逻辑中的直觉:一个温和的建议

IF 0.2 Q4 Arts and Humanities
Diego Tajer
{"title":"逻辑中的直觉:一个温和的建议","authors":"Diego Tajer","doi":"10.22370/rhv2020iss16pp239-253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Intuitions play a significant role in debates about logic. In this paper, I analyze how legitimate is that practice. In the first part of the paper, I distinguish between theoretical and pretheoretical intuitions, and argue that some pretheoretical intuitions are not to be taken into account in logic. Particularly, our pretheoretical intuitions about the concept of validity are not of much importance, since we don’t have a uniform or clear concept of validity in the natural language to be elucidated. Nevertheless, I argue that, since logical connectives are more homogeneously used in our ordinary speech, we can appeal to pretheoretical intuitions to establish their meaning in a logical theory. In the second part of the paper, I consider and reply to four objections to this moderate proposal. Two of them try to show that, if this position is adopted, then the pretheoretical intuitions about the connectives are completely unreliable and useless. One of them argues that this mixed position is unstable: pretheoretical intuitions about the connectives are also pretheoretical intuitions about validity. The last problem is related to the definition of validity and the possibility of revising it.","PeriodicalId":36808,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Humanidades de Valparaiso","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intuiciones en lógica: una propuesta moderada\",\"authors\":\"Diego Tajer\",\"doi\":\"10.22370/rhv2020iss16pp239-253\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Intuitions play a significant role in debates about logic. In this paper, I analyze how legitimate is that practice. In the first part of the paper, I distinguish between theoretical and pretheoretical intuitions, and argue that some pretheoretical intuitions are not to be taken into account in logic. Particularly, our pretheoretical intuitions about the concept of validity are not of much importance, since we don’t have a uniform or clear concept of validity in the natural language to be elucidated. Nevertheless, I argue that, since logical connectives are more homogeneously used in our ordinary speech, we can appeal to pretheoretical intuitions to establish their meaning in a logical theory. In the second part of the paper, I consider and reply to four objections to this moderate proposal. Two of them try to show that, if this position is adopted, then the pretheoretical intuitions about the connectives are completely unreliable and useless. One of them argues that this mixed position is unstable: pretheoretical intuitions about the connectives are also pretheoretical intuitions about validity. The last problem is related to the definition of validity and the possibility of revising it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36808,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista de Humanidades de Valparaiso\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista de Humanidades de Valparaiso\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2020iss16pp239-253\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Humanidades de Valparaiso","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2020iss16pp239-253","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

直觉在逻辑辩论中扮演着重要的角色。在本文中,我分析了这种做法的合法性。在本文的第一部分,我区分了理论直觉和理论前直觉,并认为一些理论前直觉在逻辑中是不应该被考虑的。特别是,我们关于有效性概念的理论前直觉并不重要,因为我们在自然语言中没有一个统一或清晰的有效性概念需要阐明。然而,我认为,由于逻辑连接词在我们的日常言语中使用得更为均匀,我们可以诉诸于理论前的直觉来确定它们在逻辑理论中的意义。在论文的第二部分,我考虑并回答了对这一温和建议的四个反对意见。其中两个试图表明,如果采用这种立场,那么关于连接词的理论前直觉是完全不可靠和无用的。其中一个认为这种混合的立场是不稳定的:关于连接词的理论前直觉也是关于效度的理论前直觉。最后一个问题是关于有效性的定义和修改有效性的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intuiciones en lógica: una propuesta moderada
Intuitions play a significant role in debates about logic. In this paper, I analyze how legitimate is that practice. In the first part of the paper, I distinguish between theoretical and pretheoretical intuitions, and argue that some pretheoretical intuitions are not to be taken into account in logic. Particularly, our pretheoretical intuitions about the concept of validity are not of much importance, since we don’t have a uniform or clear concept of validity in the natural language to be elucidated. Nevertheless, I argue that, since logical connectives are more homogeneously used in our ordinary speech, we can appeal to pretheoretical intuitions to establish their meaning in a logical theory. In the second part of the paper, I consider and reply to four objections to this moderate proposal. Two of them try to show that, if this position is adopted, then the pretheoretical intuitions about the connectives are completely unreliable and useless. One of them argues that this mixed position is unstable: pretheoretical intuitions about the connectives are also pretheoretical intuitions about validity. The last problem is related to the definition of validity and the possibility of revising it.
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
Revista de Humanidades de Valparaiso
Revista de Humanidades de Valparaiso Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
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