Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front Phil Chin    2013, Vol. 8 Issue (3) : 507-517    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-002-013-0040-3
research-article |
Why Logical Revisabilism Is Wrong
WEI Yanxia()
School of Philosophy and Social Development, Huaqiao University, Xiamen 361021, China
 Download: PDF(287 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The legacy of logical revisabilism is a hot issue in the philosophy of logic in China. Logical revisabilism holds that Quine is the source of this theory, and that non-classical logic is an instance of logical revision. Here, the reason for logical revisability is due to false descriptive elements in logic. Quine may not agree with logical revisabilism because he thinks that only first-order logic is the orthodox logic, there being no instance of logical revision. Logical revisabilists do not discuss the problem of logical revision on the same level. What’s more, there is an unsolved problem with logical revisabilism, which is explaining “the false descriptive elements in logic.”

Keywords logical revisabilism      Quine      logical systems      deviant logic      logical truth     
Corresponding Authors: WEI Yanxia,Email:weiyanxia@hqu.edu.cn   
Issue Date: 05 September 2013
 Cite this article:   
WEI Yanxia. Why Logical Revisabilism Is Wrong[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(3): 507-517.
 URL:  
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-002-013-0040-3
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2013/V8/I3/507
[1] Tom Stoneham. Quine on Quantification and Existence[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 54-72.
[2] YE Feng. Indispensability argument and anti-realism in philosophy of mathematics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(4): 614-628.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed