Logical pluralism is the claim that there is more than one correct logic. A formal system is considered correct relative to a domain if it adequately describes such domain. The motivation behind logical pluralism can be illustrated with Aristotelian logic. If one tries to apply Aristotelian logic to capture ancestry relations, one will fail –but this does not make Aristotelian logic false, it just makes ancestral facts outside of its scope. Conversely, we wouldn’t claim either that the domain of biological species makes Aristotelian logic true. It makes it correct relative to that domain. The relevant notion here is correctness (relative to a domain), not universal truth. A logical pluralist might hold that certain logical sentences are true or false relative to a domain. In that case, the truth-value of logical sentence depends on the formal system in question, plus facts about the domain. However, this comes to the price of eliminating the universability of logical claims. We usually regard logical tautologies as being true in all cases, independently of the domain. We also regard valid logical arguments …show more content…
On the assumption that we are endowed with an innate natural logic, we could claim that the truths of logical sentences knowable a priori, and universal. Recall that logical sentences contain only logical particles essentially –that is, the content of the non-logical words is irrelevant to determine whether the logical sentence in question is a tautology or a contradiction. If the account I sketched is correct, logical sentences are not about the world. They look as if they were, because the filler non-logical words (e.g. ‘Brutus’, ‘Cesar’) usually refer to things in the world. However, the role non-logical words play cannot impact the truth-value of the sentence. What determines the truth-value of the sentence is, ultimately, our natural