B11: Abductive Methodology in the Philosophy of Logic

本研究的主要目的是探讨溯因方法是否以及在何种程度上可以应用于逻辑学的理论选择和修正。我们将回顾和批判性地评估当前关于逻辑反例外论的辩论，这是对逻辑的性质和方法论的更传统概念的反应。逻辑反例外主义者认为，逻辑和经验科学之间存在着重要的连续性。他们认为，正如科学中的惯例一样，逻辑系统的评估遵循溯因方法论。具体来说，反例外主义者认为逻辑是开放的，可以在经验考虑的基础上进行修正，逻辑中的理论选择是基于一套核心的理论美德，如简单性，解释力和统一性。这与传统观点截然相反，传统观点认为逻辑在经验上是不可行的，是先验的，本质上是规范性的，因为它的本质限制了理性主体应该如何推理。为了解决该项目的主要目标，研究将分为四个工作包。首先，我们将澄清逻辑反例外主义的性质，并探讨其与逻辑先验主义和逻辑多元主义的关系。其次，我们将发展一个系统的分类，最重要的溯因标准选择逻辑的目的是解释如何不同的权重，这些标准可能会影响我们的理论选择。第三，这个项目将放大一个关键的案例研究，以评估溯因方法在逻辑理论选择中的有效性，即语义悖论的情况。第四，我们将研究逻辑在什么意义上是一门规范性学科，以及逻辑的规范性是否以及在多大程度上符合反例外主义的逻辑概念。鉴于逻辑可以说是进行形而上学探究不可或缺的工具，考察逻辑哲学中溯因方法的可行性将大大有助于评估归纳形而上学的前景。

The central aim of this project is to investigate whether and to what extent abductive methods can be employed in theory choice and revision in logic. We will review and critically assess the current debate on logical anti-exceptionalism as a reaction to more traditional conceptions of the nature and the methodology of logic. Logical anti-exceptionalists maintain that there is a significant continuity between logic and the empirical sciences. They argue that, just as it is customary in the sciences, the evaluation of logical systems follows an abductive methodology. Specifically, the anti-exceptionalists hold that logic is open to revision on the basis of empirical considerations and theory choice in logic is made on the basis of a core set of theoretical virtues such as simplicity, explanatory power and unification. This is in stark opposition to traditional views which conceive of logic as being empirically indefeasible, a priori, and essentially normative in exerting, in virtue of its very nature, constraints on how rational agents ought to reason. In order to address the main aim of the project, the research will be organised in four work packages.First, we will clarify the nature of logical anti-exceptionalism and investigate its significance in relation to logical apriorism and logical pluralism. Second, we will develop a systematic classification of the most important abductive criteria for selecting a logic with the aim of explaining how different weightings of these criteria may affect our theory choice. Third, the project will zoom in on a crucial case study for assessing the effectiveness of abductive methodology in theory choice in logic, namely the case of semantic paradoxes. Fourth, we will investigate in what sense logic is a normative discipline and whether and to what extent logic’s normativity fits an anti-exceptionalist conception of logic.The results of this project will be highly relevant for the activities of this research unit. Given that logic is arguably an indispensable tool in conducting metaphysical enquiry, investigating the viability of an abductive methodology in the philosophy of logic will significantly contribute to evaluate the prospects of inductive metaphysics in general.