Roy T. Cook

We begin with a prepositional languageLpcontaining conjunction (Λ), a class of sentence names {Sα}αϵA, and a falsity predicateF. We (only) allow unrestricted infinite conjunctions, i.e., given any non-empty class of sentence names {Sβ}βϵB,is a well-formed formula (we will useWFFto denote the set of well-formed formulae).The language, as it stands, is unproblematic. Whether various paradoxes are produced depends on which names are assigned to which sentences. What is needed is a denotation function:For example, theLPsentence “F(S1)” (i.e.,Λ{F(S1)}), combined with a denotation functionδsuch thatδ(S1)“F(S1)”, provides the (or, in this context, a)Liar Paradox.To give a more interesting example,Yablo's Paradox[4] can be reconstructed within this framework.Yablo's Paradoxconsists of an ω-sequence of sentences {Sk}kϵωwhere, for eachnϵω:WithinLPan equivalent construction can be obtained using infinite conjunction in place of universal quantification - the sentence names are {Si}iϵωand the denotation function is given by:We can express this in more familiar terms as:etc.

Fine and Antonelli introduce two generalizations of permutation invariance — internal invariance and simple/double invariance respectively. After sketching reasons why a solution to the Bad Company problem might require that abstraction principles be invariant in one or both senses, I identify the most fine-grained abstraction principle that is invariant in each sense. Hume’s Principle is the most fine-grained abstraction principle invariant in both senses. I conclude by suggesting that this partially explains the success of Hume’s Principle, and the comparative lack of success in reconstructing areas of mathematics other than arithmetic based on non-invariant abstraction principles.

It is sometimes suggested that impure sets are spatially co-located with their members (and hence are located in space). Sets, however, are in important respects like numbers. In particular, sets are connected to concepts in much the same manner as numbers are connected to concepts—in both cases, they are fundamentally abstracts of (or corresponding to) concepts. This parallel between the structure of sets and the structure of numbers suggests that the metaphysics of sets and the metaphysics of numbers should parallel each other in relevant ways. This entails, in turn, that impure sets are not co-located with their members (nor are they located in space)

In this paper I examine the prospects for a successful neo–logicist reconstruction of the real numbers, focusing on Bob Hale's use of a cut-abstraction principle. There is a serious problem plaguing Hale's project. Natural generalizations of this principle imply that there are far more objects than one would expect from a position that stresses its epistemological conservativeness. In other words, the sort of abstraction needed to obtain a theory of the reals is rampantly inflationary. I also indicate briefly why this problem is likely to reappear in any neo–logicist reconstruction of real analysis.

A difficulty for alethic pluralism has been the idea that semantic evaluation of conjunctions whose conjuncts come from discourses with distinct truth properties requires a third notion of truth which applies to both of the original discourses. But this line of reasoning does not entail that there exists a single generic truth property that applies to all statements and all discourses, unless it is supplemented with additional, controversial, premises. So the problem of mixed conjunctions, while highlighting other aspects of alethic pluralism worth investigating further, does not constitute an effective objection to it.

On the Dummettian understanding, anti-realism regarding a particular discourse amounts to (or at the very least, involves) a refusal to accept the determinacy of the subject matter of that discourse and a corresponding refusal to assert at least some instances of excluded middle (which can be understood as expressing this determinacy of subject matter). In short: one is an anti-realist about a discourse if and only if one accepts intuitionistic logic as correct for that discourse. On careful examination, the strongest Dummettian arguments for anti-realism of this sort fail to secure intuitionistic logic as the single, correct logic for anti-realist discourses. Instead, antirealists are placed in a situation where they fail to be justified in asserting monism (that intuitionistic logic is the unique correct logic). Thus, antirealists seem forced either to accept pluralism (i.e. one or more intermediate logic is at least as `correct’ as intuitionistic logic–an option I take to be unattractive from the anti-realist perspective), or they must be anti-realists about the realism/anti-realism debate (and, in particular, must refuse to assert the instance of excluded middle equivalent to logical monism or logical pluralism)

A number of formal constraints on acceptable abstraction principles have been proposed, including conservativeness and irenicity. Hume’s Principle, of course, satisfies these constraints. Here, variants of Hume’s Principle that allow us to count concepts instead of objects are examined. It is argued that, prima facie, these principles ought to be no more problematic than HP itself. But, as is shown here, these principles only enjoy the formal properties that have been suggested as indicative of acceptability if certain constraints on the size of the continuum hold. As a result, whether or not these higher-order versions of Hume’s Principle are acceptable seems to be independent of standard (ZFC) set theory. This places the abstractionist in an uncomfortable dilemma: Either there is some inherent difference between counting objects and counting concepts, or new criteria for acceptability will need to be found. It is argued that neither horn looks promising.

The Liar paradox is the directly self-referential Liar statement: This statement is false.or : " Λ: ∼ T 1" The argument that proceeds from the Liar statement and the relevant instance of the T-schema: " T ↔ Λ" to a contradiction is familiar. In recent years, a number of variations on the Liar paradox have arisen in the literature on semantic paradox. The two that will concern us here are the Curry paradox, 2 and the Yablo paradox. 3The Curry paradox demonstrates that neither negation nor a falsity predicate is required in order to generate semantic paradoxes. Given any statement Φ whatsoever, we need merely consider the statement: If this statement is true, then Φor: " Ξ: T → Φ" Here, via familiar reasoning, one can ‘prove’ Φ merely through consideration of statement Ξ and the Ξ-instance of the T-schema.Interestingly, the Liar paradox can be viewed as nothing more than a special case of the Curry paradox. If we define negation in terms of the conditional and a primitive absurdity constant ‘⊥’: 4" ∼ Ψ = df Ψ → ⊥" then the Liar paradox is simply the instance of the Curry paradox obtained by substituting ‘⊥’ for Φ.The Yablo paradox demonstrates that circularity is also not required in order to generate semantic paradox. 5 The paradox proceeds by considering an infinite ω-sequence of statements of the form: S 1: ) S 2: ) S 3: ) : : : : : S i: ) : : : : : :– that is, the set of …

Truth values are, properly understood, merely proxies for the various relations that can hold between language and the world. Once truth values are understood in this way, consideration of the Liar paradox and the revenge problem shows that our language is indefinitely extensible, as is the class of truth values that statements of our language can take – in short, there is a proper class of such truth values. As a result, important and unexpected connections emerge between the semantic paradoxes and the set-theoretic paradoxes.

A number of authors have argued that Peano Arithmetic supplemented with a logical validity predicate is inconsistent in much the same manner as is PA supplemented with an unrestricted truth predicate. In this paper I show that, on the contrary, there is no genuine paradox of logical validity—a completely general logical validity predicate can be coherently added to PA, and the resulting system is consistent. In addition, this observation lead to a number of novel, and important, insights into the nature of logical validity itself.

Logical pluralism is the view that there is more than one correct logic. In this article, I explore what logical pluralism is, and what it entails, by: (i) distinguishing clearly between relativism about a particular domain and pluralism about that domain; (ii) distinguishing between a number of forms logical pluralism might take; (iii) attempting to distinguish between those versions of pluralism that are clearly true and those that are might be controversial; and (iv) surveying three prominent attempts to argue for logical pluralism and evaluating them along the criteria provided by (ii) and (iii).

Gottlob Frege defined cardinal numbers in terms of value-ranges governed by the inconsistent Basic Law V. Neo-logicists have revived something like Frege's original project by introducing cardinal numbers as primitive objects, governed by Hume's Principle. A neo-logicist foundation for set theory, however, requires a consistent theory of value-ranges of some sort. Thus, it is natural to ask whether we can reconstruct the cardinal numbers by retaining Frege's definition and adopting an alternative consistent principle governing value-ranges. Given some natural assumptions regarding what an acceptable neo-logicistic theory of value-ranges might look like, successfully implementing this alternative approach is impossible.

Paradoxes are arguments that lead from apparently true premises, via apparently uncontroversial reasoning, to a false or even contradictory conclusion. Paradoxes threaten our basic understanding of central concepts such as space, time, motion, infinity, truth, knowledge, and belief. In this volume Roy T Cook provides a sophisticated, yet accessible and entertaining, introduction to the study of paradoxes, one that includes a detailed examination of a wide variety of paradoxes. The book is organized around four important types of paradox: the semantic paradoxes involving truth, the set-theoretic paradoxes involving arbitrary collections of objects, the Soritical paradoxes involving vague concepts, and the epistemic paradoxes involving knowledge and belief. In each of these cases, Cook frames the discussion in terms of four different approaches one might take towards solving such paradoxes. Each chapter concludes with a number of exercises that illustrate the philosophical arguments and logical concepts involved in the paradoxes. _Paradoxes_ is the ideal introduction to the topic and will be a valuable resource for scholars and students in a wide variety of disciplines who wish to understand the important role that paradoxes have played, and continue to play, in contemporary philosophy.

We are grateful for Roy T. Cook's attention to our work in his recent review of our book If A, Then B: How the World Discovered Logic. But Professor Cook leaves two misimpressions that we should like to correct. First, we have never maintained (as he phrases it) that "one's premises must be more certain than the conclusions that follow from them, ignoring the obvious logical fact that, if B logically follows from A, then B is provably at least as probable as A." Instead, we assert that one must be *initially* more certain of one's premises than the conclusions that follow from them; otherwise, we contend, no argument that relies on those premises to prove such a conclusion can be rationally persuasive. On this view, one might still be equally certain of both the premises and the conclusion after being persuaded by the argument, especially in cases where the premises entail the conclusion. By analogy, Aristotle asserts in the Posterior Analytics that the premises of demonstration must be "better known" than the conclusion—meaning, in part, that the premises must be initially more convincing. But this hardly shows that Aristotle thinks that, if A is invoked to demonstrate B, then A and B can never be regarded as equally probable…