I was reading "A Graphic Guide to Logic" and a little speech bubble from Hilary Putnam says that "I still believe that there are facts in the world that determine which logic it is appropriate to use in each case, and that no logic is better than another".

Does anyone have any idea which articles/chapters Putnam expressed this belief? Also, if anyone knows the name of this stance, and its other proponents, please recommend.

  • 1
    I don't remember explicitly where that quote is from (it might be from one of these, I haven't read them in a while) but two of his most famous essays on this topic are Is Logic Empirical? and Mathematics Without Foundations. I think the quote might show up in the first.
    – Not_Here
    May 6, 2018 at 18:37
  • Here is an article that discusses Putnam's idea and Kripke's critique of it (here is the preprint) by Allen Stairs.
    – Not_Here
    May 6, 2018 at 18:40

1 Answer 1


Consequence is at the heart of logic; an account of consequence, of what follows from what, offers a vital tool in the evaluation of arguments. Since philosophy itself proceeds by way of argument and inference, a clear view of what logical consequence amounts to is of central importance to the whole discipline of philosophy. This book presents and defends what it calls logical pluralism, arguing that the notion of logical consequence does not pin down one deductive consequence relation; it allows for many of them. In particular, the book argues that broadly classical, intuitionistic, and relevant accounts of deductive logic are genuine logical consequence relations; we should not search for one true logic, since there are many.

Beall, J. C., Beall, J. C., & Restall, G. (2006). Logical pluralism. Oxford University Press on Demand.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .