Authors
Abstract
It is often said that a correct logical system should have no counterexample to its logical rules and the system must be revised if its rules have a counterexample. If a logical system (or theory) has a counterexample to its logical rules, do we have to revise the system? In this paper, focussing on the role of counterexamples to logical rules, we deal with the question. We investigate two mutually exclusive theories of arithmetic - intuitionistic and paraconsistent theories. The paraconsistent theory provides a (strong) counterexample to Ex Contradiction Quodlibet (ECQ). On the other hand, the intuitionistic theory gives a (weak) counterexample to the Double Negation Elimination (DNE) of the paraconsistent theory. If any counterexample undermines the legitimate use of logical rules, both theories must be revised. After we investigate a paraconsistent counterexample to ECQ and the intuitionist’s answer against it, we arrive at the unwelcome conclusion that ECQ has both a justification and a counterexample. Moreover, we argue that if a logical rule were abolished whenever it has a counterexample, a promising conclusion would be logical nihilism which is the view that there is no valid logical inference, and so a correct logical system does not exist. Provided that the logical revisionist is not a logical nihilist, we claim that not every counterexample is the ground for logical revision. While logical rules of a given system have a justification, the existence of a counterexample loses its role for logical revision unless the rules and the counterexample share the same structure.
Keywords Ex Contradictione Quodlibet  Counterexample  Logical nihilism  Logical revision
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,226
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Against Logical Versions of the Direct Argument: A New Counterexample.Seth Shabo - 2010 - American Philosophical Quarterly 47 (3):239-252.
Shabo on Logical Versions of the Direct Argument.P. Turner - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (8):2125-2132.
Counterexamples and Proexamples.J. Corcoran - 2005 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 11:460.
Limiting Logical Pluralism.Suki Finn - 2019 - Synthese 198 (Suppl 20):4905-4923.
Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence.William H. Hanson - 1999 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):605-616.
Against Logical Generalism.Nicole Wyatt & Gillman Payette - 2019 - Synthese 198 (Suppl 20):4813-4830.
Logical Particularism.Nicole Wyatt & Gillman Payette - 2018 - In Jeremy Wyatt, Nikolaj J. L. L. Pedersen & Nathan Kellen (eds.), Pluralisms in Truth and Logic. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 277-299.
Contra-Argumento/Contraejemplo.John Corcoran - 2011 - In Luis Vega and Paula Olmos (ed.), Compendio de Lógica, Argumentación y Retórica. Editorial Trotta. pp. 137--141.
A Conception of Tarskian Logic.Gila Sher - 1989 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 70 (4):341-368.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-02-12

Total views
47 ( #239,192 of 2,499,692 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #418,206 of 2,499,692 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes