Od logiki Łukasiewicza do idei implikacji ważonej. Epistemologiczne przesłanki za przyjęciem wielowartościowości logicznej jako odpowiedź na tezę Suszki

Bartosz Kośny
{"title":"Od logiki Łukasiewicza do idei implikacji ważonej. Epistemologiczne przesłanki za przyjęciem wielowartościowości logicznej jako odpowiedź na tezę Suszki","authors":"Bartosz Kośny","doi":"10.19195/1895-8001.18.2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I argue that logical multivalency is necessary for epistemology and has desirable structural properties. In support of this claim, I discuss the nonclassical logical values from an epistemological point of view. The question addressed is how many logical values logicians and philosophers need. Two standpoints are usually adopted regarding this issue: the fundamentality of bivalence and the necessity of multivalence. The first position, supported by Suszko, is summarized in the statement that due to the very nature of logic, bivalency is all we need. The second position, motivated by research practice which requires making inferences under imperfect conditions, admits the multivalence. In the first part of the article, I focus on the very first manyvalued system L3, invented and explored by Jan Łukasiewicz. I recount the critique of L3, and then discuss Suszko’s thesis and Malinowski’s response. I also analyze the epistemological background of the Suszko-Łukasiewicz controversy which was related to the relation between logic, antirealism and externalism. I conclude fundamentalism regarding logical bivalence generates more problems than the adoption of multivalency.","PeriodicalId":262683,"journal":{"name":"Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19195/1895-8001.18.2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper I argue that logical multivalency is necessary for epistemology and has desirable structural properties. In support of this claim, I discuss the nonclassical logical values from an epistemological point of view. The question addressed is how many logical values logicians and philosophers need. Two standpoints are usually adopted regarding this issue: the fundamentality of bivalence and the necessity of multivalence. The first position, supported by Suszko, is summarized in the statement that due to the very nature of logic, bivalency is all we need. The second position, motivated by research practice which requires making inferences under imperfect conditions, admits the multivalence. In the first part of the article, I focus on the very first manyvalued system L3, invented and explored by Jan Łukasiewicz. I recount the critique of L3, and then discuss Suszko’s thesis and Malinowski’s response. I also analyze the epistemological background of the Suszko-Łukasiewicz controversy which was related to the relation between logic, antirealism and externalism. I conclude fundamentalism regarding logical bivalence generates more problems than the adoption of multivalency.
从卢卡舍维茨的逻辑到加权蕴涵的思想。支持逻辑多值性的认识论理由,作为对苏什卡论题的回应
本文认为逻辑多价性是认识论的必要条件,并具有理想的结构性质。为了支持这一主张,我从认识论的角度讨论了非经典逻辑值。问题是逻辑学家和哲学家需要多少逻辑值。对于这一问题,人们通常持两种观点:二价论的根本性和多价论的必要性。第一种立场得到Suszko的支持,他总结说,由于逻辑的本质,二价是我们所需要的。第二种立场是由需要在不完美条件下进行推论的研究实践所推动的,它承认多重价值。在本文的第一部分中,我将重点介绍由Jan Łukasiewicz发明和探索的第一个多值系统L3。我将叙述L3的批判,然后讨论Suszko的论点和Malinowski的回应。本文还分析了Suszko-Łukasiewicz争论的认识论背景,该争论涉及逻辑、反实在论和外在主义之间的关系。我的结论是,关于逻辑二价的原教旨主义比多价的采用产生了更多的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信