Carlos A. Oller

Una interpretación particularmente influyente de la teoría de la implicación lógica de Bertrand Russell y Clarence I. Lewis es la propuesta por Quine en su artículo “Reply to Professor Marcus”. Allí Quine sostiene que la lógica modal de Lewis nació en pecado: el pecado de confundir uso con mención, ya que cuando se afirma que una oración implica lógicamente a otra, estas oraciones no están siendo usadas sino mencionadas. Según la interpretación de Quine, Clarence I. Lewis persistió en el error de Russell, que consistió en confundir la implicación material con la implicación lógica, y confundió la implicación estricta con la implicación lógica. Estos ‘pecados’ de Russell y Lewis pueden entenderse mejor si se tiene en cuenta que tanto Lewis como Russell sostienen que los axiomas y los teoremas en un cálculo lógico se usan de dos maneras: (a) como premisas a partir de las cuales se obtienen nuevos teoremas, y (b) como reglas de inferencia mediante las cuales se obtienen nuevos teoremas. En efecto, estos autores suscriben la teoría del doble uso de los principios lógicos que parece originarse en la obra de Peano y que ha sido casi completamente ignorada en la literatura acerca de la historia de la lógica. A particularly influential interpretation of Bertrand Russell’s and Clarence I. Lewis’s theory of logical implication is the one proposed by Quine in his article "Reply to Professor Marcus". In that article Quine argues that Lewis's modal logic was born in sin: the sin of confusing use with mention, since when it is stated that a sentence logically implies another sentence, these sentences are not being used but mentioned. According to Quine's interpretation, Clarence I. Lewis persisted in Russell's error, which consisted in confusing material implication with logical implication, and confused strict implication with logical implication. These 'sins' of Russell and Lewis can be better understood if we take into account that both logicians argue that the axioms and theorems in a logical calculus are used in two ways: (a) as premises from which new theorems are obtained, and (b) as rules of inference by which new theorems are obtained. In fact, these authors subscribe to the theory of the double use of logical principles that seems to originate in Peano's work and that has been almost completely ignored in the literature about the history of logic.

It is usually accepted in the literature that negation is a contradictory-forming operator and that two statements are contradictories if and only if it is logically impossible for both to be true and logically impossible for both to be false. These two premises have been used by Hartley Slater [Slater, 1995] to argue that paraconsistent negation is not a “real” negation because a sentence and its paraconsistent negation can be true together. In this paper we claim that a counterpart of Slater´s argument can be directed against the negation operator of classical logic. Carnap’s discovery that there are models of classical propositional logic with non-standard or non-normal interpretations of the connectives will be used to build such an argument. One such non-normal valuation which can be added to the set of classically admissible valuations without altering the set of theorems or the set of valid consequences assigns true to every well-formed formula and, therefore, assigns a designated value to every formula and its negation. We ponder the consequences of these arguments for the claims that paraconsistent negations are not genuine negations and that the negation of classical logic is a contradictory-forming operator.

Este artículo examina algunos de los problemas que presenta el tratamiento lógico de las obligaciones prima facie en la obra de Carlos Alchourrón. Por una parte, señalaremos que su sistema para los condicionales derrotables DFT no formaliza adecuadamente la noción intuitiva de condición contribuyente que Alchourrón utiliza para elucidar la de condicional derrotable. Por otra parte, argumentaremos que la noción de deber prima facie de David Ross no queda adecuadamente formalizada en el sistema AD de lógica deóntica que Alchourrón construye como una extensión de DFT. This paper deals with some problems concerning the logical treatment of prima facie obligations in the work of Carlos Alchourrón. On the one hand, we will argue that his DFT system for defeasible conditionals does not adequately formalize the intuitive notion of contributory condition used by Alchourrón to elucidate the notion of defeasible conditional. On the other hand, we will argue that David Ross' notion of prima facie duty is not adequately formalized in Alchourrón' s deontic system AD, an extension of his DFT logic