Abstract
This paper argues that logical inferentialists should reject multiple-conclusion logics. Logical inferentialism is the position that the meanings of the logical constants are determined by the rules of inference they obey. As such, logical inferentialism requires a proof-theoretic framework within which to operate. However, in order to fulfil its semantic duties, a deductive system has to be suitably connected to our inferential practices. I argue that, contrary to an established tradition, multiple-conclusion systems are ill-suited for this purpose because they fail to provide a ‘natural’ representation of our ordinary modes of inference. Moreover, the two most plausible attempts at bringing multiple conclusions into line with our ordinary forms of reasoning, the disjunctive reading and the bilateralist denial interpretation, are unacceptable by inferentialist standards.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bostock, D. (1997). Intermediate logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Carnap, R. (1994). Formalisation of logic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cook, R. (2005). Intuitionism reconsidered. In S. Shapiro (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of logic and mathematics (pp. 387–411). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dǒsen, K. (1994). Logical constants as punctuation marks. In D. M. Gabbay (Ed.), What is a logical system? (pp. 273–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dummett, M. (1973). Frege: Philosophy of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dummett, M. (1991). The logical basis of metaphysics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dummett, M. (2002). ‘Yes’ , ‘no’ and ‘can’ t say’. Mind, 111, 289–296.
Gentzen, G. (1934/1969). Logical constants as punctuation marks. In M. Szabo (Ed.), The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen (pp. 68–128). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Hacking, I. (1979). What is logic? Journal of Philosophy, 76, 285–319.
Kneale, W. (1956). The province of logic. In H. D. Lewis (Ed.), Contemporary British philosophy (pp. 237–261). London: George Allen and Unwin.
Kremer, M. (1988). The philosophical significance of the sequent calculus. Mind, 47, 50–72.
Milne, P. (2002). Harmony, purity, simplicity and a ‘seemingly magical fact’. Monist, 85, 498–534.
Prawitz, D. (1971). Ideas and results in proof theory. In J. Fenstad (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Scandinavian logic symposium (pp. 237–309). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Prawitz, D. (1971). Meaning and proofs: On the conflict between classical and intuitionistic logic. Theoria, 43, 2–40.
Read, S. (2000). Harmony and autonomy in classical logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29, 123–154.
Restall, G. (2005). Multiple conclusions. In P. Hajek, L. Valdes-Villanueva, & D. Westerståhl (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the 12th international congress (pp. 237–309). London: King’s College Publications.
Rumfitt, I. (2000). ‘Yes’ and ‘no’ . Mind, 109, 781–823.
Rumfitt, I. (2002). Unilateralism disarmed: A reply to Dummett and Gibbard. Mind, 111, 305–322.
Rumfitt, I. (2008). Knowledge by deduction. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 77, 61–84.
Shoesmith, D., & Smiley, T. (1978). Multiple-conclusion logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smiley, T. (1996). Rejection. Analysis, 56, 1–9.
Smiley, T. (1998). Multiple-conclusion logic. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/Y046SECT2. Accessed August 2009.
Steinberger, F. (2008). Tennant on multiple conclusions. Logique et Analyse, 201, 49–55.
Tennant, N. (1987). Anti-realism and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tennant, N. (1997). The taming of the true. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Steinberger, F. Why Conclusions Should Remain Single. J Philos Logic 40, 333–355 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9153-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9153-3