Graham Priest on Revising Logic

For each of the three senses of logic there are three questions that follow
o Logica docens (the logic we teach)
o Logica utens (the logic we use)
o Logica ens (logic itself)
The three questions we will ask about each level of logic are:
o (1) Can logic be revised?
o (2) Can logic be revised rationally?
o (3) If so, how?
(1) Logica docens is the logic that we find in textbooks; in textbooks there is pure logic and
applied logic
o Ex. In geometry there are different types and they have different applications for many
different purposes
In Euclid it was supposed to map the spatio-temporal structure of the cosmos
With the rise of non-Euclidian geometry, we want to know which logic is best
used for its canonical application (i.e., its original purpose)
o Logic has a canonical application to chart the structure of reasoning; understanding
the right moves we have to make when we infer
o (a) Can this logic be revised?
Yes, look at the Organon, Kants logic, etc.; Kant said it hadnt been revised but
he was ignorant
Another way of seeing this is that logic is cumulative and we are adding things
that were missing, but that is not true; some things were just removed
Ex. Davapti Syllogism used to be thought as valid
All C are B
All C are A
Some A are B
Where did the idea that contradictions imply anything? The first time we see it
is in Paris in the 12
th
century where we find the argument for explosion
Some A are B
No B are A
All A are A
This all means some things come and go, there is no uniform progress
o (b) Can logic be revised rationally?
Not all revisions are rational; look at the three great periods of logic
Ancient
Medieval Universities
Modern logic
Sometimes things just get forgotten. During the Renaissance all the advances of
Medieval logic were forgotten since scholasticism fell out of favor
Do all changes only occur for sociological reasons?
The change for classical logic at the late 19
th
century with Frege
o (c) How is logic revised?
Logica docens canonical application is how to reason correctly and every logica
docens is a theory of the correct way to reason
Logica docens is a theory about validity which we use in many different areas;
we want to know what follows from what and why
When we create systems of validity we disagree about what is valid and why it is
valid; looking at the history of philosophy there are many global accounts of this
Ex. The syllogism and supposition account of truth conditions; syllogistic
tells us what is valid and our theory of supposition tell us why it is valid
Ex. Classical logic and give a Tarski account of validity
Ex. Intuitionistic logic can use proof conditions to tell us what validity is
(so we are inferentialists about what validity is)
Each of these try to give an answer to how we reason which inferential steps are
good and which are not and why
How do we choose btw competing theories?
We have many criteria for theory choice which we apply whenever we
theorize in different areas (in logic, metaphysics, physics, etc.) and in
the end we choose which is most rational as what does the best with
the data we have
The revolution of logic in the 19
th
century is driven by mathematics and they
wanted to know what numbers were and to do this they had to look at the
cannons of correct reasoning
Syllogistic couldnt do the job of answering the data so classical logic
was born
There was a backlash by the Thomists, but Aristotelian logic was swept
away
Syllogistic does not do well with paradoxes, non-classical mathematics, tenses,
conditional, etc., and finding validity in those areas
Logica eutens (the logic we use); this is the way that people reason in practice not theory
o This does not have to do with the psychology of reason, about the way that people
actually reason since we know people reason really bad because of many systematic
mistakes
Ex. The Wason selection task
o What logica eutens is, is the norms of correct reasoning as practice (when it is done
correctly without mistakes)
o (a) Can it be revised?
Yea, we can reason as classical logicians or modern logicians; we could even do
it on different days
o (b) Can it be revised rationally?
We could be relativists and say intuitionist logic is just as good as classical logic;
what I do on MWF is just as good as TR; this does not follow since logic is not an
isolated game and it meshes with what we do
Some accounts of validity seem to be better than others unless we are
relativists about truth itself and if we are then we dont have an argument
which is going to be persuasive
Because validity engages with truth, some ways of doing validity are better than
others
o (c) How can it be revised?
To find the norms of the best practice is that we try and find out what the best
theory is and bring our practice into accord with it; so we need to find a logica
docens and bring our logica eutens in line with it
Logica ens (logic itself)
o When we make a logia docens we are constructing a theory of something and the
something is the logia ens; it is what we are trying to capture with our logica docens
o (a) Can it be revised?
Can the facts of validity itself change? We cannot answer this question unless
we have the right account of validity b/c until we do we cannot even approach
the question so what are different accounts of validity?
(1) An inference is valid if God says so in this account it wouldnt
change
(2) Dentist theory what is valid is what 70% of dentists recommend;
on this account it could change
So, until we know what validity is we cannot answer this question
Main theories of validity today
(3) Model theory truth is defined in a model and validity is truth
preservation of that model
(4) Proof theory define inferential rules which govern the various
connectives and a valid inference is one which you can get from
following those rules
On either account, validity is going to be about the relation btw abstract
objects; truth bearers are normally sentences/sentence types and they
are supposed to match up with models (on the model acct) and when
they do this correctly, they are valid
In the proof theory approach, truth bearers are sentence types and we
define validity in terms of sequences and inferences are valid if we have
the sequence right
Abstract objects cannot change in these accounts, so the facts of logic
cannot change
More complication
On the proof and model acct we can think of something as giving
meaning conditions of logical connectives
Maybe the facts of validity dont change, but the way we choose to
express these can change
The problem is that meanings interact