Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:59:43.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The foundational problem of logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

Gila Sher
Gila Sher*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, 0119, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0119, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The construction of a systematic philosophical foundation for logic is a notoriously difficult problem. In Part One I suggest that the problem is in large part methodological, having to do with the common philosophical conception of “providing a foundation”. I offer an alternative to the common methodology which combines a strong foundational requirement (veridical justification) with the use of non-traditional, holistic tools to achieve this result. In Part Two I delineate an outline of a foundation for logic, employing the new methodology. The outline is based on an investigation of why logic requires a veridical justification, i.e., a justification which involves the world and not just the mind, and what features or aspect of the world logic is grounded in. Logic, the investigation suggests, is grounded in the formal aspect of reality, and the outline proposes an account of this aspect, the way it both constrains and enables logic (gives rise to logical truths and consequences), logic's role in our overall system of knowledge, the relation between logic and mathematics, the normativity of logic, the characteristic traits of logic, and error and revision in logic.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 145 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barwise, J. and Feferman, S. (editors) [1985], Model-theoretic logics, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Beck, A. [2011], A general theory of formality. Dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, G. and von Neumann, J. [1936], The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics, vol. 37, pp. 823–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonjour, L. [1985]. The structure of empirical knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bonnay, D. [2008], Logicality and invariance, this Bulletin, vol. 14, pp. 29–68.Google Scholar
Chihara, C. [1990], Constructibility and mathematical existence, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Novaes, C. Dutilh [2011], The different ways in which logic is (said to be) formal. History and Philosophy of Logic, vol. 32, pp. 303–332.Google Scholar
Etchemendy, J. [1990], The concept of logical consequence, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. [1999], Logic, logics, and logicism, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 40, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. [2000], Mathematical intuition vs. mathematical monsters, Synthese, vol. 125. pp. 317–322.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. [2010], Set-theoretical invariance criteria for logicality, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 51, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Field, H. [1989], Realism, mathematics and modality, Basil Blackwell Oxford.Google Scholar
Frege, G. [1879], Begriffsschrift, a formula language, modeled upon that of arithmetic, for pure thought, From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931 (von Heijenoort, J., editor), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1967, pp. 1–82.Google Scholar
Frege, G. [1893], The basic laws of arithmetic: Exposition of the system. The University of California Press, Berkeley, 1964, translated by Furth, M..Google Scholar
Frege, G. [1918], Thoughts, Logical investigations (Geach, P. T., editor), Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1977, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Frege, G. [1979], Posthumous writings: Gottlob Frege, (Hermes, H., Kambartel, F., and Kaulbach, F., editors), Chicago, translated by Long, P. and White, R..Google Scholar
Glymour, C. [1980], Theory and evidence, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gómez-Torrente, M. [2002], The problem of logical constants, this Bulletin, vol. 8, pp. 137.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. and Belnap, N. [1993], The revision theory of truth, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Haack, S. [1993], Evidence and inquiry, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hanna, R. [2006], Rationality and logic, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hanson, W. H. [1997], The concept of logical consequence, Philosophical Review, vol. 106, pp. 365–409.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. [1989], Mathematics without numbers: Towards a modal-structural interpretation, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hodes, H. [1984], Logicism and the ontological commitments of arithmetic, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 81, pp. 123–149.Google Scholar
Kant, I. [1781/1787], Critique of pure reason, Macmillan, London, translated by Smith, N. Kemp. 1929.Google Scholar
Keisler, H. J. [1970], Logic with the quantifier ‘there exist uncountably many’, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 1, pp. 1–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, J. [2007], Coherentist theories of epistemic justification, internet.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. [1974], Knowledge, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. [1990], Theory of knowledge, Westview, Boulder.Google Scholar
Lindström, P. [1966], First order predicate logic with generalized quantifiers, Theoria, vol. 32, pp. 186–195.Google Scholar
Lindström, P. [1974], On characterizing elementary logic, Logical theory and semantic analysis (Stenlund, S., editor), D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 129–146.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. [2000], What does it mean to say that logic is formal, PhD Dissertation, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. [2002], Frege, Kant, and the logic in logicism. The Philosophical Review, vol. 111, pp. 25–65.Google Scholar
Maddy, P. [2007], Second philosophy: A naturalistic method, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGee, V. [1996], Logical operations, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 25, pp. 567–580.Google Scholar
Mostowski, A. [1957], On a generalization of quantifiers, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 44, pp. 12–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurath, O. [1921], Anti-Spengler, Empiricism and sociology (Cohen, R. S. and Neurath, M., editors), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1973, pp. 158–213.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. [1932], Protocol statements, Philosophical papers (Cohen, R. S. and Neurath, M., editors), Reidel, 1973, Dordrecht, pp. 91–99.Google Scholar
Parsons, C. [2008], Mathematical thought and its objects, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, S. and Westerståhl, D. [2006], Quantifiers in language and logic, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. [1951], Two dogmas of empiricism, From a logical point of view, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2nd ed., pp. 20–46.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. [1970/1986], Philosophy of logic, 2nd ed., Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. [1971], A theory of justice, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reck, E. H.. [2003], Structures and structuralism in contemporary philosophy of mathematics, Synthese, vol. 137, pp. 369–419.Google Scholar
Resnik, M. D. [1997], Mathematics as a science of patterns, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. [1938], The principles of mathematics, 2nd ed., Norton, New York, introduction to the second edition.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. [1991], Foundations without foundationalism: A case for second-order logic, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. [1997], Philosophy of mathematics: Structure and ontology, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sher, G. [1991], The bounds of logic: A generalized viewpoint, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sher, G. [2001], The formal-structural view of logical consequence, Philosophical Review, vol. 110, pp. 241–261.Google Scholar
Sher, G. [2003], A characterization of logical constants is possible, Theoria, vol. 18, pp. 189–197.Google Scholar
Sher, G. [forthcoming], Forms of correspondence: The intricate route from thought to reality, Alethic pluralism: Current debates (Wright, C D. and Pedersen, N. J., editors), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1933], The concept of truth in formalized languages, In Tarski, Corcoran [1983], translated by Woodger, J. H., pp. 152–278.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1936], The establishment of scientific semantics, In Tarski, Corcoran [1983], translated by Woodger, J. H., pp. 401–408.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1983], Logic, semantics, metamathematics, (Corcoran, J., editor), Hackett, Indianapolis, 2nd ed., translated by Woodger, J. H..Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1986], What are logical notions?, History and Philosophy of Logic, vol. 7, pp. 143–154.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1987], A philosophical letter of Alfred Tarski, presented by M. White, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 84, pp. 28–32.Google Scholar
Väänanen, J. [1997], Generalized quantifiers, Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 62, pp. 115–136.Google Scholar
Väänänen, J. [2004], Barwise: Abstract model theory and generalized quantifiers, this Bulletin, vol. 10, pp. 37–53.Google Scholar
Williams, B. [2002], Truth and truthfulness: An essay in genealogy, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. [1921], Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961, translated by Pears, and McGuinness, .Google Scholar