逻辑常量的语义简约

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 Q1 Arts and Humanities
F. Paoli
{"title":"逻辑常量的语义简约","authors":"F. Paoli","doi":"10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In [31], I defended a minimalist account of meaning for logical constants as a way to ward off Quine’s meaning variance charge against deviant logics. Its key idea was that some deviant propositional logics share with classical logic the operational meanings of all their connectives, as encoded in their sequent calculus operational rules, yet validate different sequents than classical logic — therefore, we can have genuine rivalry between logics without meaning variance. In his [19], Ole Hjortland levelled several objections at this view. The aim of this paper is to address these criticisms, highlighting at the same time the role played by logical consequence in this version of semantic minimalism.","PeriodicalId":46471,"journal":{"name":"Logique et Analyse","volume":"5 1","pages":"439-461"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Semantic minimalism for logical constants\",\"authors\":\"F. Paoli\",\"doi\":\"10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In [31], I defended a minimalist account of meaning for logical constants as a way to ward off Quine’s meaning variance charge against deviant logics. Its key idea was that some deviant propositional logics share with classical logic the operational meanings of all their connectives, as encoded in their sequent calculus operational rules, yet validate different sequents than classical logic — therefore, we can have genuine rivalry between logics without meaning variance. In his [19], Ole Hjortland levelled several objections at this view. The aim of this paper is to address these criticisms, highlighting at the same time the role played by logical consequence in this version of semantic minimalism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Logique et Analyse\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"439-461\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Logique et Analyse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053513\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logique et Analyse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053513","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

在[31]中,我为逻辑常数的意义的极简解释进行了辩护,作为一种避免奎因对偏离逻辑的意义方差指控的方式。它的关键思想是,一些偏差命题逻辑与经典逻辑共享其所有连接词的运算意义,就像在它们的序列演算运算规则中编码的那样,但验证的序列与经典逻辑不同——因此,我们可以在没有意义差异的逻辑之间进行真正的竞争。在他的[19]中,Ole Hjortland对这一观点提出了几个反对意见。本文的目的是解决这些批评,同时强调逻辑结果在这个版本的语义极简主义中所起的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Semantic minimalism for logical constants
In [31], I defended a minimalist account of meaning for logical constants as a way to ward off Quine’s meaning variance charge against deviant logics. Its key idea was that some deviant propositional logics share with classical logic the operational meanings of all their connectives, as encoded in their sequent calculus operational rules, yet validate different sequents than classical logic — therefore, we can have genuine rivalry between logics without meaning variance. In his [19], Ole Hjortland levelled several objections at this view. The aim of this paper is to address these criticisms, highlighting at the same time the role played by logical consequence in this version of semantic minimalism.
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
Logique et Analyse
Logique et Analyse PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Logique et Analyse is the continuation of Bulletin Intérieur, which was published from 1954 on by the Belgian National Centre for Logical Investigation, and intended originally only as an internal publication of results for its members and collaborators. Since the start of the new series, in 1958, however, the journal has been open to external submissions (and subscriptions). Logique et Analyse itself subscribes to no particular logical or philosophical doctrine, and so is open to articles from all points of view, provided only that they concern the designated subject matter of the journal.
×
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