Scholarlink

<p>This paper comprises responses to (in alphabetical order) Calasso and Logan (<CitationRef CitationID="CR8">2023</CitationRef>), Caret (<CitationRef CitationID="CR9">2024</CitationRef>), Omori and Arenhart (<CitationRef CitationID="CR12">2023</CitationRef>), and Standefer, Shear, and French (<CitationRef CitationID="CR16">2023</CitationRef>). Given space limitations, responses are not exhaustive; future work will engage the work further. The target papers divide roughly into philosophy of logic and strictly philosophical logic (some formal logic fueled by some philosophical issue). The former, being largely dialectical, requires more ink; the latter, except to the extent that it dips a toe into philosophy of logic, stands on its own promise and results. I am deeply honored by the contributions of each paper, and hereby thank all involved.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

On FDE, theory closure, and related themes: responses to Calasso & Logan, Caret, Omori & Arenhart, and Standefer, Shear & French

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月23日

查看全文
  • Jc Beall

摘要

This paper comprises responses to (in alphabetical order) Calasso and Logan (2023), Caret (2024), Omori and Arenhart (2023), and Standefer, Shear, and French (2023). Given space limitations, responses are not exhaustive; future work will engage the work further. The target papers divide roughly into philosophy of logic and strictly philosophical logic (some formal logic fueled by some philosophical issue). The former, being largely dialectical, requires more ink; the latter, except to the extent that it dips a toe into philosophy of logic, stands on its own promise and results. I am deeply honored by the contributions of each paper, and hereby thank all involved.