Farewell to suppression-freedom (Q2198315)

The author states ``The main aim of this paper is to analyze the Routley school's treatment of suppression.'' (p. 303). And concludes ``The conclusion this paper draws, then, is that making freedom from suppression the core notion of relevant entailment is, given the best available analysis of what suppression is supposed to be, a dead end.'' (p. 304). Let us recall the following definitions appearing in the paper: (1) A logic L has the \textit{Anti-Suppressive Principle} (ASP) if for all \(A\) there are \(B\), \(C\) such that \(\vdash _{\text{L}}(A\And B)\rightarrow C\) but \(\nvdash _{\text{L}}B\rightarrow C\). (2) A logic L has the \textit{Joint Force Principle} (JFP) if for all \(A\) there are \(B\), \(C\) such that \(\vdash _{\text{L}}(A\And B)\rightarrow C\) but \( \nvdash _{\text{L}}A\rightarrow C\) and \(\nvdash _{\text{L}}B\rightarrow C\). (3) A logic L has the \textit{Intesional Anti-Suppression Principle} (IASP) if for all \(A\) there are \(B\), \(C\) such that \(\vdash _{\text{L} }B\rightarrow (A\rightarrow C)\) but \(\nvdash _{\text{L}}B\rightarrow C\). (4) A logic L has the \textit{Intesional Joint Force Principle} (IJFP) if for all \(A\) there are \(B\), \(C\) such that \(\vdash _{\text{L}}B\rightarrow (A\rightarrow C)\) but \(\nvdash _{\text{L}}A\rightarrow C\) and \(\nvdash _{ \text{L}}B\rightarrow C\). (5) A logic L has the \textit{Variable Sharing Property} (VSP) if for all \( A\), \(B\), \(\vdash _{\text{L}}A\rightarrow B\) if \(A\) and \(B\) share a propositional parameter. (6) A logic L has the \textit{Weak Variable Sharing Property} (WVSP) if for all \(A\), \(B\), \(\vdash _{\text{L}}A\rightarrow B\) only if \(A\) and \(B\) share a propositional parameter or both \(\vdash _{\text{L}}\sim A\) and \( \vdash _{\text{L}}B\). (7) A logic L has the \textit{Ackermann Property} (AP) if L has no theorems of the form \(A\rightarrow (B\rightarrow C)\) where \(A\) is a \( \rightarrow \)-free formula. Briefly put, the author arguments as follows. According to the Routley school's, (a) VSP is a mere consequence of a good entailment relation; and (b) an entailment relation is a sufficiency relation devoid of any form of premise suppression. Now, (c) ASP and JFP (or, even better, IASP and IJFP) are reasonable properties for ruling out premise suppression. Or, put another way, they are reasonable translation of the properties a logic need to have in order to avoid premise suppression. But (d) IJFP, JFP and AP, conjointly taken do not imply WVSP (let alone VSP) (cf. Theorem 7). (e) Consequently, the Routley school's analysis of the notion of entailment is not adequate. (f) Moreover, a different account (to the one rendered above) of the notion ``anti-suppression'' leads to the same conclusion (cf. Section 5). In sum, ``I bid suppression-freedom farewell'' (p. 327).