Abstract

SummaryThose who claim formal logic to be plainly independent of any philosophical commitment often seem to overlook the historical facts of cooperation between formal logic and logical empiricism, the cases or more or less implicit shifting from a de facto to a de iure situation.Three subcases are here examined of an explaining‐away argumentation which, whether directly of indirectly, contributes to bestowing undue prerogatives upon formalization. Objections are raised especially against some points of Ayer's discussion towards reducing the concept of thruth in such a way that it can be either dispensed with or readily assumed by that kind of uncritical epistemology which gravitates towards formalization and formal systems