A plea for KR
There is a strong case to be made for thinking that an obscure logic, KR, is better than classical logic and better than any relevant logic. The argument for KR over relevant logics is that KR counts disjunctive syllogism valid, and this is the biggest complaint about relevant logics. The argument f...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Synthese (Dordrecht) 2021-04, Vol.198 (4), p.3047-3071 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 3071 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 3047 |
| container_title | Synthese (Dordrecht) |
| container_volume | 198 |
| creator | Kerr, Alison Duncan |
| description | There is a strong case to be made for thinking that an obscure logic, KR, is better than classical logic and better than any relevant logic. The argument for KR over relevant logics is that KR counts disjunctive syllogism valid, and this is the biggest complaint about relevant logics. The argument for KR over classical logic depends on the normativity of logic and the paradoxes of implication. The paradoxes of implication are taken by relevant logicians to justify relevant logic, but considerations on the normativity of logic show that only some of the paradoxes of implication are genuine. KR avoids all the genuine paradoxes of implication, unlike classical logic. Overall, KR avoids the genuine paradoxes of implication and avoids the major objection to relevant logics. This combination of features provides strong reason to give KR a place in the conversation about the right logic(s). |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11229-019-02265-y |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2515478770</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27293601</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>27293601</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-1712d978e162227d05434b3343e37c84388b74d69d870d1268cde818b16073fd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWGv_gCAUPK_ORzaTHEvxCwuC6Dm0m6xYarcm20P_vVtX9NbDMJf3eYd5lLpAuEYAucmIRK4A7IbIlMXuSA2wFC7AGX2sBgDsCrGlnKqznJcAiEbDQI0m480qzsd1k8ZPL-fqpJ6vchz97qF6u7t9nT4Us-f7x-lkVlQauS1QkIITG9EQkQQoNesFs-bIUlnN1i5EB-OCFQhIxlYhWrQLNCBcBx6qq753k5qvbcytXzbbtO5Oeiqx1GJF4GCKuHuAndunqE9Vqck5xdpv0sfnPO08gt_L8b0c38nxP3L8roO4h3IXXr_H9F99kLrsqWVum_R3h4QcG0D-BtWBa2I</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2231163990</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A plea for KR</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Kerr, Alison Duncan</creator><creatorcontrib>Kerr, Alison Duncan</creatorcontrib><description>There is a strong case to be made for thinking that an obscure logic, KR, is better than classical logic and better than any relevant logic. The argument for KR over relevant logics is that KR counts disjunctive syllogism valid, and this is the biggest complaint about relevant logics. The argument for KR over classical logic depends on the normativity of logic and the paradoxes of implication. The paradoxes of implication are taken by relevant logicians to justify relevant logic, but considerations on the normativity of logic show that only some of the paradoxes of implication are genuine. KR avoids all the genuine paradoxes of implication, unlike classical logic. Overall, KR avoids the genuine paradoxes of implication and avoids the major objection to relevant logics. This combination of features provides strong reason to give KR a place in the conversation about the right logic(s).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0039-7857</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11229-019-02265-y</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media</publisher><subject>Competition ; Conversation ; Education ; Epistemology ; Logic ; Metaphysics ; Norms ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Language ; Philosophy of Science ; Semantics</subject><ispartof>Synthese (Dordrecht), 2021-04, Vol.198 (4), p.3047-3071</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2019</rights><rights>Synthese is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved. © 2019. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2019. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-1712d978e162227d05434b3343e37c84388b74d69d870d1268cde818b16073fd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-1712d978e162227d05434b3343e37c84388b74d69d870d1268cde818b16073fd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11229-019-02265-y$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11229-019-02265-y$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kerr, Alison Duncan</creatorcontrib><title>A plea for KR</title><title>Synthese (Dordrecht)</title><addtitle>Synthese</addtitle><description>There is a strong case to be made for thinking that an obscure logic, KR, is better than classical logic and better than any relevant logic. The argument for KR over relevant logics is that KR counts disjunctive syllogism valid, and this is the biggest complaint about relevant logics. The argument for KR over classical logic depends on the normativity of logic and the paradoxes of implication. The paradoxes of implication are taken by relevant logicians to justify relevant logic, but considerations on the normativity of logic show that only some of the paradoxes of implication are genuine. KR avoids all the genuine paradoxes of implication, unlike classical logic. Overall, KR avoids the genuine paradoxes of implication and avoids the major objection to relevant logics. This combination of features provides strong reason to give KR a place in the conversation about the right logic(s).</description><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Conversation</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Logic</subject><subject>Metaphysics</subject><subject>Norms</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Language</subject><subject>Philosophy of Science</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><issn>0039-7857</issn><issn>1573-0964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AIMQZ</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWGv_gCAUPK_ORzaTHEvxCwuC6Dm0m6xYarcm20P_vVtX9NbDMJf3eYd5lLpAuEYAucmIRK4A7IbIlMXuSA2wFC7AGX2sBgDsCrGlnKqznJcAiEbDQI0m480qzsd1k8ZPL-fqpJ6vchz97qF6u7t9nT4Us-f7x-lkVlQauS1QkIITG9EQkQQoNesFs-bIUlnN1i5EB-OCFQhIxlYhWrQLNCBcBx6qq753k5qvbcytXzbbtO5Oeiqx1GJF4GCKuHuAndunqE9Vqck5xdpv0sfnPO08gt_L8b0c38nxP3L8roO4h3IXXr_H9F99kLrsqWVum_R3h4QcG0D-BtWBa2I</recordid><startdate>20210401</startdate><enddate>20210401</enddate><creator>Kerr, Alison Duncan</creator><general>Springer Science + Business Media</general><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GB0</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210401</creationdate><title>A plea for KR</title><author>Kerr, Alison Duncan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-1712d978e162227d05434b3343e37c84388b74d69d870d1268cde818b16073fd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Conversation</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Logic</topic><topic>Metaphysics</topic><topic>Norms</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Language</topic><topic>Philosophy of Science</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kerr, Alison Duncan</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>DELNET Social Sciences & Humanities Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>One Literature (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kerr, Alison Duncan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A plea for KR</atitle><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle><stitle>Synthese</stitle><date>2021-04-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>198</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>3047</spage><epage>3071</epage><pages>3047-3071</pages><issn>0039-7857</issn><eissn>1573-0964</eissn><abstract>There is a strong case to be made for thinking that an obscure logic, KR, is better than classical logic and better than any relevant logic. The argument for KR over relevant logics is that KR counts disjunctive syllogism valid, and this is the biggest complaint about relevant logics. The argument for KR over classical logic depends on the normativity of logic and the paradoxes of implication. The paradoxes of implication are taken by relevant logicians to justify relevant logic, but considerations on the normativity of logic show that only some of the paradoxes of implication are genuine. KR avoids all the genuine paradoxes of implication, unlike classical logic. Overall, KR avoids the genuine paradoxes of implication and avoids the major objection to relevant logics. This combination of features provides strong reason to give KR a place in the conversation about the right logic(s).</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Science + Business Media</pub><doi>10.1007/s11229-019-02265-y</doi><tpages>25</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0039-7857 |
| ispartof | Synthese (Dordrecht), 2021-04, Vol.198 (4), p.3047-3071 |
| issn | 0039-7857 1573-0964 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2515478770 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Competition Conversation Education Epistemology Logic Metaphysics Norms Philosophy Philosophy of Language Philosophy of Science Semantics |
| title | A plea for KR |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T01%3A08%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20plea%20for%20KR&rft.jtitle=Synthese%20(Dordrecht)&rft.au=Kerr,%20Alison%20Duncan&rft.date=2021-04-01&rft.volume=198&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=3047&rft.epage=3071&rft.pages=3047-3071&rft.issn=0039-7857&rft.eissn=1573-0964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11229-019-02265-y&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E27293601%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2231163990&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=27293601&rfr_iscdi=true |