Philosophical Problems of Foundations of Logic

Karpenko, Alexander S.

doi:10.2478/sh-2014-0002

Abstract

In the paper the following questions are discussed: (i) What is logical consequence? (ii) What are logical constants (operations)? (iii) What is a logical system? (iv) What is logical pluralism? (v) What is logic? In the conclusion, the main tendencies of development of modern logic are pointed out.

References

1. Antonelli A.G., “Non-monotonic Logic”, [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010. .
Search in Google Scholar
2. Barwise, J. and S. Feferman (eds.), Model-theoretic Logics. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987.
Search in Google Scholar
3. Barwise, J., “Model-theoretic Logics: Background and Aims”, [in:] Jon Barwise and Solomon Feferman (eds.), Model-theoretic Logics, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987, 4-23.
Search in Google Scholar
4. Bates, J., “Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence”, Southwest Philosophy Review 15.1 (1999): 47-54.10.5840/swphilreview199915119
Search in Google Scholar
5. Beall, J.C. and G. Restall, “Logical Consequence”, [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005. .10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199288403.003.0002
Search in Google Scholar
6. Beall, J.C. and G. Restall, Logical Pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199288403.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar
7. Bellotti, L., “Tarski on Logical Notions”, Synthese 135 (2003): 401-13.10.1023/A:1023590504284
Search in Google Scholar
8. Benthem, Van J., “Logical Constants Across Varying Types”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30 (1989): 315-342.10.1305/ndjfl/1093635152
Search in Google Scholar
9. Benthem, Van J., “Where is Logic Going, and Should It?” Topoi 25 (2006): 117-22.10.1007/s11245-006-0018-x
Search in Google Scholar
10. Benthem, Van J., “Logic and the New Psychologims” Studia Logica 88 (2008): 67-84.10.1007/s11225-008-9101-1
Search in Google Scholar
11. Benthem, Van J. and K. Doets, “Higher-order Logic”, [in:] Dov. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel, 2001, 189-243.
Search in Google Scholar
12. Béziau, J.-Y. “Universal Logic”, [in:] T. Childers and O. Majer (eds.), Logica'94: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium. Prague: Filosofia, 1994, 73-93.
Search in Google Scholar
13. Béziau, J.-Y. (ed). Logica Universalis: Towards a General Theory of Logic. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 2005. (2nd ed. 2007).10.1007/b137041
Search in Google Scholar
14. Blanchette, P. A. “Logical Consequence”, [in:] Lou Goble (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001, 115-35.
Search in Google Scholar
15. Bonnay, D., “Logicality and Invariance”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14.1 (2008): 29-68.10.2178/bsl/1208358843
Search in Google Scholar
16. Bonnay, D. and D. Westerståhl, “Consequence mining: constants versus consequence relations”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 41.4 (2012): 671-709.10.1007/s10992-012-9234-6
Search in Google Scholar
17. Boolos, G., “On Second-order Logic”, Journal of Philosophy 72 (1975): 509-27.10.2307/2025179
Search in Google Scholar
18. Brown D.J. and R. Suszko, “Abstract Logics”, Dissertationes Mathematicae 102 (1973): 7-41.
Search in Google Scholar
19. Carnielli, W. A., M. E. Coniglio, D. M. Gabbay, P. Gouveia and C. Sernadas, Analysis and Synthesis of Logics: How to Cut and Paste Reasoning Systems. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008.
Search in Google Scholar
20. Carnielli, W.A. and M.E. Coniglio, “Combining Logics”, [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010. .
Search in Google Scholar
21. Casanovas, E., “Logical Operations and Invariance”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (2007): 33-60.10.1007/s10992-006-9034-y
Search in Google Scholar
22. Chagrov, A. and M. Zakharyaschev, Modal Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Search in Google Scholar
23. Chang, C. and H.J. Keisler, Model Theory. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990.
Search in Google Scholar
24. Corcoran, J., “Conceptual Structure of Classical Logic”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 33 (1972): 25-47.10.2307/2106718
Search in Google Scholar
