data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18916/18916de460f56b0a126b4afd4bfffe6a710a0ad9" alt=""
Publication details
Year: 2003
Pages: 353-362
Series: Synthese
Full citation:
, "Manifest invalidity", Synthese 134 (3), 2003, pp. 353-362.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7dffa/7dffab55ad3ab890f71554f5c8367df17f466b5d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/06505/065056aa5eb3b2545dd806cbd182cf9b00781d18" alt=""
Manifest invalidity
Neil Tennant's new argument for intuitionism
pp. 353-362
in: Synthese 134 (3), 2003.Abstract
In Chapter 7 of The Taming of the True, Neil Tennant provides a new argument from Michael Dummett's ``manifestation requirement'' to the incorrectness of classical logic and the correctness of intuitionistic logic. I show that Tennant's new argument is only valid if one interprets crucial existence claims occurring in the proof in the manner of intuitionists. If one interprets the existence claims as a classical logician would, then one can accept Tennant's premises while rejecting his conclusion of logical revision. Thus, Tennant has provided no evidence that should convince anyone who is not already an intuitionist. Since his proof is a proof for the correctness of intuitionism, it begs the question.
Cited authors
Publication details
Year: 2003
Pages: 353-362
Series: Synthese
Full citation:
, "Manifest invalidity", Synthese 134 (3), 2003, pp. 353-362.