more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
We have not abandoned classical logic in our acceptance of relevant logic.
Gist of Idea
Relevant logic does not abandon classical logic
Source
JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Pluralism [2006], 5.4)
Book Ref
Beall,J/Restall,G: 'Logical Pluralism' [OUP 2006], p.55
A Reaction
It appears that classical logic is straightforwardly accepted, but there is a difference of opinion over when it is applicable.
15429 | Relevance logic's → is perhaps expressible by 'if A, then B, for that reason' [Burgess] |
8720 | A logic is 'relevant' if premise and conclusion are connected, and 'paraconsistent' allows contradictions [Priest,G, by Friend] |
13243 | Excluded middle must be true for some situation, not for all situations [Beall/Restall] |
13242 | It's 'relevantly' valid if all those situations make it true [Beall/Restall] |
13245 | Relevant consequence says invalidity is the conclusion not being 'in' the premises [Beall/Restall] |
13246 | Relevant logic does not abandon classical logic [Beall/Restall] |
13254 | A doesn't imply A - that would be circular [Beall/Restall] |
13255 | Relevant logic may reject transitivity [Beall/Restall] |