“Carnap’s Tolerance, Meaning and Logical Pluralism,” Journal of Philosophy 99 (2002) 426–443.
In this paper, I distinguish different kinds of pluralism about logical consequence. In particular, I distinguish the pluralism about logic arising from Carnap’s Principle of Tolerance from a pluralism which maintains that there are different, equally “good” logical consequence relations on the one language. I will argue that this second form of pluralism does more justice to the contemporary state of logical theory and practice than does Carnap’s more moderate pluralism.
Comments
It seems that either the formulation of the Principle of Tolerance comes in more than one version (in the English translation), or that a (rather minor) misquote ended up in this paper.
In the copy of ‘Logical Syntax’ I use (1971), it reads:
“Principle of Tolerance: It is not our business to set up prohibitions, but to arrive at conventions.”
Whereas in this paper [and in the ‘Logical Pluralism’ book as well] conventions is replaced by “conclusions”.
I have checked the German original, but it does not unambiguously point towards either conventions or conclusions (I think).
“Toleranzprinzip: wir wollen nicht Verbote aufstellen, sondern Festsetzungen treffen.”
Do you have any idea if translations differ among the editions?
Posted by: Patrick Allo at July 28, 2006 12:22 AM
Hmmm… I think I’ve misquoted! Thanks for pointing this out — the Smeaton translation on my bookshelf reads conventions and not conclusions. I don’t think I quoted it from another translation. (Is there another translation?)
Posted by: Greg Restall at July 28, 2006 10:11 AM
You’re right, there is no other translation, only different editions of the same translation.
Posted by: Patrick Allo at July 28, 2006 07:25 PM
If that helps, “Festsetzung” means something like “stipulation”. I also found the translation “assignment” and “ascertainment” (http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/dings.cgi?lang=en&service=deen&opterrors=0&optpro=0&query=festsetzung&dlink=self&comment=).
Posted by: Nils at December 14, 2006 09:46 PM
It seems that either the formulation of the Principle of Tolerance comes in more than one version (in the English translation), or that a (rather minor) misquote ended up in this paper.
In the copy of ‘Logical Syntax’ I use (1971), it reads: “Principle of Tolerance: It is not our business to set up prohibitions, but to arrive at conventions.”
Whereas in this paper [and in the ‘Logical Pluralism’ book as well] conventions is replaced by “conclusions”.
I have checked the German original, but it does not unambiguously point towards either conventions or conclusions (I think).
“Toleranzprinzip: wir wollen nicht Verbote aufstellen, sondern Festsetzungen treffen.”
Do you have any idea if translations differ among the editions?
Posted by: Patrick Allo at July 28, 2006 12:22 AM