A plea for KR

Alison Duncan Kerr

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)
3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

There is a strong case to be made for thinking that an obscure logic, KR, is better than classical logic and better than any relevant logic. The argument for KR over relevant logics is that KR counts disjunctive syllogism valid, and this is the biggest complaint about relevant logics. The argument for KR over classical logic depends on the normativity of logic and the paradoxes of implication. The paradoxes of implication are taken by relevant logicians to justify relevant logic, but considerations on the normativity of logic show that only some of the paradoxes of implication are genuine. KR avoids all the genuine paradoxes of implication, unlike classical logic. Overall, KR avoids the genuine paradoxes of implication and avoids the major objection to relevant logics. This combination of features provides strong reason to give KR a place in the conversation about the right logic(s).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-25
Number of pages25
JournalSynthese
VolumeIn press
Early online date28 May 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 28 May 2019

Keywords

  • Relevant logic
  • Paradoxes of implication
  • KR

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A plea for KR'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this