On the normative variability of truth and logic

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper discusses the normativity of truth and logic. The paper has three objectives. First, I argue that logic is normative for thought in (at least) the sense of underwriting instrumental rationality. Logic is a good instrument for achieving truth, the goal of cognition. In recent work, Filippo Ferrari has argued that the normative nature of truth may vary across domains. My second aim is to extend this idea to logic, against the background of the idea that logic serves to underwrite instrumental rationality. The third objective is to further develop Ferrari’s framework of normative alethic variability. I do so through a discussion of the normative problem of mixed compounds: the challenge of providing a principled account of the normativity of compounds with constituents whose respective normative profiles differ. I argue that the challenge can be met. Besides offering a solution to a major challenge, the response offered sheds new light on the normative variability framework: the truth of a single mixed compound may have different normative profiles across different ‘disagreement-realizers’. This feature of the view is rooted in a key commitment of the normative variability framework–namely, that disagreement and alethic normativity are intimately connected.

Original languageEnglish
JournalInquiry (United Kingdom)
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Cognition
Logic
Normativity
Instrumental Rationality
Ferrari
Thought
Constituent

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Philosophy
  • Health Policy

Cite this

@article{ac81e32408ed485f8a8ee7217befa400,
title = "On the normative variability of truth and logic",
abstract = "This paper discusses the normativity of truth and logic. The paper has three objectives. First, I argue that logic is normative for thought in (at least) the sense of underwriting instrumental rationality. Logic is a good instrument for achieving truth, the goal of cognition. In recent work, Filippo Ferrari has argued that the normative nature of truth may vary across domains. My second aim is to extend this idea to logic, against the background of the idea that logic serves to underwrite instrumental rationality. The third objective is to further develop Ferrari’s framework of normative alethic variability. I do so through a discussion of the normative problem of mixed compounds: the challenge of providing a principled account of the normativity of compounds with constituents whose respective normative profiles differ. I argue that the challenge can be met. Besides offering a solution to a major challenge, the response offered sheds new light on the normative variability framework: the truth of a single mixed compound may have different normative profiles across different ‘disagreement-realizers’. This feature of the view is rooted in a key commitment of the normative variability framework–namely, that disagreement and alethic normativity are intimately connected.",
author = "Pedersen, {Nikolaj J.l. Linding}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/0020174X.2019.1592700",
language = "English",
journal = "Inquiry",
issn = "0020-174X",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",

}

On the normative variability of truth and logic. / Pedersen, Nikolaj J.l. Linding.

In: Inquiry (United Kingdom), 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the normative variability of truth and logic

AU - Pedersen, Nikolaj J.l. Linding

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - This paper discusses the normativity of truth and logic. The paper has three objectives. First, I argue that logic is normative for thought in (at least) the sense of underwriting instrumental rationality. Logic is a good instrument for achieving truth, the goal of cognition. In recent work, Filippo Ferrari has argued that the normative nature of truth may vary across domains. My second aim is to extend this idea to logic, against the background of the idea that logic serves to underwrite instrumental rationality. The third objective is to further develop Ferrari’s framework of normative alethic variability. I do so through a discussion of the normative problem of mixed compounds: the challenge of providing a principled account of the normativity of compounds with constituents whose respective normative profiles differ. I argue that the challenge can be met. Besides offering a solution to a major challenge, the response offered sheds new light on the normative variability framework: the truth of a single mixed compound may have different normative profiles across different ‘disagreement-realizers’. This feature of the view is rooted in a key commitment of the normative variability framework–namely, that disagreement and alethic normativity are intimately connected.

AB - This paper discusses the normativity of truth and logic. The paper has three objectives. First, I argue that logic is normative for thought in (at least) the sense of underwriting instrumental rationality. Logic is a good instrument for achieving truth, the goal of cognition. In recent work, Filippo Ferrari has argued that the normative nature of truth may vary across domains. My second aim is to extend this idea to logic, against the background of the idea that logic serves to underwrite instrumental rationality. The third objective is to further develop Ferrari’s framework of normative alethic variability. I do so through a discussion of the normative problem of mixed compounds: the challenge of providing a principled account of the normativity of compounds with constituents whose respective normative profiles differ. I argue that the challenge can be met. Besides offering a solution to a major challenge, the response offered sheds new light on the normative variability framework: the truth of a single mixed compound may have different normative profiles across different ‘disagreement-realizers’. This feature of the view is rooted in a key commitment of the normative variability framework–namely, that disagreement and alethic normativity are intimately connected.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063142317&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063142317&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/0020174X.2019.1592700

DO - 10.1080/0020174X.2019.1592700

M3 - Article

JO - Inquiry

JF - Inquiry

SN - 0020-174X

ER -