How relevant is relevant logic?

Review essays in the genre “Recent work in X” are often extremely useful, if only to confirm your suspicion that you can probably live pretty happily without getting too exercised about the latest lucubrations of X-ists.

I’ve just read a preprint newly posted by Mark Jago, “Recent work in Relevant Logic”. Now, I’m not resistant to logical reformisms (having various interests in intuitionism, plural logics, ancestral logics, predicative systems), but I’ve never really been able to get worked up about issues of relevancy. Or at least, such small itches as I’ve had about e.g. arguing past a contradiction are sufficiently soothed by Neil Tennant’s style of relevant logic which minimally mutilates classical (or intuitionist) systems.

Does Jago point to anything that might get me more excited? Well, apart from some sketchy hints at the end that you can perhaps tie together issues about relevant logic with ideas about truth-making and truth-makers, I’m not persuaded that the ingenious technical constructions that he reports link up to anything I can get very interested in (either when wearing my philosophical hat or my mathematical hat). But your mileage may very well vary, so do take a look at Jago’s very clear and useful piece for yourself.

This entry was posted in Logic. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *