Search

This is the culmination of a discussion on Berry's Paradox with Graham Priest, over an extended period from 1983 to 2019, the central point being whether the Paradox can be avoided or not by removal of the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM). Priest is of the view that a form of the Paradox can be derived without the LEM, whilst Brady disputes this. We start by conceptualizing negation in the logic MC of meaning containment and introduce the LEM as part of the classical recapture. We then examine the usage of the LEM in some other paradoxes and see that it is applied to cases of self-reference. In relation to Priest's [2019] paper, we go on to find a similar use of the LEM in Priest's derivation of Berry's Paradox. However, it is found to be deeper and trickier than other paradoxes, requiring a special effort to untangle the relationships between the LEM, self-reference and meta-theoretic influence. We then examine Brady's previous formalization of Berry's Paradox, considering Brady's most recent view of restricted quantification and his recursive account of the least number satisfying a property. We show that neither of these methods can be used to formalize the paradox. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers general support for what Valerie Plumwood's paper is trying to achieve by supporting the rejection of each of her four "false laws of logic": exportation, illegitimate replacement, commutation (aka. permutation) and disjunctive syllogism. We start by considering her general characterizations of entailment, beginning with her stated definition of entailment as the converse of deducibility. However, this applies to a wide range of relevant logics and so is not able to be used as a criterion for deciding what laws to include in a logic. In this context, we examine the two key differences between deduction from premises to conclusion and entailment from antecedent to consequent. We also consider her use of sufficiency as a general characterizing feature. We then discuss Plumwood's syntactic criteria used to reject the first three of her false laws of logic and add the Relevance Condition in this context. We next consider semantic characterizing criteria for a logic. After making a case against using truth, we introduce Brady's logic MC of meaning containment. We then examine the content semantics for MC and use it to reject all of Plumwood's false laws of logic together with some others. We follow with the related Depth Relevance Condition, which is a syntactic criterion satisfied by MC. This clearly rejects the first three of these laws and many others, but not the fourth law. We conclude by giving our overall support for her general enterprise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper addresses what we see as the four major issues in logic. The overriding issue is that of the choice of logic. We start with some discussion of the preliminary issue of whether there is such a 'one true logic,' but we reserve the main discussion for the first issue of 'classical logic versus non-classical logic.' Here, we discuss the role of meaning and truth, the relation between classical logic and classical negation, and whether and, if so, how classical logic should reside at the base world. Given the argument in favor of an overall use of non-classical logic, the second issue is that of the choice of non-classical logic. Brady's logic MC of meaning containment is argued for, with some comparison made with other relevant logics. For the remaining two issues, we make a case for relevant deduction, in comparison with classical deduction, and we explore possibilities for the appropriate meta-logic, comparing classical and non-classical approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]