Skip to main content
Log in

Hopeful Monsters: A Note on Multiple Conclusions

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Delta: [...] He seems engrossed in the production of monstrosities. But monstrosities never foster growth, either in world of nature or in the world of thought.

Gamma: Geneticists can easily refute that. Have you not heard that mutations producing monstrosities play a considerable role in macro-evolution? They call such monstrous mutants ‘hopeful monsters’.

Lakatos, Proofs and refutations, pp. 21–22

Abstract

Arguments, the story goes, have one or more premises and only one conclusion. A contentious generalisation allows arguments with several disjunctively connected conclusions. Contentious as this generalisation may be, I will argue nevertheless that it is justified. My main claim is that multiple conclusions are epiphenomena of the logical connectives: some connectives determine, in a certain sense, multiple-conclusion derivations. Therefore, such derivations are completely natural and can safely be used in proof-theoretic semantics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The exact terminology is irrelevant; ‘formalised argument’ would have been a good alternative to ‘derivation’, which I nonetheless prefer as it frees ‘argument’ to be used as a shortcut for ‘vernacular argument’.

  2. In the literature, the first member is usually called antecedent, but precedent fits better with succedent.

  3. There will be no need to go past the propositional level. Therefore, I shall sometimes use ‘logical constant’ instead of ‘connective’.

  4. Dummett’s preferred formalism is natural deduction, although he seems not to be having any qualms with sequent calculi beyond their (unspecific and potential) appeal to multiple conclusions. Furthermore, following Gentzen, he takes the R-introductions (i.e., the natural deduction introductions) to be meaning conferring. Harmony then boils down to the L-rules (the eliminations) being faithful to this meaning determination. The reverse direction, going from L- to R-rules is usually called stability. But Dummett’s terminology is unclear; ditto for that used in the subsequent literature. Here I shall use harmony in such a way as to include stability. Hence the term builds-in no assumption of priority of one type of rules over the other.

  5. For a succinct discussion of the basic ideas of proof-theoretic semantics see Schroeder-Heister (2014); my own views on the relation between harmony and structural properties are presented in Dicher (2016a).

  6. There are other ways of making room for classical logic in the inferentialist world, such as going bilateral and setting denial on a par with assertion (Restall 2005; Rumfitt 2000), or rejecting the proof-theoretic desideratum of purity (or separability) (Milne 2013). (Recall that a logical constant is said to be governed by pure (L/R) rules if and only if, when schematically formulated, these rules mention no other constant than the one they purportedly define.)

  7. This is the terminology consecrated in the linear logic tradition. Sometimes the additives are called extensional or context-sharing, while the multiplicatives are also called intensional or context-independent.

  8. I add the subscript m to record the fact that this rule is multiplicative. Sometimes, I shall append the subscript to the connectives themselves, writing, e.g., \(\vee _{m}\) to denote disjunction as given by multiplicative rules.

  9. Conversely, given the R-introductions, \( \vee\! \uparrow \) is derivable which, in fact, would work as a formal proof that \(\vee \)L, a.k.a \(\vee\! \uparrow \), is invertible). One of the required derivations is:

    figure l

    The derivation of XB : Y follows the same pattern.

  10. See Humberstone (2011, 789–798) and the references therein for a summary of the debate.

  11. And here one may wish to further argue that there can be no doubt that classical logic allows for a behaviour like that described by the multiplicative rules for ‘or’. If we further assume that the vernacular roughly obeys classical logical laws, then we have a good motivation for accepting multiple conclusions.

  12. I am indebted to an anonymous referee for prompting me to consider this issue in more detail.

  13. This observation is made by way of doing justice to Tennant’s view that falsum is not a logical constant, but rather a punctuation mark, signalling a deduction gone pear-shaped (Tennant 1999). Again, I am indebted to an anonymous referee for bringing this to my attention.

  14. In the sequent calculus, vacuous discharges correspond to weakenings while multiple discharges are expressed as contractions.

  15. Incidentally, this suggests that the efforts to show that multiple conclusions are not part of the vernacular practice are pointless. If appealing to them in proof-theoretic arguments is somehow circular, then the circularity would not be fixed by there being multiple-conclusion derivations in ‘nature’.

  16. For a brief discussion of this kind of inter-conectedness of the connectives see (Dicher 2017).

  17. Besides, the usual tu quoque, that multiple premises, being conjunctive structures, are just as sinful as multiple conclusions, is pretty difficult to dismiss in this setup. (I thank an anonymous referee for noticing this.)

  18. In passing, let us note that the theoretical question of which kind of features should be preferred is not—indeed, cannot be—settled by the Principle of Anwerability.

