New publication: Bergen Logic Group
Andreas Fjellstad | Expressing logical disagreement from within | Synthese
Expressing logical disagreement from within
Against the backdrop of the frequent comparison of theories of truth in the literature on semantic paradoxes with regard to which inferences and metainferences are deemed valid, this paper develops a novel approach to defining a binary predicate for representing the valid inferences and metainferences of a theory within the theory itself under the assumption that the theory is defined with a classical meta-theory. The aim with the approach is to obtain a tool which facilitates the comparison between a theory and its competitors within the theory itself, thereby expressing the disagreement between the theories within the theories. After discussing what we can and should require of an object-linguistic representation of a theory for that purpose, this paper proposes to restrict the representation of valid metainferences to locally valid metainferences, a requirement which turns out to be ω-consistent and conservative over classical first-order arithmetic. This approach is then applied to four theories definable on strong Kleene models using a labelled nested sequent calculus.
KEYWORDS: Validity predicate · Validity curry · Curry’s paradox · Logical disagreement · Non-classical logics · Metainferences · Local metainferential validity · Global metainferential validity · Deflationism · Substructural logics · ω-consistency · Labelled sequent calculus