Situations in Which Disjunctive Syllogism Can Lead from True Premises to a False Conclusion

Bhave, S. V.

doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1039700746

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some formal-logical works analyze the validity of disjunctive syllogism (e.g., Anderson and Belnap 1975, pp. 165, 174-76;Bhave 1997;Mortensen 1983;Routley 1984). According to Anderson and Belnap (1975), disjunctive syllogism is not a tautologically valid form of reasoning because certain ways of using it contain a relevance fallacy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Distinction Between False Dilemma and False Disjunctive Syllogism

Tomić

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since a clear account of the fallacy of false disjunctive syllogism is missing in the literature, the fallacy is defined and its three types are differentiated after some preliminaries. Section 4 further elaborates the differentia specifica for each of the three types by analyzing relevant argument criticism of each, as well as the related profiles of dialogue. After defining false disjunctive syllogisms, it becomes possible to distinguish between a false dilemma and a false disjunctive syllogism: section 5 analyzes their similarities (which explains why the fallacies are often confused with one another) and section 6 explains their differences.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Distinction Between False Dilemma and False Disjunctive Syllogism

Tomić

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The end of the sea battle story

Kaspar

2002

Philosophia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A plea for KR

Kerr

2019

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a strong case to be made for thinking that an obscure logic, KR, is better than classical logic and better than any relevant logic. The argument for KR over relevant logics is that KR counts disjunctive syllogism valid, and this is the biggest complaint about relevant logics. The argument for KR over classical logic depends on the normativity of logic and the paradoxes of implication. The paradoxes of implication are taken by relevant logicians to justify relevant logic, but considerations on the normativity of logic show that only some of the paradoxes of implication are genuine. KR avoids all the genuine paradoxes of implication, unlike classical logic. Overall, KR avoids the genuine paradoxes of implication and avoids the major objection to relevant logics. This combination of features provides strong reason to give KR a place in the conversation about the right logic(s).KR counts disjunctive syllogism valid. Among relevant logicians, the main reason for rejecting disjunctive syllogism has been that it is used in the derivation of some of the paradoxes of implication and so is guilty by association. 7 However, once one distinguishes between the genuine paradoxes of implication and the rest, it turns out that disjunctive syllogism is associated with none of the genuine ones. Thus, the main obstacle to accepting disjunctive syllogism is illusory.Overall, the advantage of KR over relevant logics is its inclusion of disjunctive syllogism, and its benefit over classical logic is that it avoids the genuine paradoxes of implication. These two factors make KR a better choice than either a relevant logic or classical logic.The paper is divided into four parts. In the first section, I introduce relevant logics, the common argument for them, and the superrelevant logics like KR. I explain how KR differs from R and CL. The second section concerns the normativity of logic; in this section, I discuss the views of Gilbert Harman, Florian Steinberger, and Greg Restall in order to establish which paradoxes of implication are genuine and which are illusory. In the third section, I offer an argument for KR over classical logic: KR has none of the genuine paradoxes of implication. In the fourth section, I offer an argument for KR over R: disjunctive syllogism should be counted valid and the major reasons given by relevant logicians for thinking it is invalid are not good. Hence, there is no reason to reject it and plenty of reason to accept it.Remember, this is only a plea for KR to be part of the conversation. What follows are good reasons to think it has substantial benefits over its competitors and so should be taken seriously. However, I do not presume to give a conclusive case. In other words, KR should be considered when weighing the costs and benefits of various logics in the philosophical literature. The standards for success in showing that KR should be part of the conversation are considerably easier to meet than the standards for having conclusively shown that KR is the best logic. Relevant logics, superreleva...

show abstract

Situations in Which Disjunctive Syllogism Can Lead from True Premises to a False Conclusion

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

The Distinction Between False Dilemma and False Disjunctive Syllogism

The Distinction Between False Dilemma and False Disjunctive Syllogism

The end of the sea battle story

A plea for KR

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About