TY - JOUR
T1 - A Normative Argument Against Explosion
AU - Pinder, Mark
N1 - This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Mark Pinder, 'A Normative Argument Against Explosion', Thought, Vol. 6 (1): 61-70, March 2017, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tht3.234. Under embargo. Embargo end date: 3 February 2019.
This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the Northern Institute of Philosophy.
PY - 2017/3/2
Y1 - 2017/3/2
N2 - One strategy for defending paraconsistent logics involves raising ‘normative arguments’ against the inference rule explosion. Florian Steinberger systematically criticises a wide variety of formulations of such arguments. I argue that, for one such formulation, Steinberger's criticisms fail. I then sketch an argument, available to those who deny dialetheism, in defence of the formulation in question.
AB - One strategy for defending paraconsistent logics involves raising ‘normative arguments’ against the inference rule explosion. Florian Steinberger systematically criticises a wide variety of formulations of such arguments. I argue that, for one such formulation, Steinberger's criticisms fail. I then sketch an argument, available to those who deny dialetheism, in defence of the formulation in question.
U2 - 10.1002/tht3.234
DO - 10.1002/tht3.234
M3 - Article
SN - 2161-2234
VL - 6
SP - 61
EP - 70
JO - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy
JF - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy
IS - 1
ER -