A recovery operator for non-transitive approaches

In some recent articles, Cobreros, Egré, Ripley, & van Rooij have defended the idea that abandoning transitivity may lead to a solution to the trouble caused by semantic paradoxes. For that purpose, they develop the Strict-Tolerant approach, which leads them to entertain a nontransitive theory of truth, where the structural rule of Cut is not generally valid. However, that Cut fails in general in the target theory of truth does not mean that there are not certain safe instances of Cut involving semantic notions. In this article we intend to meet the challenge of answering how to regain all the safe instances of Cut, in the language of the theory, making essential use of a unary recovery operator. To fulfill this goal, we will work within the so-called Goodship Project, which suggests that in order to have nontrivial naïve theories it is sufficient to formulate the corresponding self-referential sentences with suitable biconditionals. Nevertheless, a secondary aim of this article is to propose a novel way to carry this project out, showing that the biconditionals in question can be totally classical. In the context of this article, these biconditionals will be essentially used in expressing the self-referential sentences and, thus, as a collateral result of our work we will prove that none of the recoveries expected of the target theory can be nontrivially achieved if self-reference is expressed through identities.Fil: Barrio, Eduardo Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas - Sadaf; ArgentinaFil: Pailos, Federico Matias. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas - Sadaf; ArgentinaFil: Szmuc, Damián Enrique. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas - Sadaf; Argentin

Paradox, arithmetic and nontransitive logic

This dissertation is concerned with motivating, developing and defending nontransitive theories of truth over Peano Arithmetic. Its main goal is to show that such a nontransitive theory of truth is the only theory capable of maintaining all functional roles of the truth predicate: the substitutional and the quantificational roles. By the substitutional roles we mean that the theory ought to prove p iff it proves that p is true and that it proves all instances of the T-schema p iff 'p' is true. A theory fulfils the quantificational role if its axioms governing the truth-predicate are strong enough to mimick as much second-order quantification as possible. Where the literature on classical theories of truth has focused primarily on the fulfilment of the quantificational role, the nonclassical literature is very much obsessed with the substitutional roles. The problem of having a theory of truth fulfilling both the substitutional and quantificational (or already just the full substitutional) role are paradoxes of truth such as the Liar. Where the Liar is a sentence which informally says about itself that it is not true, we can show that it is both true and not true, which typically allows us to conclude any formula whatsoever. This problem is overcome in the current approach by blocking the use of transitivity principles under certain conditions

Respuestas

These are the responses!¡Estas son las respuestas

The Final Cut

In a series of works, Pablo Cobreros, Paul Egré, David Ripley and Robert van Rooij have proposed a nontransitive system (call it ‘K3LP’) as a basis for a solution to the semantic paradoxes. I critically consider that proposal at three levels. At the level of the background logic, I present a conception of classical logic on which K3LP fails to vindicate classical logic not only in terms of structural principles, but also in terms of operational ones. At the level of the theory of truth, I raise a cluster of philosophical difficulties for a K3LP-based system of naive truth, all variously related to the fact that such a system proves things that would seem already by themselves repugnant, even in the absence of transitivity. At the level of the theory of validity, I consider an extension of the K3LP-based system of naive validity that is supposed to certify that validity in that system does not fall short of naive validity, argue that such an extension is untenable in that its nontriviality depends on the inadmissibility of a certain irresistible instance of transitivity (whence the advertised “final cut”) and conclude on this basis that the K3LP-based system of naive validity cannot coherently be adopted either. At all these levels, a crucial role is played by certain metaentailments and by the extra strength they afford over the corresponding entailments: on the one hand, such strength derives from considerations that would seem just as compelling in a general nontransitive framework, but, on the other hand, such strength wreaks havoc in the particular setting of K3LP

Paradox, arithmetic and nontransitive logic

This dissertation is concerned with motivating, developing and defending nontransitive theories of truth over Peano Arithmetic. Its main goal is to show that such a nontransitive theory of truth is the only theory capable of maintaining all functional roles of the truth predicate: the substitutional and the quantificational roles. By the substitutional roles we mean that the theory ought to prove p iff it proves that p is true and that it proves all instances of the T-schema p iff 'p' is true. A theory fulfils the quantificational role if its axioms governing the truth-predicate are strong enough to mimick as much second-order quantification as possible. Where the literature on classical theories of truth has focused primarily on the fulfilment of the quantificational role, the nonclassical literature is very much obsessed with the substitutional roles. The problem of having a theory of truth fulfilling both the substitutional and quantificational (or already just the full substitutional) role are paradoxes of truth such as the Liar. Where the Liar is a sentence which informally says about itself that it is not true, we can show that it is both true and not true, which typically allows us to conclude any formula whatsoever. This problem is overcome in the current approach by blocking the use of transitivity principles under certain conditions

Limits of Abductivism About Logic

I argue against abductivism about logic, which is the view that rational theory choice in logic happens by abduction. Abduction cannot serve as a neutral arbiter in many foundational disputes in logic because, in order to use abduction, one must first identify the relevant data. Which data one deems relevant depends on what I call one's conception of logic. One's conception of logic is, however, not independent of one's views regarding many of the foundational disputes that one may hope to solve by abduction

Three Essays on Substructural Approaches to Semantic Paradoxes

This thesis consists of three papers on substructural approaches to semantic paradoxes. The first paper introduces a formal system, based on a nontransitive substructural logic, which has exactly the valid and antivalid inferences of classical logic at every level of (meta)inference, but which I argue is still not classical logic. In the second essay, I introduce infinite-premise versions of several semantic paradoxes, and show that noncontractive substructural approaches do not solve these paradoxes. In the third essay, I introduce an infinite metainferential hierarchy of validity curry paradoxes, and argue that providing a uniform solution to the paradoxes in this hierarchy makes substructural approaches less appealing. Together, the three essays in this thesis illustrate a problem for substructural approaches: substructural logics simply do not do everything that we need a logic to do, and so cannot solve semantic paradoxes in every context in which they appear. A new strategy, with a broader conception of what constitutes a uniform solution, is needed

A SIMPLE SEQUENT SYSTEM FOR MINIMALLY INCONSISTENT LP

Minimally inconsistent LP (MiLP) is a nonmonotonic paraconsistent logic based on Graham Priest’s logic of paradox (LP). Unlike LP, MiLP purports to recover, in consistent situations, all of classical reasoning. The present paper conducts a proof-theoretic analysis of MiLP. I highlight certain properties of this logic, introduce a simple sequent system for it, and establish soundness and completeness results. In addition, I show how to use my proof system in response to a criticism of this logic put forward by J. C. Beall