Logical knowledge and ordinary reasoning
- Corine Besson
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
This paper argues that the prominent accounts of logical knowledge have the consequence that they conflict with ordinary reasoning. On these accounts knowing a logical principle, for instance, is having a disposition to infer according to it. These accounts in particular conflict with so-called ‘reasoned change in view’, where someone does not infer according to a logical principle but revise their views instead. The paper also outlines a propositional account of logical knowledge which does not conflict with ordinary reasoning.
- Besson, C. (2010). ‘Propositions, dispositions and logical knowledge’. In L. Angela & B. Maddalena (Eds.), Quid est Veritas? Essays in honour of Jonathan Barnes (pp. 233–268). Bibliopolis: Napoli.
- Bird, A. (2007). Nature’s metaphysics: laws and properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Boghossian, P. (1996). Analyticity reconsidered. Noûs, 30, 360–391. CrossRef
- Boghossian, P. (2000). Knowledge of logic. In P. Boghossian & C. Peacocke (Eds.), New essays on the a priori (pp. 229–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Boghossian, P. (2001). Inference and insight. Philos Phenomenol Res, 63, 633–640. CrossRef
- Boghossian, P. (2003). Blind Reasoning. Proc Aristotelian Society, Suppl 77, 225–248. CrossRef
- Brandom, R. (1998). Making it explicit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Bratman, M. (1999). Intention, plans, and practical reasoning. Stanford: CSLI Publication.
- Broome, J. (2001). Are intentions reasons? And how should we cope with incommensurable values? In C. Morris & A. Ripstein (Eds.), Practical rationality and preference: essays for David Gauthier (pp. 98–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Carroll, L. (1895). What the tortoise said to Achilles. Mind, 4, 278–280. CrossRef
- Devitt, M. (2006). Ignorance of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Fara, M. (2005). Dispositions and habituals. Noûs, 39, 43–82. CrossRef
- Field, H. (2009). What is the normative role of logic? Proc Aristotelian Soc, Suppl 83, 251–268.
- Harman, G. (1986). Change in view: principles of reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Harman, G. (2009). Field on the normative role of logic. Proc Aristotelian Soc, 109, 333–335. CrossRef
- Johnston, M. (1992). How to speak of the colors. Philos Stud, 68, 221–263. CrossRef
- MacFralane, J. (unpublished). ‘In what sense (if any) is logic normative for thought?’ preprint on his website. http://johnmacfarlane.net/normativity_of_logic.pdf
- Kagan, S. (1989). The limits of morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Knorpp, W. M. (1997). ‘The relevance of logic to reasoning and belief revision: Harman on “change in view”’. Pac Philos Quart, 78, 78–92. CrossRef
- Priest, G. (1979). Two dogmas of quineanism. Philos Quart, 29, 289–301. CrossRef
- Rumfitt, I. (2000). ‘“Yes” and “no”’. Mind, 109, 787–829. CrossRef
- Rumfitt, I. (2001). Semantic theory and necessary truth. Synthèse, 126, 283–324. CrossRef
- Ryle, G. (1946). ‘Knowing how and knowing that’, repr. in and ref. to (1971), Collected Papers, vol. 2. London: Hutchinson: pp. 212–225.
- Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
- Tarski, A. (1936). ‘The concept of logical consequence’, first english translation by Corcoran, J, (1983). Logic, semantics and metamathematics, Corcoran J (ed.) Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 409–420.
- Logical knowledge and ordinary reasoning
Volume 158, Issue 1 , pp 59-82
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Logical knowledge
- Ordinary reasoning
- Blameless but blind reasoning
- Propositional knowledge
- Corine Besson (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. St Hugh’s College, Oxford, OX2 6LE, UK