Bergen Logic Seminar: Logical pluralism without collapse

Abstract

According to logical pluralism there is more than one correct logic. After Beall & Restall's influential defence of the position, a number of pluralist theories have been defended. In response, critics such as Priest (2006), Read (2006), and Keefe (2014) have argued that pluralism isn't just unwarranted, but that the position is untenable: It collapses into logical monism. In this paper, I investigate the assumptions and targets of the collapse argument, and I argue that there are good prospects for a form of logical pluralism that avoids collapse.