Others agreed that personal information can act as symmetry breakers, giving the subject a reason to base one`s own opinion, but denies that such a benefit would occur in reasonably idealized cases of disagreement with peers (Matheson 2015a). The use of personal data to disregard the opinion of your interlocutor would not be contrary to independence, so the defender of the Equal Weight View does not have to disagree on this point. But there are other cases where different logics use the same vocabulary – or at least seem to do so – and continue to make different judgments about the validity of an argument. The known examples are the argument of “A (A`wedge `lnot A`) ” to “B” or the argument of “`Both are classic, but while the former is invalid in relevant logics and other paraacractic logics (but valid in intuitionist logic), the latter is invalid in intuitionist logic (but generally valid in relevant logics). Assuming that the arguments in question use only a vocabulary shared by the three logics, the different judgments cannot be explained with respect to supplementation. From the point of view of intuitionists, for example, classical logic contains theorems that are false, or at least not really theorems (() and deductive rules that are not valid (so it seems that the use of intuitionist logic is incompatible with the use of classical logic. Intuitively, logics give competing validation reports — they`re rivals. Footnote 1 There are many ways to make this intuitive sense of rivalry more accurate (see z.B. Allo 2015; Hjortland 2014; Paoli 2003; Priest 2006a). The one I am focusing on in this document is formulated with regard to semantic differences on validity claims.
In short, logics are rivals when they assert incompatible validity rights (see section 3). This gives us the first characteristic of the theory of interesting plurality. The question of improving the situation is often not very easy to answer. In most cases of disagreements, where she realizes that she does not agree with the ” (Y), ” (X) will not have much proof that ” (Y” is her peer, her hierarchical superior or inferior when it comes to properly judging the ,B). For example, when I talk to a neighbour about whether our property taxes will go up next year, and I see that they do not agree with me, I cannot have a clue as to how we take dissent factors. I may know that I have more raw intelligence than she has, but I probably have no idea what she knows about local politics, how much she has already thought about it, etc. I will have no basis to think that I am their superior, his inferior or his peer. We can call them unknown cases. Therefore, if you find that you disagree with someone when you argue over “B,” you don`t have to think or have reason to think that they are your peer, supervisor or loser when it comes to judging judgment. The second feature is the correction. The sense of accuracy, relevant to logical pluralism, does not concern the formal aspects of logical systems such as non-triviality or solidity and completeness.
It is common knowledge that, in the case of appropriate semantics, many logics meet these criteria. Pluralism above pure logic is undisputed; “Plurality is a question of substance only when one wonders about the logics applied” (Priest 2006a, 195). Footnote 2 As a result, it is argued that, for a “substantial dispute […] To show that there is really no dispute, we need to examine the relationship between formal language in a logical system and the medium of logical coherence” (Shapiro 2014, n. 42). This relationship is also at the heart of Susan Haack`s definition of correctness:Footnote 3 For the most part, the “B” line) seems longer, but careful measurement shows that the values “A” and “B”) are of the same length.