Another way logic might be normative.

Is logic normative for reasoning? In the wake of work by Gilbert Harman and John MacFarlane, this question has been reduced to: are there any adequate bridge principles which link logical facts to normative constraints on reasoning? Hitherto, defenders of the normativity of logic have exclusively fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Synthese Vol. 199; no. 3/4; pp. 5861 - 5882
Autor principal: Evershed, J. W.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Dec2021
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=154096706&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 154096706
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00397857
        4LI
      jtl: Synthese
      issn: 00397857
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Dec2021
      vid: 199
      iid: 3/4
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        154096706
        10.1007/s11229-021-03049-z
      ppf: 5861
      ppct: 21
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 337KB
      tig:
        atl: Another way logic might be normative.
      aug:
        au: Evershed, J. W.
        affil: Department of Philosophy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
      su:
        Logic
        Normativity (Ethics)
      sug:
        subj:
          Logic
          Normativity (Ethics)
      keyword:
        Bridge principles
        Logic and reasoning
        Normativity of logic
        Philosophy of logic
      ab: Is logic normative for reasoning? In the wake of work by Gilbert Harman and John MacFarlane, this question has been reduced to: are there any adequate bridge principles which link logical facts to normative constraints on reasoning? Hitherto, defenders of the normativity of logic have exclusively focussed on identifying adequate validity bridge principles: principles linking validity facts—facts of the form Γ ⊧ φ —to normative constraints on reasoning. This paper argues for two claims. First, for the time being at least, Harman's challenge cannot be surmounted by articulating validity bridge principles. Second, Harman's challenge can be met by articulating invalidity bridge principles: principles linking invalidity facts of the form Γ ⊭ ψ to normative constraints on reasoning. In doing so, I provide a novel defence of the normativity of logic.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Synthese
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2021
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N