid reasoning. Still, they commonly receive just swift answers – if any. Our
aim is to tackle these questions head on, by clarifying the range of possibilities that logical pluralists have at their disposal when it comes to the metatheory of their position, and by spelling out which routes are advisable. We explore ramifications of all relevant responses to our question: no logic, a single logic, more than one logic. In the end, we express skepticism that any proposed answer is viable. This threatens the coherence of current and future versions of logical pluralism.Comment : Could be used for a lesson on meta-theoretical issues in a course on logical pluralism, or as further reading when discussing logical pluralism in a general course on the philosophy of logic. Some familiarity with the monism/pluralism debate is assumed.Yap, Audrey. Feminism and Carnap’s Principle of Tolerance2010, Hypatia 25 (2):437-454-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Franci MangravitiAbstract:
The logical empiricists often appear as a foil for feminist theories. Their emphasis on the individualistic nature of knowledge and on the value neutrality of science seems directly opposed to most feminist concerns. However, several recent works have highlighted aspects of Carnap’s views that make him seem like much less of a straight-forwardly positivist thinker. Certain of these aspects lend themselves to feminist concerns much more than the stereotypical picture would imply.
Comment : available in this BlueprintYap, Audrey. The Logical Syntax of Prejudice: Oppression and the Constitutive A Priori2024, In R. Cook and A. Yap (eds.), Feminist Philosophy and Formal Logic. University of Minnesota Press-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Franci Mangraviti and Viviane FairbankAbstract:
I argue that a thoroughgoing naturalized epistemology can easily underestimate the extent to which certain background assumptions will infl uence arguments. Instead, then, I suggest that we can borrow a conceptual tool from neo-Kantian philosophy of science, namely the constitutive a priori. This idea originates in neo-Kantian philosophers who understood, in light of Einsteinian physics, that Kantian views about the a priority of space were untenable. Frameworks that adopt some version of a constitutive a priori take certain propositions to play the role of a priori principles, without granting them the universality or necessity that such principles traditionally hold. I will argue that thinking of certain views or values as having the status of constitutive a priori principles can help us understand what would be required for an epistemic agent to change them, and thus illustrate the extent to which they are resistant to being dislodged by evidence.Comment : available in this Blueprint- 1
- 2
Can’t find it?Contribute the texts you think should be here and we’ll add them soon!
-
-
Sereni, Andrea, Sforza Fogliani, Maria Paola. How to Water a Thousand Flowers. On the Logic of Logical Pluralism
2017, Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy:1-24
This site is registered on Toolset.com as a development site.