Validity as a thick concept

Philosophical Studies 180 (10):2937-2953 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper presents a novel position in the philosophy of logic: I argue that _validity_ is a thick concept. Hence, I propose to consider _validity_ in analogy to other thick concepts, such as _honesty_, _selfishness_ or _justice_. This proposal is motivated by the debate on the normativity of logic: while logic textbooks seem simply descriptive in their presentation of logical truths, many have argued that logic has consequences for how we ought to reason, for what we ought to believe, or for what we ought to infer. How can logic be normative, if it appears to be descriptive? According to the proposal of this paper, the normativity of logic can be explained because a thick concept is in play: _validity_. Thus, I argue that the debate on how to best characterize validity and the debate on logic’s normativity are more connected than we think, because _validity_ is a thick concept.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,783

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Corrigendum: On the Impossibility of Any Future Metaphysics.[author unknown] - 1961 - Philosophical Studies 12 (3):48-48.
Education and “thick” epistemology.Ben Kotzee - 2011 - Educational Theory 61 (5):549-564.
On Sturgeon’s “The rational Mind”. [REVIEW]Juan Comesaña - 2023 - Philosophical Studies 180 (10):3205-3213.
Correction: Ordinary Language and Absolute Certainty.[author unknown] - 1950 - Philosophical Studies 1 (3):48-48.
Correction to: Embodied mind sparsism.Stuart Clint Dowland - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 180 (2):701-701.
Moral intuitions and justification in ethics.Stefan Sencerz - 1986 - Philosophical Studies 50 (1):77 - 95.
Introduction.[author unknown] - 1993 - Philosophical Studies 71 (2):113-118.
Note.[author unknown] - 1973 - Philosophical Studies 24 (1):65-65.
Corrigendum.[author unknown] - 1960 - Philosophical Studies 11 (6):96-96.
Erratum.[author unknown] - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 131 (3):775-775.
Addendum.[author unknown] - 1979 - Philosophical Studies 36 (4):433-433.
Errata.[author unknown] - 1962 - Philosophical Studies 13 (6):96-96.
Editorial.[author unknown] - 2000 - Philosophical Studies 99 (1):1-2.
Contents Volume 101.[author unknown] - 2000 - Philosophical Studies 101 (2):325-326.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-08-01

Downloads
95 (#180,793)

6 months
41 (#96,451)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sophia Arbeiter
University of Pittsburgh

Citations of this work

Logical Disagreement.Frederik J. Andersen - 2024 - Dissertation, University of St. Andrews

Add more citations

References found in this work

Logical pluralism.Jc Beall & Greg Restall - 2000 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (4):475 – 493.
Change in View: Principles of Reasoning.Gilbert Harman - 1986 - Studia Logica 48 (2):260-261.
Logic isn’t normative.Gillian Russell - 2020 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 63 (3-4):371-388.
Three Ways in Which Logic Might Be Normative.Florian Steinberger - 2019 - Journal of Philosophy 116 (1):5-31.

View all 22 references / Add more references