Boolean negation and all that

Priest G. (1990) Boolean negation and all that. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 19 2: 201-215. doi:10.1007/BF00263541

Author Priest G.
Title Boolean negation and all that
Journal name Journal of Philosophical Logic   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0022-3611
Publication date 1990-01-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1007/BF00263541
Volume 19
Issue 2
Start page 201
End page 215
Total pages 15
Publisher Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject 2609 Logic
1211 Philosophy
Abstract We have seen that proofs of soundness of (Boolean) DS, EFQ and of ABS - and hence the legitimation of these inferences - can be achieved only be appealing to the very form of reasoning in question. But this by no means implies that we have to fall back on classical reasoning willy-nilly. Many logical theories can provide the relevant boot-strapping. Decision between them has, therefore, to be made on other grounds. The grounds include the many criteria familiar from the philosophy of science: theoretical integrity (e.g., paucity of ad hoc hypotheses), adequacy to the data (explaining the data of inference -all inferences, not just those chosen from consistent domains!) and so on. This paper has not attempted to address these issues in general. All it demonstrates is that the charge that a dialetheist solution to the semantic paradoxes can be maintained only by making some intelligible notion ineffable cannot be made to stick. The dialetheist has a coherent position, endorsing the T-scheme, but rejecting DS, EFQ (even Boolean DS and EFQ) and ABS. And any argument to the effect that the relevant notions are both ineffable and intelligible begs the question. The case against consistent "solutions" to the semantic paradoxes therefore remains intact.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Unknown

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Scopus Import
Scopus Import - Archived
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 19 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 26 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 16 Aug 2016, 14:07:12 EST by System User