Read on relevance: A rejoinder

DOI10.1305/NDJFL/1093870627MaRDI QIDQ1061114zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors John P. Burgess

Publication date 1984

Published in Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093870627

zbMATH Keywords

entailmentrelevancerelevant logic

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations (03A05) Modal logic (including the logic of norms) (03B45)

Review text

This paper is a response to a paper of \textit{S. Read} [reviewed above] which was itself a response to an earlier paper of the author [ibid. 22, 97-104 (1981; Zbl 0438.03008)] criticizing Anderson and Belnap. In the present paper it is pointed out how far Read's position differs from that of Anderson and Belnap, and what difficulties of its own it faces.

Recommendations

• R and relevance principle revisited
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 4012563
• Burgess on relevance: A fallacy indeed
• Still counterintuitive: a reply to Kremer
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 48206

Cited in

(9)

• Burgess on relevance: A fallacy indeed
• Reply to Burgess and to Read
• On interpreting truth tables and relevant truth table logic
• From natural to formal language: a case for logical pluralism
• A plea for KR
• Broader issues at stake. A reponse to Elkan
• A ``reply to my ``critics
• Still counterintuitive: a reply to Kremer
• Rejection and valuations

This page was built for publication: Read on relevance: A rejoinder

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1061114)