University of Hertfordshire

A Normative Argument Against Explosion

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Documents

  • Mark Pinder
View graph of relations
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)61-70
Number of pages10
JournalThought: A Journal of Philosophy
Volume6
Issue1
Early online date3 Feb 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Mar 2017

Abstract

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.

Notes

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.

ID: 12174836