Adopting and rejecting logic
DOI
Access Status
This content is available to Open Access.
To download content simply use the links provided under the Files section.
More information about licence and terms of use for this content is available in the Rights section.
Type
Article
Date
2024-03
Journal Title
Philosophical Papers Journal of Department of Philosophy
Journal Editor
Das, Kanti Lal
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of North Bengal
Statistics
Total views and downloads
Views
24Downloads
26Citation
Bhowmik, N. (2024). Adopting and rejecting logic. Philosophical Papers Journal of Department of Philosophy, XX, 41–53. https://ir.nbu.ac.in/handle/123456789/5204
Authors
Bhowmik, Nilanjan
Advisor
Editor
Abstract
It is well known that there are, surprisingly enough, alternative logics. Not all logics obey classical logic. One or the other basic laws of classical logic – like excluded middle - can always be challenged and a different logic can be developed. Sometimes this revision takes place because of developments in science. Putnam (1968) argued that classical logic cannot be accepted for quantum mechanics. This implies that we can adopt a different logic when it comes to quantum mechanics. Putnam’s claim supports Quine’s notion that nothing is exempt from revision under empirical pressure. Contrary to this, Kripke (2023) argues that we cannot adopt a logic which deviates from a basic principle like the law of excluded middle. Since, we cannot adopt a logic we cannot change our reasoning because of pressure from empirical sciences. In this paper, I will raise the issue of whether we can reject a logic or not and what implications this can have for logic, reasoning and Quinean anti-exceptionalism about logic. In short, I will argue that we cannot reject a logic, but we can revise classical logic and develop a different formal system but this does not imply that the original logic was somehow just like the sciences, open to rejection. In this sense, logical systems are not like Ptolemaic models of the solar system. I will also maintain that it is hard to say what logic our reasoning employs, and that revision is not the anvil on which the apriority of logic should be tested.
Description
Citation
Accession No
Call No
Book Title
Edition
Volume
ISBN No
Volume Number
XX
Issue Number
ISSN No
0976-4496
eISSN No
Pages
Pages
41 - 53