Murzi Julien
University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Erkenntnis. 2020;85(2):391-415. doi: 10.1007/s10670-018-0032-6. Epub 2018 Jul 30.
According to logical inferentialists, the meanings of logical expressions are fully determined by the rules for their correct use. Two key proof-theoretic requirements on admissible logical rules, harmony and separability, directly stem from this thesis-requirements, however, that standard single-conclusion and assertion-based formalizations of classical logic provably fail to satisfy (Dummett in The logical basis of metaphysics, Harvard University Press, Harvard, MA, 1991; Prawitz in Theoria, 43:1-40, 1977; Tennant in The taming of the true, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997; Humberstone and Makinson in Mind 120(480):1035-1051, 2011). On the plausible assumption that our logical practice is both single-conclusion and assertion-based, it seemingly follows that classical logic, unlike intuitionistic logic, can't be accounted for in inferentialist terms. In this paper, I challenge orthodoxy and introduce an assertion-based and single-conclusion formalization of classical propositional logic that is both harmonious and separable. In the framework I propose, classicality emerges as a structural feature of the logic.
根据逻辑推理主义者的观点,逻辑表达式的意义完全由其正确使用的规则所决定。对可接受的逻辑规则的两个关键的证明论要求,即协调性和可分离性,直接源于这一论点——然而,经典逻辑的标准单结论和基于断言的形式化方法被证明无法满足这些要求(达米特著《形而上学的逻辑基础》,哈佛大学出版社,马萨诸塞州剑桥,1991年;普拉维茨著《理论》,第43卷:第1 - 40页,1977年;坦南特著《驯服真理》,牛津大学出版社,牛津,1997年;亨伯斯通和马金森著《心灵》第120卷第480期:第1035 - 1051页,2011年)。基于我们的逻辑实践既是单结论的又是基于断言的这一合理假设,似乎可以得出,与直觉主义逻辑不同,经典逻辑无法用推理主义的术语来解释。在本文中,我挑战传统观念,引入一种基于断言且单结论的经典命题逻辑形式化方法,它既具有协调性又具有可分离性。在我提出的框架中,经典性表现为该逻辑的一个结构特征。