Roy T. Cook

I propose a novel way of viewing the connection between mathematical discourse and the mathematical logician's formalizations of it. We should abandon the idea that formalizations are accurate descriptions of mathematical activity. Instead, logicians are in the business of supplying models in much the same way that a mathematical physicist formulates models of physical phenomena or the hobbyist constructs models of ships. ;I first examine problems with the traditional view, and I survey some prior work in the spirit of the logic-as-model, including that of Gerhard Gentzen, Georg Kreisel, and Imre Lakatos. The utility of the present framework is then demonstrated in three case studies. ;First, this approach solves a purported problem with precise semantics for vagueness. Precise semantics supposedly err by replacing the defining characteristic of vagueness with precise cut-offs, but on the logic-as-model approach this precision can be seen as an artifact serving to simplify the model but corresponding to nothing actually found in vague languages. ;Second, on the logic-as-model view the advantages claimed for branching quantifiers, i.e. providing the expressiveness of second-order languages while avoiding their semantic intractability, are illusory. On the one hand, second-order formulations of mathematical concepts are usually far more natural than branching quantifier formulations; on the other hand, branching quantifiers are no more tractable than second-order languages. ;Finally, I examine the claim that Gottfried Leibniz's infinitesimal calculus is nothing other than Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis. Although non-standard analysis is a useful model, there are other formalizations of Leibniz's mathematics as fruitful as, yet incompatible with, the non-standard approach, a fact hard to reconcile with the idea that logic provides accurate descriptions. ;After the case studies, I examine the objectivity of logic from the logic-as-model framework. This issue is difficult enough on traditional accounts of logic, and would seem to become even more difficult from the present point of view. Nevertheless, a rich picture of the objectivity of logic is worked out with interesting new sorts of indeterminacy arising from the idea that logic provides models and not descriptions.

Es bestehen tiefgreifende Zusammenhänge zwischen Leibniz' Mathematik und seiner Metaphysik. Dieser Aufsatz hat das Ziel, das Verständnis für diese beiden Bereiche zu erweitern, indem er Leibniz' Mereologie (die Theorie der Teile und des Ganzen) näher untersucht. Zunachst wird Leibniz' Mereologie primär anhand seiner Schrift “Initia rerum mathematicarum metaphysica" rekonstruiert. Dieses ehrgeizige Programm beginnt mit dem einfachen Begriff der Kompräsenz, geht dann iiber zu komplexeren Begriffen wie Gleichheit, Ähnlichkeit und Homogenität und kulminiert letztlich in der Leibnizschen Definition der Begriffe Teil, Ganzes und Komposition. Im Verlauf des Aufsatzes werden auch weitere Erkenntnisse in anderen Bereichen gewonnen, so z. B. in bezug auf die Identität des Ununterscheidbaren. Schließlich werde ich im Rahmen der vorgelegten Theorie versuchen, ein Mißverständnis bezüglich Leibniz' Analogie zwischen Monaden und mathematischen Punkten, welche sich auf die Räumlichkeit der Monaden bezieht, auszuräumen.

This dictionary introduces undergraduate and post-graduate students in philosophy, mathematics, and computer science to the main problems and positions in philosophical logic. Coverage includes not only key figures, positions, terminology, and debates within philosophical logic itself, but issues in related, overlapping disciplines such as set theory and the philosophy of mathematics as well. Entries are extensively cross-referenced, so that each entry can be easily located within the context of wider debates, thereby providing a valuable reference both for tracking the connections between concepts within logic and for examining the manner in which these concepts are applied in other philosophical disciplines. Roy T. Cook is Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota and an Associate Fellow at Arché, the Philosophical Research Centre for Logic, Language, Metaphysics and Epistemology at the University of St Andrews. He works primarily in the philosophy of logic, language, and mathematics, and has also published papers on seventeenth century philosophy.

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…

The No-No Paradox consists of a pair of statements, each of which?says? the other is false. Roy Sorensen claims that the No-No Paradox provides an example of a true statement that has no truthmaker: Given the relevant instances of the T-schema, one of the two statements comprising the?paradox? must be true (and the other false), but symmetry constraints prevent us from determining which, and thus prevent there being a truthmaker grounding the relevant assignment of truth values. Sorensen's view is mistaken: situated within an appropriate background theory of truth, the statements comprising the No-No Paradox are genuinely paradoxical in the same sense as is the Liar (and thus, on Sorensen's view, must fail to have truth values). This result has consequences beyond Sorensen's semantic framework. In particular, the No-No Paradox, properly understood, is not only a new paradox, but also provides us with a new type of paradox, one which depends upon a general background theory of the truth predicate in a way that the Liar Paradox and similar constructions do not.

In this paper, we present a formal recipe that Frege followed in his magnum opus “Grundgesetze der Arithmetik” when formulating his definitions. This recipe is not explicitly mentioned as such by Frege, but we will offer strong reasons to believe that Frege applied it in developing the formal material of Grundgesetze. We then show that a version of Basic Law V plays a fundamental role in Frege’s recipe and, in what follows, we will explicate what exactly this role is and explain how it differs from the role played by extensions in his earlier book “Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik”. Lastly, we will demonstrate that this hitherto neglected yet foundational aspect of Frege’s use of Basic Law V helps to resolve a number of important interpretative challenges in recent Frege scholarship, while also shedding light on some important differences between Frege’s logicism and recent neo-logicist approaches to the foundations of mathematics.

One of the main reasons for providing formal semantics for languages is that the mathematical precision afforded by such semantics allows us to study and manipulate the formalization much more easily than if we were to study the relevant natural languages directly. Michael Tye and R. M. Sainsbury have argued that traditional set-theoretic semantics for vague languages are all but useless, however, since this mathematical precision eliminates the very phenomenon (vagueness) that we are trying to capture. Here we meet this objection by viewing formalization as a process of building models, not providing descriptions. When we are constructing models, as opposed to accurate descriptions, we often include in the model extra ‘machinery’ of some sort in order to facilitate our manipulation of the model. In other words, while some parts of a model accurately represent actual aspects of the phenomenon being modelled, other parts might be merely artefacts of the particular model. With this distinction in place, the criticisms of Sainsbury and Tye are easily dealt with—the precision of the semantics is artefactual and does not represent any real precision in vague discourse. Although this solution to this problem is independent of any particular semantics a detailed account of how we would distinguish between representor and artefact within Dorothy Edgington's degree-theoretic semantics is presented.

One of the main problems plaguing neo-logicism is the Bad Company challenge: the need for a well-motivated account of which abstraction principles provide legitimate definitions of mathematical concepts. In this article a solution to the Bad Company challenge is provided, based on the idea that definitions ought to be conservative. Although the standard formulation of conservativeness is not sufficient for acceptability, since there are conservative but pairwise incompatible abstraction principles, a stronger conservativeness condition is sufficient: that the class of acceptable abstraction principles be strictly logically symmetrically class conservative. The article concludes with an examination of which classes of abstraction principles meet this criteria.