Implicit and Explicit Stances in Logic.
We identify a pervasive contrast between implicit and explicit stances in logical analysis and system design. Implicit systems change received meanings of logical constants and sometimes also the notion of consequence, while explicit systems conservatively extend classical systems with new vocabular...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Philosophical Logic Vol. 48; no. 3; pp. 571 - 602 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Jun2019
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=136621959&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 136621959 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00223611 JPH jtl: Journal of Philosophical Logic issn: 00223611 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jun2019 vid: 48 iid: 3 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 136621959 10.1007/s10992-018-9485-y ppf: 571 ppct: 31 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 730KB tig: atl: Implicit and Explicit Stances in Logic. aug: au: van Benthem, Johan affil: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94242, 1090, Amsterdam, GE, The Netherlands Department of Philosophy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Department of Philosophy, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China su: Philosophical analysis Systems design Vocabulary Philosophy Pluralism sug: subj: Philosophical analysis Systems design Vocabulary Philosophy Pluralism keyword: Explicit Implicit Logic Modality Translation ab: We identify a pervasive contrast between implicit and explicit stances in logical analysis and system design. Implicit systems change received meanings of logical constants and sometimes also the notion of consequence, while explicit systems conservatively extend classical systems with new vocabulary. We illustrate the contrast for intuitionistic and epistemic logic, then take it further to information dynamics, default reasoning, and other areas, to show its wide scope. This gives a working understanding of the contrast, though we stop short of a formal definition, and acknowledge limitations and borderline cases. Throughout we show how awareness of the two stances suggests new logical systems and new issues about translations between implicit and explicit systems, linking up with foundational concerns about identity of logical systems. But we also show how a practical facility with these complementary working styles has philosophical consequences, as it throws doubt on strong philosophical claims made by just taking one design stance and ignoring alternative ones. We will illustrate the latter benefit for the case of logical pluralism and hyper-intensional semantics. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Journal of Philosophical Logic is a copyright of Springer, 2019. All Rights Reserved. item: Journal of Philosophical Logic holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2019 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|