25. Corcoran, J., and J.M. Sagüillo, “The Absence of Multiple Universes of Discourse in the 1936 Tarski Consequence-Definition Paper”, History and Philosophy of Logic 32.4 (2011): 359-74.10.1080/01445340.2011.577145
Search in Google Scholar
26. Da Costa, N.C.A. and D. Krause, “Schrödinger logics”, Studia Logica 53.4 (1994): 533-50.10.1007/BF01057649
Search in Google Scholar
27. Ebbinghaus, H.-D., “Extended Logics: The General Framework”, [in:] Jon Barwise and Solomon Feferman (eds.), Model-theoretic Logics, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987, 25-76.
Search in Google Scholar
28. Edwards, J., “Reduction and Tarski's Definition of Logical Consequence”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 44 (2003): 49-62.10.1305/ndjfl/1082637614
Search in Google Scholar
29. Engel, P., “Logic, Reasoning and the Logical Constants”, Croatian Journal of Philosophy VI.17 (2006): 219-35.
Search in Google Scholar
30. Etchemendy, J., The Concept of Logical Consequence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990 (2nd ed. in 1999).
Search in Google Scholar
31. Etchemendy, J., “Reflections on Consequence”, [in:] D. Patterson (ed.), New Essays on Tarski and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 263-99.
Search in Google Scholar
32. Feferman, S., “Logic, Logics, and Logicism.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 40 (1999): 31-54.10.1305/ndjfl/1039096304
Search in Google Scholar
33. Feferman, S., “What kind of logic is “Independence Friendly” logic?” [in:] Randall E. Auxier and Lewis E. Hahn (eds.), The Philosophy of Jaakko Hintikka. Library of Living Philosophers. Open Court, 2006, 453-69.
Search in Google Scholar
34. Feferman, S., “Set-theoretical Invariance Criteria for Logicality”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51.1 (2010): 3-20.10.1215/00294527-2010-002
Search in Google Scholar
35. Field, H., “Pluralism in Logic”, The Review of Symbolic Logic 2.2 (2009): 343-59.10.1017/S1755020309090182
Search in Google Scholar
36. Field, H., “What is the Normative Role of Logic?” The Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society 83.1 (2009): 251-268.10.1111/j.1467-8349.2009.00181.x
Search in Google Scholar
37. Frege, G., Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle a. S.: Louis Nebert. Trans. as “Concept Script, a formal language of pure thought modelled upon that of arithmetic”, by S. Bauer-Mengelberg in Jean van Heijenoort (ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967, 1-83.
Search in Google Scholar
38. Frege, G., Basic Laws of Arithmetic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
Search in Google Scholar
39. Gabbay, D.M. (ed.), What is a Logical System? Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994 (and New York, 1995).
Search in Google Scholar
40. Gabbay, D.M. and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 1st ed. 4 vols. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983-1987.10.1007/978-94-009-7066-3
Search in Google Scholar
41. Gabbay, D.M. and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd ed. 17 vols. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001-2013.10.1007/978-94-017-0452-6
Search in Google Scholar
42. Gainfs, B. R., “Foundations of fuzzy reasoning”, Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 8 (1976): 623-68. 10.1016/S0020-7373(76)80027-2
Search in Google Scholar
43. Gamut, L. T. F., Logic, Language, and Meaning, Vol. 2: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991.10.7208/chicago/9780226791708.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar
44. Gorbunov, I.A. and M.N. Rybakov, “Continuum Classes of Logic”, Logical Investigations [Logicheskie issledovania] 14 (2007): 131-151 (in Russian).
Search in Google Scholar
45. Gómez-Torrente, M., “Tarski on Logical Consequence”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37 (1996): 125-51.10.1305/ndjfl/1040067321
Search in Google Scholar
46. Gómez-Torrente, M., “The Problem of Logical Constants”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 8 (2002): 1-37.10.2178/bsl/1182353851
Search in Google Scholar
47. Gómez-Torrente, M., “Rereading Tarski on Logical Consequence”, Review of Symbolic Logic 2 (2009): 249-97.10.1017/S1755020309090200
Search in Google Scholar
48. Groarke, L., “Informal Logic” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011. .
Search in Google Scholar
49. Haack, S., Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic: Beyond the Formalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Search in Google Scholar
50. Hacking, I., “What is logic?” The Journal of Philosophy 76.6 (1979): 285-319. (Reprinted in Dov M. Gabbay (ed.), What is a Logical System? Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, 1-33).
Search in Google Scholar
51. Hanson, W.H., “Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 28.6 (1999): 605-16.10.1023/A:1004649130370
Search in Google Scholar
52. Harman, G., Change in View. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986.
Search in Google Scholar
53. Harman, G., “Internal Critique: A Logic is not a Theory of Reasoning and a Theory of Reasoning is not a Logic” [in:] D. M. Gabbay, R. H. Johnson, H. J. Ohlbach, and J. Woods (eds.), Handbook of the Logic of Argument and Inference: The Turn Towards the Practical. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2002, 171-86.
Search in Google Scholar
54. Hintikka, J., “What is Elementary Logic? Independence-Friendly Logic as the True Core Area of Logic” [in:] K. Gavroglu, J.J. Stachel, and M.W. Wartofsky (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and the Scientific Community. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995, 301-26.
Search in Google Scholar
55. Hintikka, J., “A Revolution in the Foundations of Mathematics?” Synthese 111 (1997): 155-70.10.1023/A:1004970403579
Search in Google Scholar
56. Hintikka, J., “Rationality, Logic and Their Limits” [in:] Vladislav Lektorsky and Abdusalam Guseynov (eds.), Rationality and its Limits. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, RAS, 2012, 21-31.
Search in Google Scholar
57. Hintikka, J. and G. Sandu, “A Revolution in Logic?” Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic” 1.2 (1996): 169-83.
Search in Google Scholar
58. Hintikka, J. and G. Sandu, “What is Logic?” [in:] Dale Jacquette (ed.), Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. 13-40.
Search in Google Scholar
59. Hodes, H.T., “On the sense and Reference of a Logical Constant”, Philosophical Quarterly 54 (2004): 134-65.10.1111/j.0031-8094.2004.00345.x
Search in Google Scholar
60. Hodges, W., “Elementary Predicate Logic” [in:] Dov. M. Gabbay and Franz Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel, 2001, 1-129.
Search in Google Scholar
61. Hodges, W., “What is Logic?” [in:] Rusudan Asatiani et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation. ILLC, University of Amsterdam, 2004, 3-10.
Search in Google Scholar
62. Hodges, W., “The Scope and Limits of Logic” [in:] Dale Jacquette (ed.), Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. 41-64.
Search in Google Scholar
63. Jané, I., “What Is Tarski's Common Concept of Consequence?” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 12 (2006): 1-42.10.2178/bsl/1140640942
Search in Google Scholar
64. Jankov, V.A., “Construction of the sequence strongly independent superintuitionistic propositional calculus”, Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR 181.1 (1968): 33-34 (in Russian).
Search in Google Scholar
65. Jeffery, R., Formal Logic: its Scope and its Limits. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, 1990.
Search in Google Scholar
66. Karpenko, A.S., Logic on the Boundary of Millenia”, Logical Investigations [Logicheskie issledovania] 7 (2000): 7-60 (in Russian).
Search in Google Scholar
67. Karpenko, A.S., “Subject of Logic in the Light of the Main Trends of its Development”, Logical Investigations [Logicheskie issledovania] 11 (2004): 149-171 (in Russian).
Search in Google Scholar
68. Karpenko, A.S., “Modern Study in Philosophical Logic: Worldwide Level and Russian Science”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 14.27 (2008): 35-71.
Search in Google Scholar
69. Keenan, E.L. and J. Stavi, “A semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners”, Linguistic and Philosophy 9 (1986): 253-326.10.1007/BF00630273
Search in Google Scholar
70. Koons, R., “Defeasible Reasoning” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013. .
Search in Google Scholar
71. Lambek, J., “What is a Deductive System?” [in:] Dov M. Gabbay (ed.), What is a Logical System? Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, 141-59.
Search in Google Scholar
72. Leitgeb, H. (ed.), Special Issue: Psychologism in Logic? Studia Logica 88.1 (2008).10.1007/s11225-008-9097-6
Search in Google Scholar
73. Lindenbaum, A. and A. Tarski, “On the Limitations of the Means of Expression of Deductive Theories”. Trans. of Lindenbaum and Tarski 1935 by J.H. Woodger in Tarski, A., Logic, Semantics, Metamatematics. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing, 1983, 384-92.
Search in Google Scholar
74. Lindström, P., “On extensions of Elementary Logic”, Theoria 35 (1969): 1-11.10.1111/j.1755-2567.1969.tb00356.x
Search in Google Scholar
75. Lönning, J.T., “Plurals and Collectivity” [in:] Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1997, 1009-1053.
Search in Google Scholar
76. MacFarlane, J., “Logical Constants” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009. .
Search in Google Scholar
77. Mancosu, P., “Tarski on Models and Logical Consequence” [in:] J. Ferreirós and J.J. Gray (eds.), The Architecture of Modern Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 209-37.
Search in Google Scholar
78. Mancosu, P., “Fixed-versus Variable-domain Interpretations of Tarski’s Account of Logical Consequence”, Philosophy Compas 5.9 (2010): 745-759.10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00324.x
Search in Google Scholar
79. Manktelow, K.I. and D.E. Over, Inference and Uderstanding: A Philosophical and Psychological Perspective. London: Routledge, 1990.
Search in Google Scholar
80. Mann, A.L., G. Sandu, and M. Sevenster, Independence-Friendly Logic: A Game-Theoretic Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2011.10.1017/CBO9780511981418
Search in Google Scholar
81. Manzano, M., Extensions of First Order Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Search in Google Scholar
82. Markov, A.A., Elements of Mathematical Logic. Moscow: Moscow State University, 1984 (in Russian).
Search in Google Scholar
83. Mautner, F. I., “An Extension of Klein's Erlanger Program: Logic as Invariant-Theory”, American Journal of Mathematics 68 (1946): 345-84.10.2307/2371821
Search in Google Scholar
84. McCarthy, T., “The Idea of a Logical Constant”, Journal of Philosophy 78 (1981): 499-523.10.2307/2026088
Search in Google Scholar
85. McCarthy, T., “Modality, Invariance, and Logical Truth”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 16 (1987): 423-43.10.1007/BF00431187
Search in Google Scholar
86. McGee, Van, “Two Problems with Tarski's Theory of Consequence”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 92 (1992): 273-92.10.1093/aristotelian/92.1.273
Search in Google Scholar
87. McGee, Van, “Logical Operations.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (1996): 567-80.10.1007/BF00265253
Search in Google Scholar
88. McGee, Van, “Tarski's Staggering Existential Assumptions”, Synthese 142 (2004): 371-87.10.1007/s11229-005-3721-z
Search in Google Scholar
89. Mckeon, M.W., The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Publishing, 2010.10.3726/978-1-4539-0041-3
Search in Google Scholar
90. Mendelson, E., Introduction to Mathematical Logic. 4th ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1997.
Search in Google Scholar
91. Mostowski, A., “On a Generalization of Quantifiers.” Fundamenta Mathematicae 44 (1957): 12-36.10.4064/fm-44-1-12-36
Search in Google Scholar
92. Peacocke, C., “What is a Logical Constant?” Journal of Philosophy 73 (1976): 221-241.10.2307/2025420
Search in Google Scholar
93. Peacocke, C., “Understanding Logical Constants: A Realist's Account.” Proceedings of the British Academy 73 (1987): 153-200.
Search in Google Scholar
94. Priest, G., An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is. 2nd rev. ed. Cambrigde University Press, 2008.10.1017/CBO9780511801174
Search in Google Scholar
95. Prior, A.N., Time and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.
Search in Google Scholar
96. Quine, W.V., Philosophy of Logic. 2nd ed. Harvard University Press, 1986.
Search in Google Scholar
97. Rasiowa, H., “O pewnym fragmencie implikacyjnego rachunku zdań”, Studia Logica 3 (1955): 208-226.10.1007/BF02067260
Search in Google Scholar
98. Ray, G., “Logical Consequence: a Defense of Tarski”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (1996): 617-77.10.1007/BF00265256
Search in Google Scholar
99. Rossberg, M., “First-Order Logic, Second-Order Logic, and Completeness” [in:] V. Hendricks et al. (eds.), First-Order Logic Revisited. Berlin: Logos-Verlag, 2004, 303-21.
Search in Google Scholar
100. Russell, G., “Logical Pluralism” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013. .
Search in Google Scholar
101. Rusnock P., and M. Burke, “Etchemendy and Bolzano on Logical Consequence”, History and Philosophy of Logic 31.1 (2011): 3-29.10.1080/01445340903445063
Search in Google Scholar
102. Sagüillo, J.M., “Logical Consequence Revisited”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 3 (1997): 216-41.10.2307/421014
Search in Google Scholar
103. Seay, G. and S. Nuccetelli, How to Think Logically. 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012.
Search in Google Scholar
104. Shalack, V.I., “Semiotic Foundations of Logic”, Logical Investigations 19 (2013): 226-37.10.21146/2074-1472-2013-19-0-225-237
Search in Google Scholar
105. Shapiro, S. (ed.), The Limits of Logic. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996.
Search in Google Scholar
106. Shapiro, S., “Logical Consequence: Models and Modality” [in:] Matthias Schirn (ed.), The Philosophy of Mathematics Today. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, 131-56 (2nd ed. in 2003).
Search in Google Scholar
107. Shapiro, S., Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-order Logic. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2000.10.1093/0198250290.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar
108. Shapiro, S., “Logical Consequence, Proof Theory, and Model Theory” [in:] Stewart Shapiro (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Oxford University Press, USA, 2005, 651-70.10.1093/0195148770.003.0021
Search in Google Scholar
109. Sher, G., The Bounds of Logic. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.
Search in Google Scholar
110. Sher, G., “Did Tarski Commit ‘Tarski's Fallacy’?” Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (1996): 653-86.10.2307/2275681
Search in Google Scholar
111. Sher, G., “The Formal-Structural View of Logical Consequence”, The Philosophical Review 110.2 (2001): 241-61.10.1215/00318108-110-2-241
Search in Google Scholar
112. Sher, G., “Tarski's Thesis” [in:] Ed. Douglas Patterson (ed.), New Essays on Tarski and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 300-39.
Search in Google Scholar
113. Schumann A., “A Novel Tendency in Philosophical Logic”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 14.27 (2008): 73-100.
Search in Google Scholar
114. Simons, P. M., “Bolzano, Tarski, and the Limits of Logic”, Philosophia Naturalis 24 (1988): 378-405.
Search in Google Scholar
115. Stenning, K. and M. van Lambalgen, Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012.
Search in Google Scholar
116. Straßburger, L., “What is a Logic, and What is a Proof” [in:] Jean-Yves Béziau (ed.) Logica Universalis: Towards a General Theory of Logic. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 2005, 135-45.
Search in Google Scholar
117. Suber, P., A Bibliography of Non-Standard Logics, 2002. .
Search in Google Scholar
118. Tarski, A., “Fundamentale Begriffe der Methodologie der deduktiven Wissenschaften” I, Monatshefte für Mathenatik und Physik 37.1 (1930): 361-404. Trans: “Fundamental concepts of the methodology of the deductive sciences” [in:] Logic, Semantics, Metamatematics. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing, 1983, 60-109.
Search in Google Scholar
119. Tarski, A., “On the Concept of Logical Consequence” [in:] A. Tarski, Logic, Semantics, Metamatematics. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing, 1983. 409-20.
Search in Google Scholar
120. Tarski, A., “What are Logical Notions?” History and Philosophy of Logic 7 (1986): 143-54.10.1080/01445348608837096
Search in Google Scholar
121. Tarski, A., “On the Concept of Following Logically”, History and Philosophy of Logic 23 (2002): 155-96.10.1080/0144534021000036683
Search in Google Scholar
122. Tharp, L., “Which logic is the right logic?” Synthese 31 (1975): 1-21.10.1007/BF00869469
Search in Google Scholar
123. Tulenheimo, T., “Independence Friendly Logic” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009. .
Search in Google Scholar
124. Wang, H., “What is logic?” The Monist 77.3 (1994): 261-77.10.5840/monist199477312
Search in Google Scholar
125. Warmbrōd, K., “Logical Constants”, Mind 108.431 (1999): 503-38.10.1093/mind/108.431.503
Search in Google Scholar
126. Wason, P.C., “Reasoning” [in:] B.M. Foss (ed.), New Horizons in Psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966. 135-51.
Search in Google Scholar
127. Woleński, J., “Logical Consequence and the Limits of First-Order Logic”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 4.17 (2001): 21-40.
Search in Google Scholar

Philosophical Problems of Foundations of Logic

Abstract

Paradigm

My account