×
Ripley, David

Blurring: an approach to conflation. (English) Zbl 1455.03037

Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 59, No. 2, 171-188 (2018).
Summary: I consider the phenomenon of conflation–treating distinct things as one–and develop logical tools for modeling it. These tools involve a purely consequence-theoretic treatment, independent of any proof or model theory, as well as a four-valued valuational treatment.

Cited in 4 Documents

MSC:

03B60 Other nonclassical logic
03A05 Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations

Keywords:

conflation; confusion; blurring; tetravaluations
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
\textit{D. Ripley}, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 59, No. 2, 171--188 (2018; Zbl 1455.03037)
Full Text: DOI Link
  • logo of hbz
  • logo of WorldCat

References:

[1] Belnap, N. D., “Tonk, plonk, and plink,” Analysis, vol. 22 (1962), pp. 130-34.
[2] Brandom, R., Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1994.
[3] Brandom, R., Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2000.
[4] Camp, J. L., Jr., Confusion: A Study in the Theory of Knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2002.
[5] Camp, J. L., Jr., “Précis of Confusion,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 74 (2007), pp. 692-99.
[6] Cobreros, P., P. Egré, D. Ripley, and R. van Rooij, “Tolerant, classical, strict,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 41 (2012), pp. 347-85. · Zbl 1243.03038
[7] Cobreros, P., P. Egré, D. Ripley, and R. van Rooij, “Reaching transparent truth,” Mind, vol. 122 (2013), pp. 841-66.
[8] Cook, R. T., “What’s wrong with tonk(?),” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 34 (2005), pp. 217-26. · Zbl 1096.03004
[9] Dummett, M., The Logical Basis of Metaphysics, Duckworth, London, 1991.
[10] Dunn, J. M., and G. M. Hardegree, Algebraic Methods in Philosophical Logic, vol. 41 of Oxford Logic Guides, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001. · Zbl 1014.03002
[11] Field, H., “Theory change and the indeterminacy of reference,” Journal of Philosophy, vol. 70 (1973), pp. 462-81.
[12] Frost-Arnold, G., “Too much reference: Semantics for multiply signifying terms,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 37 (2008), pp. 239-57. · Zbl 1145.03005
[13] Galatos, N., P. Jipsen, T. Kowalski, and H. Ono, Residuated Lattices: An Algebraic Glimpse at Substructural Logics, vol. 151 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007. · Zbl 1171.03001
[14] Gupta, A., “Meaning and misconceptions,” pp. 15-41 in Language, Logic, and Concepts, edited by R. S. Jackendoff, P. Bloom, and K. Wynn, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1999.
[15] Hallnäs, L., “Partial inductive definitions,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 87 (1991), pp. 115-42. · Zbl 0770.68039
[16] Humberstone, L., “Heterogeneous logic,” Erkenntnis, vol. 29 (1988), pp. 395-435.
[17] Humberstone, L., The Connectives, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2011. · Zbl 1242.03002
[18] Lawlor, K., “A notional worlds approach to confusion,” Mind and Language, vol. 22 (2007), pp. 150-72.
[19] Lewy, C., J. Watling, and P. T. Geach, “Symposium: Entailment,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, vol. 32 (1958), pp. 123-72.
[20] Millikan, R. G., On Clear and Confused Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
[21] Prior, A., “The runabout inference-ticket,” Analysis, vol. 21 (1960), pp. 38-39.
[22] Ripley, D., “Paradoxes and failures of cut,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 91 (2013), pp. 139-64.
[23] Ripley, D., “Revising up: Strengthening classical logic in the face of paradox,” Philosophers’ Imprint, vol. 13 (2013), pp. 1-13.
[24] Ripley, D., “Anything goes,” Topoi, vol. 34 (2015), pp. 25-36. · Zbl 1382.03078
[25] Ripley, D., “‘Transitivity’ of consequence relations,” pp. 328-40 in Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, edited by W. van der Hoek, W. H. Holliday, and W.-F. Wang, vol. 9394 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Heidelberg, 2015. · Zbl 1471.03008
[26] Scharp, K., Replacing Truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013. · Zbl 1358.03015
[27] Schroeder-Heister, P., “The categorical and the hypothetical: A critique of some fundamental assumptions of standard semantics,” Synthese, vol. 187 (2012), pp. 925-42. · Zbl 1275.03054
[28] Sellars, W., “Inference and meaning,” Mind, vol. 62 (1953), pp. 313-38.
[29] Shoesmith, D. J., and T. J. Smiley, Multiple-Conclusion Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1978. · Zbl 0381.03001
[30] Smiley, T. J., “Entailment and deducibility,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 59 (1958/1959), pp. 233-54.
[31] Tennant, N., Anti-Realism and Logic: Truth as Eternal, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987.
[32] Weir, A., “A robust non-transitive logic,” Topoi, vol. 34 (2015), pp. 99-107. · Zbl 1382.03044
[33] Zardini, E., “A model of tolerance,” Studia Logica, vol. 90 (2008), pp. 337-68. · Zbl 1162.03012
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.