Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:45:47.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FACING INCONSISTENCY: THEORIES AND OUR RELATIONS TO THEM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2013

Michaelis Michael
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Classical logic is explosive in the face of contradiction, yet we find ourselves using inconsistent theories. Mark Colyvan, one of the prominent advocates of the indispensability argument for realism about mathematical objects, suggests that such use can be garnered to develop an argument for commitment to inconsistent objects and, because of that, a paraconsistent underlying logic. I argue to the contrary that it is open to a classical logician to make distinctions, also needed by the paraconsistent logician, which allow a more nuanced ranking of theories in which inconsistent theories can have different degrees of usefulness and productivity. Facing inconsistency does not force us to adopt an underlying paraconsistent logic. Moreover we will see that the argument to best explanation deployed by Colyvan in this context is unsuccessful. I suggest that Quinean approach which Colyvan champions will not lead to the revolutionary doctrines Colyvan endorses.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 351 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

Cicero, Academica, trans. by Rackham, H., 1933, The Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Colyvan, M. 2001. The Indispensability of Mathematics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colyvan, M. 2008a. ‘The Ontological Commitments of Inconsistent Theories.’ Philosophical Studies, 141: 115–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colyvan, M. 2008b. ‘Who's Afraid of Inconsistent Mathematics?’ Protosociology, 25: 24–35.Google Scholar
Da Costa, N. C. A. and French, S. 2003. Science and Partial Truth: A Unitary Approach to Models and Scientific Reasoning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Costa, N. C. A., Béziau, J.-Y. and Bueno, O. 2005. ‘On the Usefulness of Paraconsistent Logic.’ In Vanderveken, D. (ed.), Logic, Thought and Action, p. 465–78. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1986. Change in View. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 2011. ‘Quine's Semantic Relativity.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 48: 287–9.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. C. 1989. ‘A Puzzle about Ontological Commitment.’ In Heil, J. (ed.), Cause, Mind and Reality, pp. 191–9. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F. C. 1998. From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. 1973. Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Maddy, P. 1992. ‘Indispensability and Practice.’ Journal of Philosophy, 89: 275–89.Google Scholar
Meheus, J. (ed.) 2002. Inconsistency in Science. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Michael, M. 2006. ‘Accounting for Commitments: A priori Knowledge, Ontology and Logical Entailments.’ In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Aspects of Knowing: Epistemological Essays, pp. 35–52. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Michael, M. 2008. ‘Implicit Ontological Commitment.’ Philosophical Studies, 141: 43–61.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1972. ‘The Truth-likeness of Truthlikeness.’ Analysis, 33/2: 50–5.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1974. ‘Popper's Qualitative Theory of Verisimilitude.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25: 166–77.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1975. ‘The Accuracy of Predictions.’ Synthese 30/1–2: 159–91.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1976. ‘Verisimilitude Redeflated.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 27/4: 363–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. 1977. ‘On the Truthlikeness of Generalizations.’ In Butts, R. E. and Hintikka, J. (ed.), Basic Problems in Methodology and Linguistics, pp. 121–47. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. 1978a. ‘Truthlikeness: Comments on Recent Discussion.’ Synthese, 38: 281–329.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. 1978b. ‘Verisimilitude, Theory-Change, and Scientific Progress.’ In Niiniluoto, I. and Tuomela, R. (eds), The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 30/2–4, pp. 243–64. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. 1979. ‘Truthlikeness in First-Order Languages.’ In Niiniluoto, I. et al. (eds), Essays on Mathematical and Philosophical Logic, pp. 437–58. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddie, G. 1986. Likeness to Truth. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1959. Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Priest, G. 1987. In Contradiction. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff; 2nd edition, 2006, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. and Tanaka, K. 2009. ‘Paraconsistent Logic.’ In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/logic-paraconsistent/.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1948. ‘On What There Is.’ Review of Metaphysics, 2(5): 21–36.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V.. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1968. ‘Ontological Relativity.’ Journal of Philosophy, 65: 185–212.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. 1926. ‘Truth and Probability.’ In Mellor, D. H. (ed.), (1990) Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. 2008. ‘Truthmaker Commitments.’ Philosophical Studies, 141: 1–17.Google Scholar
Tichý, P. 1974. ‘On Popper's Definitions of Verisimilitude.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25: 155–60.Google Scholar
Tichý, P. 1976. ‘Verisimilitude Redefined.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 27: 25–42.Google Scholar
van Heijenoort, J. 1967. From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar