Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorRead, Stephen
dc.contributor.editorCaret, Colin
dc.contributor.editorHjortland, Ole
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-14T23:35:04Z
dc.date.available2017-05-14T23:35:04Z
dc.date.issued2015-05-14
dc.identifier.citationRead , S 2015 , Proof-theoretic validity . in C Caret & O Hjortland (eds) , Foundations of Logical Consequence . Mind Association Occasional Series , Oxford University Press , Oxford , pp. 136-158 . https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198715696.003.0005en
dc.identifier.isbn978-0-19-871569-6
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 167456261
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 88490a81-346d-434a-9d5d-a62986bffc0b
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0003-2181-2609/work/62668501
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/10772
dc.descriptionThis work is supported by Research Grant AH/F018398/1 (Foundations of Logical Consequence) from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK.en
dc.description.abstractThe idea of proof-theoretic validity originated in the work of Gerhard Gentzen, when he suggested that the meaning of each logical expression was encapsulated in its introduction-rules, and that the elimination-rules were justified by the meaning so given. It was developed by Dag Prawitz in a series of articles in the early 1970s, and by Michael Dummett in his William James lectures of 1976, later published as The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. The idea had been attacked in 1960 by Arthur Prior under the soubriquet 'analytic validity'. Logical truths and logical consequences are deemed analytically valid by virtue of following, in a way which the present paper clarifies, from the meaning of the logical constants. But different logics are based on different rules, confer different meanings and so validate different theorems and consequences, some of which are arguably not true or valid at all. It seems to follow that some analytic statements are in fact false. The moral is that we must be careful what rules we adopt and what meanings we use our rules to determine.
dc.format.extent23
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.relation.ispartofFoundations of Logical Consequenceen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesMind Association Occasional Seriesen
dc.rightsCopyright 2015 Read. Read, S. (2015). Proof-theoretic validity. In Caret, C., & Hjortland, O. (Eds.), Foundations of Logical Consequence. (pp. 136-158). (Mind Association Occasional Series). Oxford: Oxford University Press. This chapter is reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198715696.doen
dc.subjectHarmonyen
dc.subjectInferentialismen
dc.subjectAutonomyen
dc.subjectValidityen
dc.subjectTonken
dc.subjectDummetten
dc.subjectGentzenen
dc.subjectPrawitzen
dc.subjectLorenzenen
dc.titleProof-theoretic validityen
dc.typeBook itemen
dc.description.versionPostprinten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Philosophyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Arché Philosophical Research Centre for Logic, Language, Metaphysics and Epistemologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.St Andrews Institute of Medieval Studiesen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198715696.003.0005
dc.description.statusNon peer revieweden
dc.date.embargoedUntil2017-05-14
dc.identifier.urlhttp://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198715696.doen


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record