References

  • Avron, A. (1991). Simple consequence relations. Information and Computation, 92, 105–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beall, J. C. (2011). Multiple-conclusion LP and default classicality. Review of Symbolic Logic, 4, 326–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beall, J. C. (2014). Strict-choice validities: A note on a familiar pluralism. Erkenntnis, 79, 301–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belnap, N. D. (1962). Tonk, plonk and plink. Analysis, 22, 130–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cintula, P., & Paoli, F. (2016). Is multiset consequence trivial? Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1209-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R. T. (2005). What’s wrong with tonk(?). Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34(2), 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dicher, B. (2016a). Weak disharmony: Some lessons for proof-theoretic semantics. Review of Symbolic Logic, 9(3), 583–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dicher, B. (2016b). A proof-theoretic defence of meaning-invariant logical pluralism. Mind, 125(499), 727–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dicher, B. (2017). On a generality condition in proof-theoretic semantics. Theoria, 83(4), 394–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Došen, K. (1989). Logical constants as punctuation marks. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 30(3), 362–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M. (1991). The logical basis of metaphysics. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francez, N. (2015). Proof-theoretic semantics. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francez, N., & Dyckhoff, R. (2011). A note on harmony. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentzen, G. (1935). Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. I, II. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39(1), 176–210; 405–431.

  • Gratzl, N., & Orlandelli, E. (2018). Logicality, double-line rules, and modalities. Studia Logica. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-017-9778-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratzl, N., & Orlandelli, E. (2017). Double-line harmony in a sequent setting. In P. Arazim & T. Lvika (Eds.), The logica yearbook 2016 (pp. 157–171). London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjortland, O. T. (2013). Harmony and the context of deducibility. In C. D. Novaes & O. T. Hjortland (Eds.), Insolubles and consequences: Essays in honour of Stephen Read (pp. 105–117). London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humberstone, L. (2007). Investigations into a left-structural right-substructural sequent calculus. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 16(2), 141–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humberstone, L. (2011). The Connectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kurbis, N. (2015). Proof-theoretic semantics, a problem with negation and prospects for modality. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44(6), 713–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, P. (2013). Harmony, purity, simplicity and a “Seemingly Magical Fact”. The Monist, 85, 498–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paoli, F. (2002). Substructural logics: A primer. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paoli, F. (2007). Implicational paradoxes and the meaning of logical constants. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 85(4), 553–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prawitz, D. (1965). Natural deduction: A proof theoretical study. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, A. N. (1960). The runabout inference-ticket. Analysis, 21(2), 38–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, S. (2000). Harmony and autonomy in classical logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29(2), 123–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, S. (2010). General-elimination harmony and the meaning of the logical constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39, 557–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restall, G. (2015). Generality and existence (I): quantification and free logic. http://consequently.org/writing/generality-and-existence-1/.

  • Restall, G. (2005). Multiple conclusions. In P. Hájek, L. Valdés-Villanueva, & D. Westerstahl (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the twelfth international congress (pp. 189–205). London: KCL Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Restall, G., & Paoli, F. (2005). The geometry of non-distributive logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 70(4), 1108–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumfitt, I. (2000). “Yes” and “No”. Mind, 109, 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumfitt, I. (2008). Knowledge by deduction. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 77, 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder-Heister, P. (2014). Proof-theoretic semantics. In Zalta, E. N. (Eds.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Summer 2014 edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/. First published 2012.

  • Shoesmith, D. J., & Smiley, T. J. (1978). Multiple-conclusion logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberger, F. (2010). Why conclusions should remain single. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39, 333–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennant, N. (1999). Negation, absurdity and contrariety. In D. M. Gabbay & H. Wansing (Eds.), What is Negation? (pp. 199–222). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tennant, N. (forthcoming). Inferentialism, logicism, harmony, and a counterpoint. In Miller, A. (Ed.), Essays for Crispin Wright: Logic, language and mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the audience at the Lancog Seminar Series in Analytic Philosophy (Centre of Philosophy, University of Lisbon) and in particular to Ricardo Santos and Elia Zardini for a very interesting discussion of these issues. Special thanks are due to Francesco Paoli, who read an early version of this paper and suggested many invaluable improvements. I owe a debt of gratitude to Greg Restall for many discussions about multiple conclusions. Last but not least, I thank the two anonymous referees for this journal for their very detailed and tremendously helpful comments. At various stages during the writing of this paper I have benefited from a postdoctoral scholarship financed by the Regione Autonoma Sardegna within the project CRP-78705 (L.R. 7/2007), “Metaphor and argumentation” and from a postdoctoral fellowship funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal (grant SFRH/BPD/116125/2016).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bogdan Dicher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dicher, B. Hopeful Monsters: A Note on Multiple Conclusions. Erkenn 85, 77–98 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0019-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0019-3

Navigation