A Normative Argument Against Explosion
Author(s) -
Pinder Mark
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
thought: a journal of philosophy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.429
H-Index - 8
ISSN - 2161-2234
DOI - 10.1002/tht3.234
Subject(s) - argument (complex analysis) , sketch , normative , variety (cybernetics) , epistemology , inference , raising (metalworking) , law and economics , philosophy , sociology , computer science , mathematics , artificial intelligence , algorithm , biochemistry , chemistry , geometry
One strategy for defending paraconsistent logics involves raising ‘normative arguments’ against the inference rule explosion . Florian Steinberger systematically criticises a wide variety of formulations of such arguments. I argue that, for one such formulation, Steinberger's criticisms fail. I then sketch an argument, available to those who deny dialetheism, in defence of the formulation in question.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom