Abstract

A number of writers have attempted, since Mach, Boltzman and the psychologists of the end of the XIXth century, to give an evolutionary account of logical norms. Husserl famously argued that this account fails, for it is circular. I examine here some recent accounts, based on evolutionary psychology and game theory, in particular those of Gibbard, Millikan and Cosmides-Tooby. I argue that they suffer for similar circularities, although an evolutionary account of the cognitive mecanisms which underlie logical norms is feasible.