In memoriam José Arrazola Ramírez The logic $\textbf{G}^{\prime}_3$ was introduced by Osorio et al. in 2008; it is a three-valued logic, closely related to the paraconsistent logic $\textbf{CG}^{\prime}_3$ introduced by Osorio et al. in 2014. The logic $\textbf{CG}^{\prime}_3$ is defined in terms of a multi-valued semantics and has the property that each theorem in $\textbf{G}^{\prime}_3$ is a theorem in $\textbf{CG}^{\prime}_3$. Kripke-type semantics has been given to $\textbf{CG}^{\prime}_3$ in two different ways by Borja et al. in 2016. In this work, we (...) continue the study of $\textbf{CG}^{\prime}_3$, obtaining a Hilbert-type axiomatic system and proving a soundness and completeness theorem for this logic. (shrink)

Anti-realists typically contend that truth is epistemically constrained. Truth, they say, cannot outstrip our capacity to know. Some anti-realists are also willing to make a further claim: if truth is epistemically constrained, classical logic is to be given up in favour of intuitionistic logic. Here we shall be concerned with one argument in support of this thesis - Crispin Wright's Basic Revisionary Argument, first presented in his Truth and Objectivity. We argue that the reasoning involved in the argument, if correct, (...) validates a parallel argument that leads to conclusions that are unacceptable to classicists and intuitionists alike. (shrink)

I argue there are some objects which do not respect the Law of the Excluded Middle, i.e., which are such that, for some property F, the disjunction Fo v ~Fo fails to be true. I call such objects “odd objects” and present three examples—fictional objects, nonsort objects, and quantum objects. I argue that each of these objects is best understood as violating LEM. I, then, discuss Jessica Wilson’s account of metaphysical indeterminacy. I show how the indeterminacy which arises with odd (...) objects can be accounted for on Wilson’s account. I, then, argue that my Wilson-inspired, but non-LEM-respecting, account of metaphysical indeterminacy is superior to Wilson’s in terms of costs and benefits. (shrink)

Does there exist any equivalence between the notions of inconsistency and consequence in paraconsistent logics as is present in the classical two valued logic? This is the key issue of this paper. Starting with a language where negation ( ${\neg}$ ) is the only connective, two sets of axioms for consequence and inconsistency of paraconsistent logics are presented. During this study two points have come out. The first one is that the notion of inconsistency of paraconsistent logics turns out to (...) be a formula-dependent notion and the second one is that the characterization (i.e. equivalence) appears to be pertinent to a class of paraconsistent logics which have double negation property. (shrink)

The temporal logic KtT4 is the modal logic obtained from the minimal temporal logic Kt by requiring the accessibility relation to be reflexive and transitive. This article aims, firstly, at providing both a model-theoretic and a proof-theoretic characterisation of a four-valued extension of the temporal logic KtT4 and, secondly, at identifying some of the most useful properties of this extension in the context of partial and paraconsistent logics.

Philosophical dialetheism, whose main exponent is Graham Priest, claims that some contradictions hold, are true, and it is rational to accept and assert them. Such a position is naturally portrayed as a challenge to the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC). But all the classic formulations of the LNC are, in a sense, not questioned by a typical dialetheist, since she is (cheerfully) required to accept them by her own theory. The goal of this paper is to develop a formulation of the (...) Law which appears to be unquestionable, in the sense that the Priestian dialetheist is committed to accept it without also accepting something inconsistent with it, on pain of trivialism—that is to say, on pain of lapsing into the position according to which everything is the case. This will be achieved via (a) a discussion of Priest's dialetheic treatment of the notions of rejection and denial; and (b) the characterization of a negation via the primitive intuition of content exclusion. Such a result will not constitute a cheap victory for the friends of consistency. We may just learn that different things have been historically conflated under the label of 'Law of Non-Contradiction'; that dialetheists rightly attack some formulations of the Law, and orthodox logicians and philosophers have been mistaken in assimilating them to the indisputable one. (shrink)

In this paper I advance and defend a very simple position according to which logic is subclassical but is weaker than the leading subclassical-logic views have it.

What is the relation of logic to thinking? My dissertation offers a new argument for the claim that logic is constitutive of thinking in the following sense: representational activity counts as thinking only if it manifests sensitivity to logical rules. In short, thinking has to be minimally logical. An account of thinking has to allow for our freedom to question or revise our commitments – even seemingly obvious conceptual connections – without loss of understanding. This freedom, I argue, requires that (...) thinkers have general abilities to respond to support and tension among their thoughts. And these abilities are constituted by following logical rules. So thinkers have to follow logical rules. But there isn’t just one correct logic for thinking. I show that my view is consistent with logical pluralism: there are a range of correct logics, any one of which a thinker might follow. A logic for thinking does, however, have to contain certain minimal principles: Modus Ponens and Non-Contradiction, and perhaps others. We follow logical rules by exercising logical capacities, which display a distinctive first-person/third-person asymmetry: a subject can find the instances of a rule compelling without seeing them as instances of a rule. As a result, there are two limits on illogical thinking. First, thinkers have to tend to find instances of logical rules compelling. Second, thinkers can’t think in obviously illogical ways. So thinking has to be logical – but not perfectly so. When we try to think, but fail, we produce nonsense. But our failures to think are often subjectively indistinguishable from thinking. To explain how this occurs, I offer an account of nonsense. To be under the illusion that some nonsense makes sense is to enter a pretence that the nonsense is meaningful. Our use of nonsense within the pretence relies on the role of logical form in understanding. Finally, while the normativity of logic doesn’t fall directly out of logical constitutivism, it’s possible to build an attractive account of logical normativity which has logical constitutivism as an integral part. I argue that thinking is necessary for human flourishing, and that this is the source of logical normativity. (shrink)