Validity as a thick concept

Philosophical Studies 180 (10):2937-2953 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper presents a novel position in the philosophy of logic: I argue that _validity_ is a thick concept. Hence, I propose to consider _validity_ in analogy to other thick concepts, such as _honesty_, _selfishness_ or _justice_. This proposal is motivated by the debate on the normativity of logic: while logic textbooks seem simply descriptive in their presentation of logical truths, many have argued that logic has consequences for how we ought to reason, for what we ought to believe, or for what we ought to infer. How can logic be normative, if it appears to be descriptive? According to the proposal of this paper, the normativity of logic can be explained because a thick concept is in play: _validity_. Thus, I argue that the debate on how to best characterize validity and the debate on logic’s normativity are more connected than we think, because _validity_ is a thick concept.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,748

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Thick Concepts.Brent G. Kyle - 2016 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Logic and Normativity.Elizabeth Olsen - 2012 - Dissertation, University of Otago
The value of thinking and the normativity of logic.Manish Oza - 2020 - Philosophers' Imprint 20 (25):1-23.
Ought-contextualism and reasoning.Darren Bradley - 2021 - Synthese 199 (1-2):2977-2999.
Derivative normativity and logical pluralism.Diego Tajer - 2024 - Asian Journal of Philosophy 3 (2):1-14.
Thick Rationality and Normativity.Carl David Mildenberger - 2018 - Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy 49:57-61.
Double Trouble for Logical Pluralists.J. W. Evershed - 2021 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 121 (3):411-424.
Intuitions in logic: a moderate proposal.Diego Tajer - 2020 - Humanities Journal of Valparaiso 16:239-253.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-08-01

Downloads
165 (#146,705)

6 months
45 (#107,237)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sophia Arbeiter
University of Pittsburgh

Citations of this work

Thick Ethical Concepts.Pekka Väyrynen - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Logical Disagreement.Frederik J. Andersen - 2024 - Dissertation, University of St. Andrews

Add more citations

References found in this work

Change in View: Principles of Reasoning.Gilbert Harman - 1986 - Studia Logica 48 (2):260-261.
Logical pluralism.Jc Beall & Greg Restall - 2000 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (4):475 – 493.
Logic isn’t normative.Gillian Russell - 2020 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 63 (3-4):371-388.
Reasons and motivation.Derek Parfit - 1997 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 71 (1):99–130.

View all 23 references / Add more references