Vol. 40 No. Especial (2020): Lógica, lenguaje y representación. Homenaje a Alberto Moretti
Articles

Logic, Justification and Normativity

PDF (Español (España))
  • Natalia Buacar
Natalia Buacar
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2020.431

Published 2020-12-15

Keywords

  • Conceptions of Logic,
  • Logical Principles,
  • Justification,
  • Normativity
  • Concepciones de la lógica,
  • Principios lógicos,
  • Justificación,
  • Normatividad
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Alberto Moretti “La lógica y la trama de las cosas” presents and defends a conception of logic according to which there are logical principles that structure language and, consequently, the world. This way of understanding logic offers an answer to the problem of its normativity, at the same time that it dissolves the problem of its justification. In this work, I critically analyze this view of logic and propose an alternative conception that vindicates the legitimacy of both problems and gives them a satisfactory solution.

PDF (Español (España))

References

  1. Anderson, A. R. y Belnap, N. (1975). Entailment, The logic of relevance and necessity. Princeton University Press..
  2. Bachelard, G. (1981). El nuevo espíritu científico (R. Sánchez, trad.). Nueva Imagen (Título original: La formation de l’esprit scientifique, 1934).
  3. Barker-Plummer, D., Cox, R., y Dale, R. (2011). Student translations of natural language into logic: The Grade Grinder corpus release 1.0. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on educational data mining, 51-60.
  4. Barker-Plummer, D., Dale, R. y Cox, R. (2012). Using edit distance to analyze errors in a natural language to logic translation corpus. The 5th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2012). http://educationaldatamining.org/EDM2012/uploads/procs/ Full_Papers/edm2012_full_2.pdf
  5. Barker-Plummer, D., Cox, R., Dale, R., y Etchemendy, J. (2008). An empirical study of errors in translating natural language into logic. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 30(30), 505-510.
  6. Beall, J. C. y Restall, G. (2000). Logical pluralism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 78(4), 475-493.
  7. Brandom, R. (1998). Making it explicit: reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard University Press.
  8. Brandom, R. (2009). Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Harvard University Press.
  9. Buacar, N. (2014). La paradoja de Aquiles y la tortuga (y la justificación de la deducción). E. A. Barrio (ed.) Paradojas, paradojas y más paradojas (pp. 65-80). College Publications.
  10. Buacar, N. (2015). La justificación de la deducción. Tesis doctoral Universidad de Buenos Aires.
  11. Davidson, D. (1974). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, 5-20.
  12. Evans, J. S. B. (1991). Theories of human reasoning: The fragmented state of the art. Theory & Psychology, 1(1), 83-105.
  13. Evans, J. S. B. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological bulletin, 128(6), 978-996.
  14. Evans, J. S. B. (2012). Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(1), 5-31.
  15. Evans, J. S. B., Newstead, S. E., y Byrne, R. M. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Psychology Press.
  16. Harman, G. (1984). Logic and reasoning. Foundations: logic, language, and mathematics. Springer, 107-127.
  17. Harman, G. (1986). Change in view: Principles of reasoning. The MIT Press.
  18. Harman, G. (2002). Internal critique: A Logic is not a theory of reasoning and a theory of reasoning is not a logic. Studies in logic and practical reasoning, 1, 171-186.
  19. Hacking, I. (1968). A language without particulars. Mind, 77(306), 168-185.
  20. Khemlani, S. y Moore, A. (2012). Evaluative feedback can improve deductive reasoning. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1780-1785.
  21. Khemlani, S. y Johnson-Laird, P. (2009). Disjunctive illusory inferences and how to eliminate them. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 615-623.
  22. Lewis, D. (1982). Logic for Equivocators. Noûs, 16(3), 431-441.
  23. MacFarlane, J. (inédito). In What Sense (If Any) Is Logic Normative for Thought? http://johnmacfarlane.net/normativity_of_logic.pdf.
  24. Moretti, A. (2016). La lógica y la trama de las cosas. Ideas y Valores, 65 (161), 5-22.
  25. Moretti, A. (2008). Interpretar y referir: Ejercicios de análisis filosófico. Grama.
  26. Oaksford, N. y Chater (1998). Rationality in an uncertain world: Essays on the cognitive science of human reasoning. Erlbaum, Taylor & Francis.
  27. Palau, G. y Couló, A.C. (2011). Systematic errors as an input for teaching logic. En P. Blackburn, H. van Ditmarsch, M. Manzano y F. Soler-Toscano (eds.) Tools for teaching logics (pp. 183-189). Springer-Verlag.
  28. Peregrin, J. (2014). Inferentialism: Why rules matter. Springer.
  29. Prior, A. (1960). The runabout inference-ticket”. Analysis, 21(2), 38-39.
  30. Quine, W.V.O. (1970). Philosophy of logic. Harvard University Press.
  31. Shapiro, S. (1991). Foundations without foundationalism: A case for second-order logic (Vol. 17). Clarendon Press.
  32. Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of mathematics: structure and ontology. Oxford University Press.
  33. Sher, G. (2011). Is logic in the mind or in the world?. Synthese, 181(2), pp. 353-365.
  34. Sher, G. (2013). The foundational problem of logic. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 19(2), 145-198.
  35. von Wright, G. (1963). Norm and action: a logical enquiry. Routledge y Keagan Paul.
  36. Yang, Y., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2000). How to eliminate illusions in quantified reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 28(6), pp. 1050-1059.