Files in this item
A plea for KR
Item metadata
dc.contributor.author | Duncan Kerr, Alison | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-06-05T16:30:04Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-06-05T16:30:04Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019-05-28 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Duncan Kerr , A 2019 , ' A plea for KR ' , Synthese , vol. In press , pp. 1-25 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02265-y | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 0039-7857 | |
dc.identifier.other | PURE: 259130040 | |
dc.identifier.other | PURE UUID: 37af5bdb-247a-4acc-9b6c-ac81f8d639ff | |
dc.identifier.other | Scopus: 85066804373 | |
dc.identifier.other | ORCID: /0000-0001-8051-1115/work/69029527 | |
dc.identifier.other | WOS: 000641858800010 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10023/17826 | |
dc.description.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). | |
dc.format.extent | 25 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.relation.ispartof | Synthese | en |
dc.rights | © The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. | en |
dc.subject | Relevant logic | en |
dc.subject | Paradoxes of implication | en |
dc.subject | KR | en |
dc.subject | BC Logic | en |
dc.subject | T-NDAS | en |
dc.subject | BDC | en |
dc.subject | R2C | en |
dc.subject.lcc | BC | en |
dc.title | A plea for KR | en |
dc.type | Journal article | en |
dc.description.version | Publisher PDF | en |
dc.contributor.institution | University of St Andrews. Philosophy | en |
dc.contributor.institution | University of St Andrews. Arché Philosophical Research Centre for Logic, Language, Metaphysics and Epistemology | en |
dc.contributor.institution | University of St Andrews. Institute for Gender Studies | en |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02265-y | |
dc.description.status | Peer reviewed | en |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.