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

Minimally Nonstandard K3 and FDE

Graham Priest has formulated the minimally inconsistent logic of paradox (MiLP), which is paraconsistent like Priest’s logic of paradox (LP), while staying closer to classical logic. We present logics that stand to (the propositional fragments of) strong Kleene logic (K3) and the logic of first-degree entailment (FDE) as MiLP stands to LP. That is, our logics share the paracomplete and the paraconsistent-cum-paracomplete nature of K3 and FDE, respectively, while keeping these features to a minimum in order to stay closer to classical logic. We give semantic and sequent-calculus formulations of these logics, and we highlight some reasons why these logics may be interesting in their own right

Metainferences from a Proof-Theoretic Perspective, and a Hierarchy of Validity Predicates

I explore, from a proof-theoretic perspective, the hierarchy of classical and paraconsistent logics introduced by Barrio, Pailos and Szmuc in. First, I provide sequent rules and axioms for all the logics in the hierarchy, for all inferential levels, and establish soundness and completeness results. Second, I show how to extend those systems with a corresponding hierarchy of validity predicates, each one of which is meant to capture “validity” at a different inferential level. Then, I point out two potential philosophical implications of these results. Since the logics in the hierarchy differ from one another on the rules, I argue that each such logic maintains its own distinct identity. Each validity predicate need not capture “validity” at more than one metainferential level. Hence, there are reasons to deny the thesis ) that the validity predicate introduced in by Beall and Murzi in, 143–165, 2013) has to express facts not only about what follows from what, but also about the metarules, etc

Minimally Nonstandard K3 and FDE

Graham Priest has formulated the minimally inconsistent logic of paradox (MiLP), which is paraconsistent like Priest’s logic of paradox (LP), while staying closer to classical logic. We present logics that stand to (the propositional fragments of) strong Kleene logic (K3) and the logic of first-degree entailment (FDE) as MiLP stands to LP. That is, our logics share the paracomplete and the paraconsistent-cum-paracomplete nature of K3 and FDE, respectively, while keeping these features to a minimum in order to stay closer to classical logic. We give semantic and sequent-calculus formulations of these logics, and we highlight some reasons why these logics may be interesting in their own right

Why inconsistent intentional states underlie our grasp of objects

Several authors maintain that we are capable of having inconsistent intentional states, either in cases of illusion, in certain cases of imagination, or because the observable world is (partly) inconsistent and we perceive it as such. These views are all premised on the assumption that inconsistent intentional states—even if acknowledged—are peculiar and have nothing essential to do with our perceptual capacities. In the present article, I would like to present, and argue for, a much stronger thesis: that inconsistent intentional states underlie the possibility of having intentional content in mind. I argue for this thesis based on a Husserlian phenomenological analysis of our grasp of objects, which I formulate in terms of incompatibility semantics

Metabolism of Pharmaceuticals in Plants and Their Associated Microbiota

With the increasing use of wastewater for irrigation of farmland, and thus the potential uptake and translocation of pharmaceuticals and their metabolites in crops, concerns about food safety are growing. After their uptake, plants are able to metabolize drugs to phase I, phase II, and phase III metabolites. Phase I reactions closely resemble those encountered in human drug metabolism, including oxidations, reductions, and hydrolysis. Phase II reactions, in turn, encompass conjugations with glutathione, carbohydrates, malonic acid, and amino acids. In phase III, these conjugates are transported and stored in the vacuole or bound to the cell wall. Pharmaceutical metabolism in plants has been investigated by using different approaches, namely, the use of whole plants grown in soil or hydroponic cultures, the use of plant tissues, and the incubation of specific plant cell suspensions. While studies relying on whole plants require long growth periods and more complex analytical procedures to isolate and detect metabolites, they constitute more realistic scenarios with the ability to determine site-specific metabolism and the translocation within the plant. The advantage of in vitro studies lies in their rapid setup. Recent advances in plant-microbiota investigations have shown that the plant microbiome modulates the response of the plant towards pharmaceuticals. Rhizospheric and endophytic bacteria can directly contribute to pharmaceutical metabolism and influence plant uptake and translocation of pharmaceuticals and their metabolites. Additionally, they can have beneficial properties for the host, contributing to plant health and fitness. This chapter gives an overview of human and plant drug metabolism followed by a comparison of different models used to identify pharmaceutical metabolites and their metabolic pathways in plants. A description of the mechanisms and reactions originating these metabolites is concisely presented. Finally, the role of the microbiome is critically discussed with examples of synergies between plants and their associated microbiota for pharmaceutical degradation.Peer reviewe