Tradition
Logical pluralism
Overview
Logical pluralism also pluralistic logic and pluralistic logicism is the philosophical view that there is more than one correct logic. It stands in contrast to logical monism which argues that there is a single unique logic. There are different standards both for what counts as a logic and what exactly it means for a logic to be "correct", however, most debates about logical pluralism defined logic as a theory of validity. In other words, logic is the study of what constitutes a valid inference. Following from this definition, "correctness" has been defined in terms of whether or not a logic offers the correct form of valid inference. Logical pluralism holds that multiple different types of valid inference (i.e., at least two different consequence relations) can be correct.
Forms of logical pluralisms have been around since the first half of the 20th century, if not earlier. Perhaps most famous of these early models is found in the work of Rudolf Carnap.
Newfound interest in logical pluralism was sparked by the work of philosophers Jc Beall and Greg Restall, culminating in their 2006 book, Logical Pluralism.
Overview adapted from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0; see the article history for authors).
Possible passages
Found by search and not yet checked by a person; they may only mention the idea in passing.
We say of a fact or statement, that it is proved, when we believe its truth by reason of some other fact or statement from which it is said to _follow_. Most of the propositions, whether affirmative or negative, universal, particular, or singular, which we believe, are not believed on their own evidence, but on the ground of something previously assented to, from which they are said to be _inferred_. To infer a…
John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic
States what Logical pluralism is.
Or, finally, the premises, of whichever kind they are, may never have been conceived in so distinct a manner as to produce any clear consciousness by what means they were arrived at; as in the case of what is called reasoning in a circle; and then the fallacy is one of Confusion.
John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive
States what Logical pluralism is.
On the other hand, merely to have such an acquaintance with the idea as to have become familiar with it, and to have lost all hesitancy in recognizing it in ordinary cases, hardly seems to deserve the name of clearness of apprehension, since after all it only amounts to a subjective feeling of mastery which may be entirely mistaken. I take it, however, that when the logicians speak of “clearness,” they mean nothing…
Charles S. Peirce, Chance, Love, and Logic
States what Logical pluralism is.
Philosophers who discussed Logical pluralism
Related ideas
Place in the tradition
Part of American philosophy.