Scholarlink

<p>Logical anti-exceptionalism, that is the idea that logic is not fundamentally different from other forms of inquiry such as science or mathematics, can be broadly characterized as being contrary to paradigmatic examples of exceptionalism about logic, such as the rationalist and semanticist conceptions. Logical inferentialism asserts that the meanings of logical expressions are determined by the basic rules prescribed for their correct application, such that comprehension of a logical expression is achieved through its use in accordance with the appropriate logical rule Brandom (Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, 1994); Boghossian (Blind Reasoning. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 77(1), 225–248, 2003a), Boghossian (Epistemic Analyticity: A Defence. Grazer Philosophische Studien 66(1), 15–35, 2003b). Despite the fact that inferentialism may appear to be an exceptionalist theory given its semanticist approach, not all inferentialists keep to the exceptionalist tenets of logic. This paper scrutinizes the recent moderate anti-exceptionalist proposal of naturalized inferentialism by Peregrin and Svoboda (Moderate anti-exceptionalism and earthborn logic. Synthese 199 (3–4), 8781–8806, 2021). To contextualize Peregrin and Svoboda’s proposal, the paper presents a series of issues concerning the various anti-exceptionalist and exceptionalist theories; this discussion shows that naturalized inferentialism can resolve the adoption problem identified by Kripke, and Boghossian and Wright (Kripke, Quine, the “Adoption Problem” and the Empirical Conception of Logic. Mind, 133(529), 86–116, 2024) while remaining faithful to the anti-exceptionalism it seeks to advance, except for its adherence to the fundamental nature of logical human practice. Moreover, it illustrates that as anti-exceptionalist proposals reduce their aspirations, the distinction from exceptionalist positions progressively diminishes in clarity and precision.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Inferentialism naturalized and anti-exceptionalism about logic

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月11日

查看全文
  • Dolores García-Arnaldos,
  • Concha Martínez-Vidal

摘要

Logical anti-exceptionalism, that is the idea that logic is not fundamentally different from other forms of inquiry such as science or mathematics, can be broadly characterized as being contrary to paradigmatic examples of exceptionalism about logic, such as the rationalist and semanticist conceptions. Logical inferentialism asserts that the meanings of logical expressions are determined by the basic rules prescribed for their correct application, such that comprehension of a logical expression is achieved through its use in accordance with the appropriate logical rule Brandom (Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, 1994); Boghossian (Blind Reasoning. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 77(1), 225–248, 2003a), Boghossian (Epistemic Analyticity: A Defence. Grazer Philosophische Studien 66(1), 15–35, 2003b). Despite the fact that inferentialism may appear to be an exceptionalist theory given its semanticist approach, not all inferentialists keep to the exceptionalist tenets of logic. This paper scrutinizes the recent moderate anti-exceptionalist proposal of naturalized inferentialism by Peregrin and Svoboda (Moderate anti-exceptionalism and earthborn logic. Synthese 199 (3–4), 8781–8806, 2021). To contextualize Peregrin and Svoboda’s proposal, the paper presents a series of issues concerning the various anti-exceptionalist and exceptionalist theories; this discussion shows that naturalized inferentialism can resolve the adoption problem identified by Kripke, and Boghossian and Wright (Kripke, Quine, the “Adoption Problem” and the Empirical Conception of Logic. Mind, 133(529), 86–116, 2024) while remaining faithful to the anti-exceptionalism it seeks to advance, except for its adherence to the fundamental nature of logical human practice. Moreover, it illustrates that as anti-exceptionalist proposals reduce their aspirations, the distinction from exceptionalist positions progressively diminishes in clarity and precision.