Neil Tennant

This paper addresses an objection raised by Timothy Williamson to the ‘restriction strategy’ that I proposed, in The Taming of The True, in order to deal with the Fitch paradox. Williamson provides a new version of a Fitch-style argument that purports to show that even the restricted principle of knowability suffers the same fate as the unrestricted one. I show here that the new argument is fallacious. The source of the fallacy is a misunderstanding of the condition used in stating the restricted knowability principle. I also rebut Williamson’s criticism of my argument for the claim that any proposition of the form ‘it is known that ϕ’ is decidable if ϕ is decidable.

ABSTRACT The well-known AGM-theory-contraction and theory-revision, due to Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson, relies heavily on the so-called postulate of recovery. This postulate is supposed to capture the requirement of “minimum mutilation”; but it does not. Recovery can be satisfied even when there is more mutilation than is necessary. Recovery also ensures that very often too little is given up in a contraction, in this paper I bring out clearly the deficiencies of the AGM-theory in these two regards, showing how it is doubly off-beam. I show that some of the most serious inadequacies of the AGM-theory derive from early claims in some of its founding contributions, claims that have not been seriously questioned within the tradition since. The upshot of these investigations is that recovery cannot, and should not, be recovered. Theory contraction is hysteretic. Whether the AGM-theory can now recover is a good question.

This is a reply to Timothy Williamson ’s paper ‘Tennant’s Troubles’. It defends against Williamson ’s objections the anti-realist’s knowability principle based on the author’s ‘local’ restriction strategy involving Cartesian propositions, set out in The Taming of the True. Williamson ’s purported Fitchian reductio, involving the unknown number of books on his table, is analyzed in detail and shown to be fallacious. Williamson ’s attempt to cause problems for the anti-realist by means of a supposed rigid designator generates a contradiction with arithmetic right away, upon instantiating the obviously relevant theorem that every natural number is provably odd or provably even. The paper also explains and formulates a globally restricted knowability principle, which likewise blocks the attempted reductio

The rules for Core Logic are stated, and various important results about the system are summarized. We describe its relationship to other systems, such as Classical Logic, Intuitionistic Logic, Minimal Logic, and the Anderson–Belnap relevance logicR. A precise, positive explication is offered of what it is for the premises of a proof to connect relevantly with its conclusion. This characterization exploits the notion of positive and negative occurrences of atoms in sentences. It is shown that all Core proofs are relevant in this precisely defined sense. We survey extant results about variable-sharing in rival systems of relevance logic, and find that the variable-sharing conditions established for them are weaker than the one established here for Core Logic (and for its classical extension). Proponents of other systems of relevance logic (such asRand its subsystems) are challenged to formulate a stronger variable-sharing condition, and to prove thatRor any of its subsystems satisfies it, but that Core Logic does not. We give reasons for pessimism about the prospects for meeting this challenge.

‘Changing the Theory of Theory Change: Towards a Computational Approach’ (Tennant [1994]; henceforth CTTC) claimed that the AGM postulate of recovery is false, and that AGM contractions of theories can be more than minimally mutilating. It also described an alternative, computational method for contracting theories, called the Staining Algorithm. Makinson [1995] and Hansson and Rott [1995] criticized CTTC's arguments against AGM-theory, and its specific proposals for an alternative, computational approach. This paper replies as comprehensively as space allows

SummaryI defend a conventionalist view of logical and mathematical truths against the criticisms of Quine and Stroud. Conventionalism is best formulated by appealing to sense‐conferring rules governing important logical and mathematical expressions. Conventional necessity can be understood as arising from these rules in a way that is immune to Quine's and Stroud's criticisms of the earlier formulation of conventionalism, in which stress was incorrectly laid on axiomatic systems of logic.RésuméJe soutiens, en dépit des critiques de Quine et de Stroud, une conception conventionnaliste des vérités logiques et de vérités mathématiques. La meilleure façon de formuler le conventionnalisme est de faire appel à des règies conférant un sens à?on;importantes expressions logiques et mathématiques. La nécessité conventionnelle peut être comprise comme provenant de ces règies par des voies qui ne donnent pas prise aux critiques de Quine et de Stroud ag ľégard de ľancienne formulation du conventionnalisme, dans laquelle ľaccent était mis, a tort, sur les systèmes axiomatiques de la logique.ZusammenfassungGegen Quines und Strouds Kritiken verteidige ich eine konventionalistische Auffassung der logischen und mathematischer Wahrheiten. Der Konventionalismus wird am besten durch Berufung auf bedeutungsstiftende Regeln, die den Gebrauch wichtiger logischer und mathematischer Ausdrücke bestimmen, formuliert. Konventionelle Notwendigkeit kann als von diesen Regeln hervorgebracht verstanden werden – und das zwar auf eine Art, die sie vor Quines und Strouds Anfechtungen schützen. In der von diesen kritisierten, früheren Fassung wurde zu unrecht das Gewicht auf axiomatische Systeme der Logik gelegt