DOCSLIB.ORG

Gillian K. Russell

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gillian K. Russell Gillian K. Russell Department of Philosophy (cell) (858) 205{2834 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill gillian [email protected] Caldwell Hall, CB 3125 http://www.gillianrussell.net 240 East Cameron Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3125 Education and Employment History Professor of Philosophy University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2015{ Associate Professor in Philosophy Washington University in St Louis 2011{2015 Assistant Professor in Philosophy Washington University in St Louis 2004{2011 Killam Postdoctoral Fellow University of Alberta 2005 Ph.D. in Philosophy Princeton University 2004 M.A. in Philosophy Princeton University 2002 M.A. in German and Philosophy University of St Andrews, Scotland 1999 Areas of Specialisation Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Logic, Epistemology Areas of Competence Logic, History of Analytic Philosophy, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science and Mathematics Books Monographs { Truth in Virtue of Meaning: a defence of the analytic/synthetic distinction (Oxford, 2008) { I am currently writing a book on barriers to entailment. Edited Collections { The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, with Delia Graff Fara (eds.) (Routledge, 2011) { New Waves in Philosophical Logic, with Greg Restall (eds.) (Palgrave MacMillan, 2012) Accepted and Published Papers { \Hybrid Identities and Just Being Yourself," in Inquiry, Volume 57, Issue 4, 2014. { \The Justification of the Basic Laws of Logic," in the Journal of Philosophical Logic, pages 1{11, March 2015. { \Metaphysical Analyticity and the Epistemology of Logic," forthcoming in Philosophical Studies. { \Quine on Analyticity" in A Companion to W. V. O. Quine (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy), Gilbert Harman and Ernie Lepore (eds.) (Blackwell, 2013) { \Logical Pluralism" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ed Zalta (ed.) (CLSI, 2013) { \Practicing Evil" forthcoming in The Philosophy of the Martial Arts, G. Priest and D. Young (eds.) (Routledge) { \Lessons from the Logic of Demonstratives" in New Waves in Philosophical Logic Greg Restall and Gillian Russell (eds.) (Palgrave MacMillan, 2012) { \Necessity and Meaning" in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language, Gillian Russell and Delia Graff Fara (eds.) (Routeldge, 2012) { \Indexicals, Context-Sensitivity and the Failure of Implication," Synthese, Vol. 183:2 (2011) { \In Defence of Hume's Law" in Hume, `Is' and `Ought': New Essays, Charles Pigden (ed.), (Palgrave-MacMillan, 2010) { \Language, Locations and Presupposition" Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, v9, 2010. { \Barriers to Implication" (with Greg Restall) in Hume, `Is' and `Ought': New Essays, Charles Pigden (ed.), (Palgrave-MacMillan, 2010) { \A New Problem for the Linguistic Doctrine of Necessary Truth" in New Waves in Truth, Cory D. Wright and Nikolaj Pederson (eds.) (Palgrave MacMillan, 2010) { \Epistemic Viciousness in the Martial Arts" in Martial Arts and Philosophy, Graham Priest and Damon Young (eds.), (Open Court, 2010) { \Analyticity in Externalist Languages" in New Waves in the Philosophy of Language, edited by Sarah Sawyer (Palgrave MacMillan, 2009) { \One True Logic?" in the Journal of Philosophical Logic, April 2008, vol. 37. { \Knowledge by Indifference” (with John Doris) in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 86, issue 3, September 2008. { \The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction" in Blackwell's Philosophy Compass, vol. 2, issue 5, September 2007. Book Reviews & Other Publications { \The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction" in Oxford Bibliographies Online (OUP, 2012) { Timothy Williamson's The Philosophy of Philosophy, in Philosophical Books, vol. 51:1, 2010. { Warren Goldfarb's Deductive Logic in The Australasian Journal of Logic, Vol. 3, 2005. Honours and Appointments { Visiting Scholar at Arch´eat the University of St Andrews, Scotland, June 2013. { Visiting Fellowship at Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, The Netherlands, Fall 2009. { Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley, Spring 2009. { Visiting Scholar, University of Melbourne, Australia, July & August, 2000{06, 2008. { Harold W. Dodds Honorific Fellow, Princeton University, 2003{2004. { Bruce of Grangehill and Falkland Prize for Logic, University of St Andrews, 1996. Selected Talks { Keynote at the Society for Exact Philosophy, McMaster University, May 2015 { \Could there be no logic?", 4th California Metaphysics Conference at USC { \Analyticity and the Epistemology of Logic", LANCOG, Portugal, September 2014 { \Hume's Law and other Barriers to Entailment", Kripke Center/SWIP-Analytic CUNY, March 2014. { The Jowett Society, Oxford University, February 2014 { \Hume's Law and other Barriers to Entailment," Chapel Hill Colloquium, November 2013 { \The Epistemology of Logic", Colloquium at the University of Genova, June 2013 { \Analyticity and the Epistemology of Logic", Workshop on Necessity, Analyticity and the A priori, University of Oslo, Norway, June 2013 { \Barriers to Implication", Arch´eat the University of St Andrews, Scotland, June 2013 { \Metaphysical Analyticity and the Epistemology of Logic", NYU, April 2012 { \Indexicals and Barriers to Implication", University of Miami Colloquium, March, 2012. { Author Meets Critics Session on Truth in Virtue of Meaning, Chicago APA, February 2012. { \Epistemology of Logic, Made Easy," A Priori Workshop, UBC, Vancouver, November 2011 { \Logic & Meaning," Northern Institute of Philosophy, Aberdeen, Scotland, November 2011 { \Can there be true contradictions?" public lecture at Northwestern University, October 2011 { \Indexical Barriers and the Metaphysics of Propositions" at SPAWN, August 2011 { \Indexical Barriers and the Metaphysics of Propositions" at the Pacific APA, San Diego, April 2011. { \One True Logic?", University of St Andrews, Scotland, September 2010 { \The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction", Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, The Netherlands, November 2009 { \Could knows that be inconsistent?" University of Brussels, Belgium, October 2009 { \Indexicals & Barriers to Implication" ILLC, Amsterdam, September 2009 { \Could knows that be inconsistent?" University of Southern California, August 2009 { \Analytic Truth and Necessary Truth" University of Chicago Semantics Workshop, May 2009 { \Indexicals, Context Sensitivity, and Barriers to Implication" UC Berkeley, May 2009 { \Indexicals, Context Sensitivity, and Barriers to Implication" Stanford University, April 2009 Selected Courses Taught PHIL 403 Mathematical Logic PHIL 301 Symbolic Logic PHIL 100 Introduction to Logic PHIL 4051 Philosophy of Logic PHIL 306 Philosophy of Language PHIL 4065 Advanced Philosophy of Language PHIL 503 Graduate Proseminar: History of Analytic Philosophy PHIL 327 Philosophy of Religion PHIL 521 Seminar: Language and Knowledge PHIL 307 Metaphysics and Epistemology PHIL 500 Time and Time Travel PHIL 3481 Introduction to Metaphysics Service | Director of Graduate Studies, WashU, 2012{1015. Associated duties included both placement and graduate admissions. | Convenor of the Affirmative Action Monitoring Committee, WashU, 2013{2015 | Member of the Affirmative Action Monitoring Committee, WashU, 2011{2015 | Referee for Blackwell, Routledge, Mind, the AJP, CJP, Synthese, Phil Quarterly, Phil Studies, Philosophy Compass and the Journal of Philosophical Logic. | Departmental committee positions including Graduate Admissions, Undergraduate Program Review Committee, and Hiring Committees at WashU. | Founder and Coordinator of the department's Women in Philosophy group, 2011-2012. | UG major advisor, 2006{2014. | faculty liaison to the undergraduate philosophy society, Philosophia, 2004-2013. | chapter advisor for for Phi Sigma Tau, WashU 2004-2013. | I also taught an undergraduate martial arts club twice a week on campus at WashU, 2006{2015..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gillian K. Russell
    Gillian K. Russell Dianoia Institute of Philosophy (cell) +1 (858) 205{2834 Locked Bag 4115 MDC [email protected] Fitzroy, Victoria 3065 https://www.gillianrussell.net Australia Current Employment Professor of Philosophy Dianoia Institute at ACU in Melbourne 2020| 1 Arch´eProfessorial Fellow ( 5 th time) University of St Andrews, Scotland 2019{2023 Employment and Education History Alumni Distinguished Professor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2019{2020 Professor of Philosophy University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2015{19 Associate Professor in Philosophy Washington University in St Louis 2011{2015 Assistant Professor in Philosophy Washington University in St Louis 2004{2011 Killam Postdoctoral Fellow University of Alberta 2005 Ph.D. in Philosophy Princeton University 2004 M.A. in Philosophy Princeton University 2002 M.A. in German and Philosophy University of St Andrews, Scotland 1999 Areas of Specialisation Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Logic, Epistemology Areas of Competence Logic, History of Analytic Philosophy, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science and Mathematics Books { Truth in Virtue of Meaning: a defence of the analytic/synthetic distinction (Oxford, 2008) { The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, with Delia Graff Fara (eds.) (Routledge, 2011) { New Waves in Philosophical Logic, with Greg Restall (eds.) (Palgrave MacMillan, 2012) Accepted and Published Papers { \Social Spheres" forthcoming in Feminist Philosophy and Formal Logic Audrey Yap and Roy Cook (eds) { \Logic: A Feminist Approach" forthcoming in Philosophy for Girls: An invitation to the life of thought, M. Shew and K. Garchar (eds) (Oxford University Press, 2020) { \Waismann's Papers on the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction" in Friedrich Waismann: The Open Texture of Analytic Philosophy, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Proof Theory for Philosophy Notes for the Sellc 2010 Course Structures for Proofs
    proof theory for philosophy notes for the sellc 2010 course Structures for Proofs Greg Restall Philosophy Department University of Melbourne [email protected] http://consequently.org/writing/ptp version of november 30, 2010 c greg restall contents 1 Why Proof Theory? | 7 2 Natural Deduction for Conditionals | 11 2.1 The Language 11 2.2 Proofs for Conditionals 13 2.3 Normal Proofs 21 2.4 Strong Normalisation 31 2.5 Proofs and λ-Terms 36 2.6 History 43 2.7 Exercises 46 3 Sequents for Conjunction & Disjunction | 53 3.1 Derivations 54 3.2 Identity & Cut 56 3.3 Consequences of Cut Elimination 64 3.4 History 67 3.5 Exercises 68 4 Proofs & Derivations: Trees | 73 4.1 Sequents for Linear Conditionals 73 4.2 Structural Rules 87 4.3 Conjunction and Disjunction 93 4.4 Negation 97 4.5 Cut Elimination 101 4.6 Exercises 104 5 Proofs & Derivations: Circuits | 107 5.1 Sequents for Classical Logic 107 5.2 Truth Tables and Cut 109 5.3 Derivations describing Circuits 115 5.4 Circuits from Derivations 123 5.5 Correct Circuits 124 5.6 Normal Circuits 129 5.7 Classical Circuits 131 5.8 History and other matters 133 5.9 Exercises 134 References | 139 2 [november 30, 2010] introduction This manuscript is a draft of a guided introduction to logic and its I should like to outline an image applications in philosophy. The focus will be a detailed examination of which is connected with the most profound intuitions which I always the different ways to understand proof.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Abstract the Summer Program for Diversity in Logic for Undergraduates Builds Upon the PIKSI Summer Program Model, Focusi
    Project Abstract The Summer Program for Diversity in Logic for Undergraduates builds upon the PIKSI Summer Program Model, focusing on Logic, an area in philosophy needing to increase diversity. We request seed funding for the pilot run of the program in May of 2016, when we will offer 12 students the opportunity to explore an exciting research theme in Logic –Paradoxes—receive small-group tutoring in formal techniques, receive mentoring and support for professionalization, experience validation, understanding and advice regarding diversity issues they have encountered –sexism, racism, ableism (and which the students may worry about encountering them in the profession), and develop a sense of community with students and faculty with whom they can identify and, in turn, come to strengthen their own identities. Project Purpose Our goal is to empower students to conceive of themselves as aspiring logicians, philosophers of logic and formal philosophers who belong in our profession. As Audrey Yap has noted, a majority of philosophy majors encounter some logic as a part of their undergraduate curriculum. Increasing diversity in logic is not simply a problem of exposure, but concretely addressing underlying pressures women and minority students experience, particularly stereotype threat and pernicious ideas about “natural aptitude.” (1) These pressures are especially strong in the subfield of logic, where almost no women and minorities have contributed to the research literature until very recently, and women and minorities remain underrepresented to a higher degree than in philosophy more broadly. Women and minorities learning logic can be vulnerable to feeling that a field like logic, that tends to be male and white dominated on the whole, is not welcoming to them.
    [Show full text]
  • New Waves in Philosophical Logic New Waves in Philosophy Series Editors: Vincent F
    New Waves in Philosophical Logic New Waves in Philosophy Series Editors: Vincent F. Hendricks and Duncan Pritchard Titles include: Jesús H. Aguilar, Andrei A. Buckareff and Keith Frankish (editors) NEW WAVES IN PHILOSOPHY OF ACTION Michael Brady NEW WAVES IN META-ETHICS Thom Brooks (editor) NEW WAVES IN ETHICS Otavio Bueno and Oystein Linnebo (editors) NEW WAVES IN PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS Boudewijn DeBruin and Christopher F. Zurn (editors) NEW WAVES IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Maksymilian Del Mar NEW WAVES IN PHILOSOPHY OF LAW Allan Hazlett (editor) NEW WAVES IN METAPHYSICS Vincent F. Hendricks and Duncan Pritchard (editors) NEW WAVES IN EPISTEMOLOGY P.D. Magnus and Jacob Busch (editors) NEW WAVES IN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Yujin Nagasawa and Erik J. Wielenberg (editors) NEW WAVES IN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Jan Kyrre Berg Olsen, Evan Selinger and Soren Riis (editors) NEW WAVES IN PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY Thomas S. Petersen, Jesper Ryberg and Clark Wolf (editors) NEW WAVES IN APPLIED ETHICS Greg Restall and Gillian Russell (editors) NEW WAVES IN PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC Sarah Sawyer (editor) NEW WAVES IN PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE Kathleen Stock and Katherine Thomson-Jones (editors) NEW WAVES IN AESTHETICS Nikolaj J. L. L. Pedersen and Cory D. Wright (editors) NEW WAVES IN TRUTH Future Volumes New Waves in Philosophy of Mind New Waves in Formal Philosophy New Waves in Philosophy Series Standing Order ISBN 978–0–230–53797–2 (hardcover) Series Standing Order ISBN 978–0–230–53798–9 (paperback) (outside North America only) You can receive future titles in this series as they are published by placing a standing order. Please contact your bookseller or, in case of difficulty, write to us at the address below with your name and address, the title of the series and one of the ISBN quoted above.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction: at the Intersection of Truth and Falsity
    Introduction: At the Intersection of Truth and Falsity JC Beall ‘Now we will take another line of reasoning. When you follow two separate chains of thought, Watson, you will find some point of intersection which should approximate to the truth.’—Sherlock Holmes, in ‘The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax’. 1. TOWARDS THE INTERSECTION Suppose that we have (at least) two categories X and Y for any meaningful, declarative sentence A of our language.É Pending further information about X and Y, there seem to be four options for an arbitrary sentence A: » A is only in X » A is only in Y » A is in both X and Y » A is in neither X nor Y Whether each such ‘option’ is logically possible depends not only on our logic (about which more below) but on the details of X and Y. Suppose that X comprises all (and only) sentences composed of exactly six words, and Y those with exactly nineteen words. In that case, only the third option is ruled out: X and Y are exclusive—their intersection X ∩ Y is empty—since no A can be composed of exactly six words and also be composed of exactly nineteen words.Ê Despite being exclusive, X and Y are not exhaustive—their union X ∪ Y does not exhaust all sentences—since some A may fall into neither X nor Y. (Just consider ‘Max sat on Agnes’.) Consider another example. Let X comprise all sentences of your favourite novel and Y your all-time favourite sentences. In that case, exclusion is not ruled out; the intersection of X and Y may well be non-empty.
    [Show full text]
  • Defending Logical Pluralism
    Defending Logical Pluralism .................................................................... JC Beall Greg Restall School of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Tasmania Macquarie University .................................................................... Version of May 17, 1999 1 Introducing Logical Pluralism We are pluralists about logical consequence [1]. We hold that there is more than one sense in which arguments may be deductively valid, that these senses are equally good, and equally deserving of the name deductive validity. Our pluralism starts with our analysis of consequence. This analysis of con- sequence is not idiosyncratic. We agree with Richard Jeffrey, and with many other philosophers of logic about how logical consequence is to be defined. To quote Jeffrey: Formal logic is the science of deduction. It aims to provide system- atic means for telling whether or not given conclusions follow from given premises, i.e., whether arguments are valid or invalid . Validity is easily defined: A valid argument is one whose conclusion is true in every case in which all its premises are true. Then the mark of validity is absence of counterexamples, cases in which all premises are true but the conclusion is false. Difficulties in applying this definition arise from difficulties in can- vassingthecasesmentionedinit...[6,page1] We agree that deductive validity is a matter of the preservation of truth in all cases. An argument is valid when there is no counterexample to it: that is, there is no case in which the premises are true and in which the conclusion is not true. We call this account of validity (V) for short. Our pluralism stems from the difficulties to which Jeffrey alludes. We hold that there is more than one notion of case which may be substituted (correctly) into the defining scheme for validity.
    [Show full text]
  • Gillian K. Russell
    Gillian K. Russell Dianoia Institute of Philosophy (cell) (858) 205{2834 Locked Bag 4115 MDC [email protected] Fitzroy, Victoria 3065 https://www.gillianrussell.net Australia Current Employment Professor of Philosophy Dianoia Institute at ACU in Melbourne 2020| 1 Arch´eProfessorial Fellow ( 5 th time) University of St Andrews, Scotland 2019{2023 Employment and Education History Alumni Distinguished Professor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2019{2020 Professor of Philosophy University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2015{19 Associate Professor in Philosophy Washington University in St Louis 2011{2015 Assistant Professor in Philosophy Washington University in St Louis 2004{2011 Killam Postdoctoral Fellow University of Alberta 2005 Ph.D. in Philosophy Princeton University 2004 M.A. in Philosophy Princeton University 2002 M.A. in German and Philosophy University of St Andrews, Scotland 1999 Areas of Specialisation Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Logic, Epistemology Areas of Competence Logic, History of Analytic Philosophy, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science and Mathematics Books { Truth in Virtue of Meaning: a defence of the analytic/synthetic distinction (Oxford, 2008) { The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, with Delia Graff Fara (eds.) (Routledge, 2011) { New Waves in Philosophical Logic, with Greg Restall (eds.) (Palgrave MacMillan, 2012) Accepted and Published Papers { \Social Spheres" forthcoming in Feminist Philosophy and Formal Logic Audrey Yap and Roy Cook (eds) { \Logic: A Feminist Approach" forthcoming in Philosophy for Girls: An invitation to the life of thought, M. Shew and K. Garchar (eds) (Oxford University Press, 2020) { \Waismann's Papers on the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction" in Friedrich Waismann: The Open Texture of Analytic Philosophy, D.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORY of LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE 1. Introduction
    HISTORY OF LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE CONRAD ASMUS AND GREG RESTALL 1. Introduction Consequence is a, if not the, core subject matter of logic. Aristotle's study of the syllogism instigated the task of categorising arguments into the logically good and the logically bad; the task remains an essential element of the study of logic. In a logically good argument, the conclusion follows validly from the premises; thus, the study of consequence and the study of validity are the same. In what follows, we will engage with a variety of approaches to consequence. The following neutral framework will enhance the discussion of this wide range of approaches. Consequences are conclusions of valid arguments. Arguments have two parts: a conclusion and a collection of premises. The conclusion and the premises are all entities of the same sort. We will call the conclusion and premises of an argument the argument's components and will refer to anything that can be an argument component as a proposition. The class of propositions is defined func- tionally (they are the entities which play the functional role of argument compo- nents); thus, the label should be interpreted as metaphysically neutral. Given the platonistic baggage often associated with the label \proposition", this may seem a strange choice but the label is already used for the argument components of many of the approaches below (discussions of Aristotlean and Medieval logic are two ex- amples). A consequence relation is a relation between collections of premises and conclusions; a collection of premises is related to a conclusion if and only if the latter is a consequence of the former.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    FRANCESCO BERTO Updated 07/05/2020 Birth Place: Venice, Italy Professor of Logic and Metaphysics, Department of Philosophy, University of St Andrews Edgecliffe, The Scores, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL, United Kingdom [email protected] Research Chair, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam Oude Turfmarkt 141, 1012 GC Amsterdam, The Netherlands [email protected] ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3246-657X 1 1. JOBS, POSITIONS, AFFILIATIONS 1.1. November 2020 : Honorary Chair Mercier, Institut Supérieur de Philosophie, Université Catholique de Louvain. 1.2. August 2020 - ___ : Editor-in-chief, The Philosophical Quarterly. 1.3. September 2018 - ___ : Professor of Logic and Metaphysics, Department of Philosophy, University of St Andrews. 1.4. September 2018 - ___ : Part-time Research Chair, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam. 1.5. May 2018: Member of the Logicians Liberation League (LLL) as Holder of Hegel’s Spirit http://aal.ltumathstats.com/curios/logicians-liberation-league. 1.6. September 2017 - ____ : Affiliated Member of EIDOS, the research centre in metaphysics, Universities of Geneva and Italian Switzerland. 1.7. September 2018 - January 2019: Research Fellow at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS) (fellowship offered, but turned down due to the position accepted in St Andrews). 1.8. January 2014 - August 2018: Full Professor and Structural Chair, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation and Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam. 1.9. January 2014 - July 2015: AHRC Project Leader, Department of Philosophy, University of Aberdeen. 1.10. August 2012 - January 2014: Senior Lecturer, Department of Philosophy, University of Aberdeen.
    [Show full text]
  • Pluralism.Pdf
    Logical Pluralism ...................................................... JC Beall and Greg Restall Version of March 28, 2000 Abstract: A widespread assumption in contemporary philosophy of logic is that there is one true logic, that there is one and only one correct answer as to whether a given argument is deductively valid. In this paper we propose an alternative view, logical pluralism. According to logical pluralism there is not one true logic; there are many. There is not always a single answer to the question “is this argument valid?” 1 Logic, Logics and Consequence Anyone acquainted with contemporary Logic knows that there are many so-called logics.1 But are these logics rightly so-called? Are any of the menagerie of non-classical logics, such as relevant logics, intuitionistic logic, paraconsistent logics or quantum logics, as deserving of the title ‘logic’ as classical logic? On the other hand, is classical logic really as de- serving of the title ‘logic’ as relevant logic (or any of the other non-classical logics)? If so, why so? If not, why not? Logic has a chief subject matter: Logical Consequence. The chief aim of logic is to account for consequence — to say, accurately and systematically, what consequence amounts to, which is normally done by specifying which arguments (in a given language) are valid. All of this, at least today, is common ground. Logic has not always been seen in this light. Years ago, Logic was dom- inated by the Frege–Russell picture which treats logical truth as the lead character and consequence as secondary. The contemporary picture re- verses the cast: consequence is the lead character.
    [Show full text]
  • Greg Restall Is Associate Professor in Philosophy at Melbourne University, Australia
    Logic Logic is a comprehensive introduction to the major concepts and techniques involved in the study of logic. It explores both formal and philosophical logic and examines the ways in which we can achieve good reasoning. The methods of logic are essential to an understanding of philosophy and are also crucial in the study of mathematics, computing, linguistics and in many other domains. Individual chapters include: • Propositions and arguments • Truth tables • Trees • Conditionality • Natural deduction • Predicate, names and quantifiers • Definite descriptions Logic is an exceptionally clear introduction to the subject and is ideally suited to students taking an introductory course in logic. Greg Restall is Associate Professor in Philosophy at Melbourne University, Australia. Fundamentals of Philosophy Series editor: John Shand This series presents an up-to-date set of engrossing, accurate and lively introductions to all the core areas of philosophy. Each volume is written by an enthusiastic and knowledgeable teacher of the area in question. Care has been taken to produce works that while even-handed are not mere bland expositions, and as such are original pieces of philosophy in their own right. The reader should not only be well informed by the series, but also experience the intellectual excitement of being engaged in philosophical debate itself. The volumes serve as an essential basis for the under-graduate courses to which they relate, as well as being accessible and absorbing for the general reader. Together they comprise an indispensable
    [Show full text]
  • Carnap's Tolerance, Language Change and Logical Pluralism
    Carnap's Tolerance, Language Change and Logical Pluralism GREG RESTALL∗ PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT, MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY [email protected] May 16, 2001 http://www.phil.mq.edu.au/staff/grestall/cv.html Abstract: In this paper, I distinguish different kinds of pluralism about logical conse- quence. In particular, I distinguish the pluralism about logic arising from Carnap's Principle of Tolerance from a pluralism which maintains that there are different, equally “good” logical consequence relations on the one language. I will argue that this sec- ond form of pluralism does more justice to the contemporary state of logical theory and practice than does Carnap's more moderate pluralism. 1 Pluralism about Logical Consequence With JC Beall, I have argued for and defended a very particular account of logical pluralism [5, 6]. We take it that the notion of logical consequence is ir- reducibly plural in its application. That is, we take it that there are at least two distinct relations of logical consequence — and not simply two distinct rela- tions in intension, but two distinct relations in extension. We take it that there are arguments which are valid according to one logic, and invalid according to another, and that there is no further fact of the matter as to whether the argu- ment is really valid. For the sake of this paper let me be quite specific. I will take two particular argument forms. First, the argument form I will call explosion: From A ^ ∼A to infer B. This argument form is valid classically, and invalid relevantly. Similarly, the argument form of disjunctive syllogism: From A _ B and ∼A to infer B is valid classically, and invalid relevantly [8].
    [Show full text]