Degree Supervaluational Logic

Supervaluationism is often described as the most popular semantic treatment of indeterminacy. There’s little consensus, however, about how to fill out the bare-bones idea to include a characterization of logical consequence. The paper explores one methodology for choosing between the logics: pick a logic that norms belief as classical consequence is standardly thought to do. The main focus of the paper considers a variant of standard supervaluational, on which we can characterize degrees of determinacy . It applies the methodology above to focus on degree logic . This is developed first in a basic, single-premise case; and then extended to the multipremise case, and to allow degrees of consequence. The metatheoretic properties of degree logic are set out. On the positive side, the logic is supraclassical—all classical valid sequents are degree logic valid. Strikingly, metarules such as cut and conjunction introduction fail.

[1]  Hartry Field,et al.  I—Hartry Field: What is the Normative Role of Logic? , 2009 .

[2]  D. Edgington Vagueness by degrees , 1997 .

[3]  Richmond H. Thomason,et al.  Indeterminist time and truth‐value gaps1 , 2008 .

[4]  Nicholas J. J. Smith Vagueness and Degrees of Truth , 2008 .

[5]  J. A. W. Kamp,et al.  Formal semantics of Natural Language: Two theories about adjectives , 1975 .

[6]  Edward L. Keenan,et al.  Formal Semantics of Natural Language , 1975 .

[7]  Hartry Field Truth And The Absence Of Fact , 2001 .

[8]  Nicholas J. J. Smith Degree of Belief is Expected Truth Value , 2010 .

[9]  John MacFarlane,et al.  Future contingents and relative truth , 2003 .

[10]  Ernest W. Adams,et al.  A primer of probability logic , 1996 .

[11]  David Lewis,et al.  Many, but Almost One , 2020, Interpreting Bodies.

[12]  Lloyd Reinhardt,et al.  Ontology, Causality, and Mind: Essays on the Philosophy of D. M. Armstrong , 1993 .

[13]  F. Huber,et al.  Degrees of Belief , 2009 .

[14]  Hartry Field,et al.  Theory Change and The Indeterminacy of Reference , 1973 .

[15]  K. Fine Vagueness, truth and logic , 1975, Synthese.

[16]  Kenton F. Machina,et al.  Truth, belief, and vagueness , 1976, J. Philos. Log..

[17]  Joseph Y. Halpern Reasoning about uncertainty , 2003 .

[18]  H. Kamp Two theories about adjectives , 2013 .

[19]  James M. Joyce Accuracy and Coherence: Prospects for an Alethic Epistemology of Partial Belief , 2009 .

[20]  Jeff B. Paris,et al.  A note on the Dutch Book method , 2001, ISIPTA.

[21]  Jaines M. Joyce A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism , 1998, Philosophy of Science.

[22]  Peter F. Smith,et al.  Vagueness: A Reader , 1999 .

[23]  Hartry Field Quine and the Correspondence Theory , 1974 .

[24]  Saying More (or Less) than One Thing , 2010 .

[25]  R. Keefe Theories of vagueness , 2000 .

[26]  Hartry Field,et al.  Indeterminacy, Degree of Belief, and Excluded Middle , 2000 .

[27]  Brian Weatherson From Classical to Intuitionistic Probability , 2003, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[28]  Ken Akiba,et al.  Vagueness as a Modality , 2000 .

[29]  Elizabeth Barnes,et al.  A Theory of Metaphysical Indeterminacy , 2011 .

[30]  William Harper,et al.  Ifs. Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance, and Time , 1981 .

[31]  D. Lewis,et al.  Putnam's paradox , 1984 .

[32]  A. Tarski,et al.  Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress , 1962 .

[33]  Peter Milne,et al.  What is the Normative Role of Logic , 2009 .

[34]  Robert Stalnaker A Defense of Conditional Excluded Middle , 1980 .

[35]  J. Williams Eligibility and Inscrutability , 2007 .

[36]  Achille C. Varzi Supervaluationism and Its Logics , 2007 .