Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 14, pp 2897–2924 | Cite as

Criteria for logical formalization

Article

Abstract

The article addresses two closely related questions: What are the criteria of adequacy of logical formalization of natural language arguments, and what gives logic the authority to decide which arguments are good and which are bad? Our point of departure is the criticism of the conception of logical formalization put forth, in a recent paper, by M. Baumgartner and T. Lampert. We argue that their account of formalization as a kind of semantic analysis brings about more problems than it solves. We also argue that the criteria of adequate formalization need not be based on truth conditions associated with logical formulas; in our view, they are better based on structural (inferential) grounds. We then put forward our own version of the criteria. The upshot of the discussion that follows is that the quest for an adequate formalization in a suitable logical language is best conceived of as the search for a Goodmanian reflective equilibrium.

Keywords

Logic Logical form Formalization Reflective equilibrium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baumgartner M., Lampert T. (2008) Adequate formalization. Synthèse 164: 93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blau U. (1977) Die dreiwertige Logic der Sprache. de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Blau U. (2008) Die Logik der Unbestimmtheiten und Paradoxien. Synchron, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  4. Brun G. (2003) Die richtige Formel. Ontos, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnap R. (1950) Logical foundations of probability. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein R. L. (2001) Propositional logics (2nd ed.). Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodman N. (1955) Fact, fiction, and forecast. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Peregrin J. (1992) Sprache und ihre Formalisierung. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 40: 237–244Google Scholar
  9. Peregrin J. (2001) Meaning and structure. Aldershot, AshgateGoogle Scholar
  10. Quine W. V. O. (1960) Word and object. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Resnik M. (1985) Logic: Normative or descriptive? The ethics of belief or a branch of psychology?. Philosophy of Science 52: 221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Russell B. (1914) Our knowledge of the external world. Allen and Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Sainsbury R. M. (1991) Logical forms (an introduction to philosophical logic). Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Svoboda V., Peregrin J. (2009) Od jazyka k logice [From language to logic]. Academia, PragueGoogle Scholar
  15. Tarski, A. (1933). Pojeęcie prawdy v językach nauk dedukcyjnych. Warsawa (English translation: The concept of truth in formalized languages in Tarski, A. (1956). Logic, semantics, metamathematics (pp. 152–278). Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  16. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge (English translation: London: Routledge, 1961).Google Scholar
  17. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophische Untersuchungen. Oxford: Blackwell (English translation: Philosophical investigation, Oxford: Blackwell, 1953).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic, Institute of PhilosophyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations