{"id":4089,"date":"2018-07-10T16:14:54","date_gmt":"2018-07-10T15:14:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/?post_type=tribe_events&#038;eventDate=2019-05-23#038;p=4081"},"modified":"2019-05-19T12:42:10","modified_gmt":"2019-05-19T11:42:10","slug":"super-special-seminar-3-2019-05-23","status":"publish","type":"tribe_events","link":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/event\/super-special-seminar-3-2019-05-23\/","title":{"rendered":"Super Special Seminar: Talk by JC Beall (UConn) on &#8220;From Possible Worlds to Paraconsistency (Or: Paraconsistent Logic for the Millions)&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n<div dir=\"ltr\" data-event-added=\"1\">The dominant view in contemporary philosophy is that possible worlds are classically closed \u2013 closed under classical logic. (If A is true at a possible world, and B is a consequence of A according to classical logic, then B is true at the possible world too.) Another dominant view is that logical consequence is per the classical-logic account \u2013 that logical consequence is classical (-logic) consequence. In this paper, I challenge neither of the given dominant views, and indeed take them as true. There is a third \u2013 possibly even more dominant \u2013 view in contemporary philosophy: namely, that the idea of so-called paraconsistent consequence relations (paraconsistent entailment relations) is a highly radical one, demanding a vast shift in the dominant views of both logic and possible worlds. Such a view is the default one in contemporary philosophy, if not in print<\/div>\n<div dir=\"ltr\">(where standards of professional politeness still apply) then at least in conversation. Talk of paraconsistent consequence relations carries the burden of motivation: if we\u2019re going to talk about them, we had better have very strong philosophical motivation to do so.<\/div>\n<div dir=\"ltr\">My principal aim in this paper is to refute the third of the canvassed mainstream views. The refutation is both simple and straightforward: I show that the standard conception of possible worlds (as closed under logic, where logic is classical logic) induces a paraconsistent consequence relation on our language. Moreover, the given relation is not just any old paraconsistent consequence (entailment) relation; it\u2019s a very natural and very familiar paraconsistent consequence relation. The upshot is that either the dominant<\/div>\n<div dir=\"ltr\">view of paraconsistent consequence relations carries unnecessary baggage or<\/div>\n<div dir=\"ltr\">it is simply mistaken. Either way, the given view should be rejected.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Abstract The dominant view in contemporary philosophy is that possible worlds are classically closed \u2013 closed under classical logic. (If A is true at a&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_tribe_events_status":"","_tribe_events_status_reason":"","_tribe_events_is_hybrid":"","_tribe_events_is_virtual":"","_tribe_events_virtual_video_source":"","_tribe_events_virtual_embed_video":"","_tribe_events_virtual_linked_button_text":"","_tribe_events_virtual_linked_button":"","_tribe_events_virtual_show_embed_at":"","_tribe_events_virtual_show_embed_to":[],"_tribe_events_virtual_show_on_event":"","_tribe_events_virtual_show_on_views":"","_tribe_events_virtual_url":"","footnotes":"","_members_access_role":[],"_members_access_error":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"tags":[],"tribe_events_cat":[],"class_list":["post-4089","tribe_events","type-tribe_events","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tribe_events\/4089","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tribe_events"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/tribe_events"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tribe_events\/4089\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4848,"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tribe_events\/4089\/revisions\/4848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4089"},{"taxonomy":"tribe_events_cat","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.st-andrews.ac.uk\/arche\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tribe_events_cat?post=4089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}