dc.creator | Tajer, Diego | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-09-22T14:51:07Z | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-10-15T09:38:19Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-09-22T14:51:07Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-10-15T09:38:19Z | |
dc.date.created | 2021-09-22T14:51:07Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-09-21 | |
dc.identifier | Tajer, Diego; The Normative Autonomy of Logic; Springer; Erkenntnis; 21-9-2020; 1-24 | |
dc.identifier | 0165-0106 | |
dc.identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/11336/141161 | |
dc.identifier | CONICET Digital | |
dc.identifier | CONICET | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/4371271 | |
dc.description.abstract | Some authors have called into question the normativity of logic, using as an argument that the bridge principles for logical normativity (MacFarlane, In what sense (in any) is logic normative for thought, 2004)? are just by-products of general epistemic principles for belief. In this paper, I discuss that suggestion from a formal point of view. I show that some important bridge principles can be derived from usual norms for belief. I also describe some possible ways to block this derivation by modifying the epistemic norms or weakening the bridge principles. Finally, I discuss different philosophical interpretations of these results. | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.publisher | Springer | |
dc.relation | info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10670-020-00321-5 | |
dc.relation | info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00321-5 | |
dc.rights | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ | |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess | |
dc.subject | Normativity of Logic | |
dc.subject | Bridge Principles | |
dc.subject | Normativity of Truth | |
dc.subject | Epistemic Logic | |
dc.title | The Normative Autonomy of Logic | |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | |
dc.type | info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo | |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | |