There is no Logical Negation: True, False, Both, and Neither

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

Off-Topic: A New Interpretation of Weak-Kleene Logic

This paper offers a new and very simple alternative to Bochvar's well known nonsense -- or meaninglessness -- interpretation of Weak Kleene logic. To help orient discussion I begin by reviewing the familiar Strong Kleene logic and its standard interpretation; I then review Weak Kleene logic and the standard (viz., Bochvar) interpretation. While I note a common worry about the Bochvar interpretation my aim is only to give an alternative -- and I think very elegant -- interpretation, not necessarily a replacement

On Williamson's new Quinean argument against nonclassical logic

In "Semantic paradoxes and abductive methodology", Williamson presents a new Quinean argument based on central ingredients of common pragmatism about theory choice (including logical theory, as is common). What makes it new is that, in addition to avoiding Quine's unfortunate charge of mere terminological squabble, Williamson's argument explicitly rejects at least for purposes of the argument Quine's key conservatism premise. In this paper I do two things. First, I argue that Williamson's new Quinean argument implicitly relies on Quine's conservatism principle. Second, by way of answering his charges against nonclassical logic I directly defend a particular subclassical account of logical consequence

On Williamson's new Quinean argument against nonclassical logic

In "Semantic paradoxes and abductive methodology", Williamson presents a new Quinean argument based on central ingredients of common pragmatism about theory choice (including logical theory, as is common). What makes it new is that, in addition to avoiding Quine's unfortunate charge of mere terminological squabble, Williamson's argument explicitly rejects at least for purposes of the argument Quine's key conservatism premise. In this paper I do two things. First, I argue that Williamson's new Quinean argument implicitly relies on Quine's conservatism principle. Second, by way of answering his charges against nonclassical logic I directly defend a particular subclassical account of logical consequence

Adding to Relevant Restricted Quantification

This paper presents, in a more general setting, a simple approach to ‘relevant restricted generalizations’ advanced in previous work. After reviewing some desiderata for restricted generalizations, I present the target route towards achieving the desiderata. An objection to the approach, due to David Ripley, is presented, followed by three brief replies, one from a dialetheic perspective and the others more general

Not so deep inconsistency: a reply to Eklund

In his “Deep Inconsistency?” Eklund attacks arguments to the effect that some contradictions are true, and especially those based on the liar paradox, to be found in Priest’ In Contradiction. The point of this paper is to evaluate his case

There is no Logical Negation: True, False, Both, and Neither

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

Off-Topic: A New Interpretation of Weak-Kleene Logic

This paper offers a new and very simple alternative to Bochvar's well known nonsense -- or meaninglessness -- interpretation of Weak Kleene logic. To help orient discussion I begin by reviewing the familiar Strong Kleene logic and its standard interpretation; I then review Weak Kleene logic and the standard (viz., Bochvar) interpretation. While I note a common worry about the Bochvar interpretation my aim is only to give an alternative -- and I think very elegant -- interpretation, not necessarily a replacement