| dc.contributor.author | Pinder, Mark | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-07-24T15:58:41Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-07-24T15:58:41Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017-03-02 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Pinder , M 2017 , ' A Normative Argument Against Explosion ' , Thought: A Journal of Philosophy , vol. 6 , no. 1 , pp. 61-70 . https://doi.org/10.1002/tht3.234 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2161-2234 | |
| dc.identifier.other | ORCID: /0000-0001-5966-6307/work/62750956 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2299/19060 | |
| dc.description | This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Mark Pinder, 'A Normative Argument Against Explosion', Thought, Vol. 6 (1): 61-70, March 2017, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tht3.234. Under embargo. Embargo end date: 3 February 2019. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the Northern Institute of Philosophy. | |
| dc.description.abstract | One strategy for defending paraconsistent logics involves raising ‘normative arguments’ against the inference rule explosion. Florian Steinberger systematically criticises a wide variety of formulations of such arguments. I argue that, for one such formulation, Steinberger's criticisms fail. I then sketch an argument, available to those who deny dialetheism, in defence of the formulation in question. | en |
| dc.format.extent | 10 | |
| dc.format.extent | 806637 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Thought: A Journal of Philosophy | |
| dc.title | A Normative Argument Against Explosion | en |
| dc.contributor.institution | School of Humanities | |
| dc.contributor.institution | Philosophy | |
| dc.description.status | Peer reviewed | |
| dc.date.embargoedUntil | 2019-02-03 | |
| rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1002/tht3.234 | |
| rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | |
| herts.preservation.rarelyaccessed | true | |
