为什么对 Beall 来说,FDE 可能太强了

Hitoshi Omori, Jonas R. B. Arenhart
{"title":"为什么对 Beall 来说,FDE 可能太强了","authors":"Hitoshi Omori,&nbsp;Jonas R. B. Arenhart","doi":"10.1007/s44204-023-00133-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In his “The simple argument for subclassical logic,” Jc Beall advances an argument that led him to take <b>FDE</b> as the one true logic (the latter point is explicitly made clear in his “<b>FDE</b> as the One True Logic”). The aim of this article is to point out that if we follow Beall’s line of reasoning for endorsing <b>FDE</b>, there are at least two additional reasons to consider that <b>FDE</b> is too strong for Beall’s purposes. In fact, we claim that Beall should consider another weaker subclassical logic as the logic adequate for his project. To this end, we first briefly present Beall’s argument for <b>FDE</b>. Then, we discuss two specific topics that seem to motivate us to weaken <b>FDE</b>. We then introduce a subsystem that will enjoy all the benefits of Beall’s suggestion.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-023-00133-8.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why FDE might be too strong for Beall\",\"authors\":\"Hitoshi Omori,&nbsp;Jonas R. B. Arenhart\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s44204-023-00133-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In his “The simple argument for subclassical logic,” Jc Beall advances an argument that led him to take <b>FDE</b> as the one true logic (the latter point is explicitly made clear in his “<b>FDE</b> as the One True Logic”). The aim of this article is to point out that if we follow Beall’s line of reasoning for endorsing <b>FDE</b>, there are at least two additional reasons to consider that <b>FDE</b> is too strong for Beall’s purposes. In fact, we claim that Beall should consider another weaker subclassical logic as the logic adequate for his project. To this end, we first briefly present Beall’s argument for <b>FDE</b>. Then, we discuss two specific topics that seem to motivate us to weaken <b>FDE</b>. We then introduce a subsystem that will enjoy all the benefits of Beall’s suggestion.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian journal of philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-023-00133-8.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian journal of philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-023-00133-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-023-00133-8","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

Jc Beall 在其 "亚经典逻辑的简单论证 "中提出了一个论点,导致他将 FDE 视为唯一真实的逻辑(后一点在其 "FDE 作为唯一真实的逻辑 "中明确指出)。本文旨在指出,如果我们按照 Beall 的思路来认可 FDE,那么至少还有两个理由可以认为 FDE 对于 Beall 的目的来说太强了。事实上,我们认为 Beall 应该考虑用另一种较弱的亚类逻辑来满足他的计划。为此,我们首先简要介绍 Beall 关于 FDE 的论证。然后,我们讨论两个似乎促使我们弱化 FDE 的具体主题。然后,我们介绍一个子系统,它将享受 Beall 建议的所有好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why FDE might be too strong for Beall

In his “The simple argument for subclassical logic,” Jc Beall advances an argument that led him to take FDE as the one true logic (the latter point is explicitly made clear in his “FDE as the One True Logic”). The aim of this article is to point out that if we follow Beall’s line of reasoning for endorsing FDE, there are at least two additional reasons to consider that FDE is too strong for Beall’s purposes. In fact, we claim that Beall should consider another weaker subclassical logic as the logic adequate for his project. To this end, we first briefly present Beall’s argument for FDE. Then, we discuss two specific topics that seem to motivate us to weaken FDE. We then introduce a subsystem that will enjoy all the benefits of Beall’s suggestion.

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
CiteScore
0.60
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信