Philosophical Thought
eISSN : 0000-0000
10.5
citescore
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years
10.5
impact factor
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
pubmed
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
Embase
Biosis Preview
Volume 6, Issue 2 (2026)
3 2026, 6(2): 141-159 |
Back to browse issues page
Request Type:
History
Received: 2026/02/2 | Accepted: 2026/03/16 | Published: 2026/04/5
Received: 2026/02/2 | Accepted: 2026/03/16 | Published: 2026/04/5
How to cite this article
Panahi S, Kalantari S, Karbasizadeh A. A Solution for the Harman–MacFarlane Dispute Based on Steinberger’s Three Normative Roles of Logic. 3 2026; 6 (2) :141-159
URL: http://jpt.daneshafarand.org/article-6-85696-en.html
URL: http://jpt.daneshafarand.org/article-6-85696-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract (134 Views)
The theory of the normativity of logic is a fundamental issue in the philosophy of logic and epistemology that examines the role of logic in organizing beliefs and guiding everyday reasoning. Within this framework, there are serious disagreements between advocates of this theory, such as MacFarlane, and critics such as Harman. The present article, using Steinberger's distinction between the three normative roles of logic, shows that the difference between Harman and MacFarlane is largely "verbal" and is rooted in a confusion between the distinct functions of logic. However, while we accept Steinberger's claim, we argue that by making some modifications to MacFarlane's criteria for assessing the normativity of logic, his position can be changed in a way that is resistant to Harman's criticisms. In other words, with these reforms, the disagreement between Harman and MacFarlane, contrary to Steinberger's claim, will no longer be a formal disagreement, and the principles of the bridge of normative logic can be reconstructed in a way that is immune to Harman's objections.
Keywords:
| | Full-Text (HTML) (3 Views)
References
1. Broome J (2000). Normative requirements. In: Dancy J, editor. Normativity. Oxford: Blackwell. [Link]
2. Dutilh Novaes C (2015). A dialogical, multi-agent account of the normativity of logic. Dialectica. 69(4):587-609. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/1746-8361.12118]
3. Evershed J (2021). Another way logic might be normative. Synthese. 199(3):5861-5881. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11229-021-03049-z]
4. Field H (2009a). What is the normative role of logic?. The Aristotelian Society. 83(1):251-268. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8349.2009.00181.x]
5. Field H (2009b). Pluralism in logic. Review of Symbolic Logic. 2(2):342-359. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/S1755020309090182]
6. Field H (2015). What is logical validity?. In: Colin R, Caret C, Hjortland O, editors. Foundations of logical consequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198715696.003.0002]
7. Frege G (1956). The thought: A logical inquiry. Mind. 65(259):289-311. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/mind/65.1.289]
8. Frege G (1979). A brief survey of my logical doctrines. In: Hermes H, Kambartel F, Kaulbach F, editors & translators. Posthumous writings. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [Link]
9. Harman G (1984). Logic and reasoning. In: Foundations: Logic, language, and mathematics. Cham: Springer. p. 107-127. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-94-017-1592-8_7]
10. Harman G (1986). Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Link]
11. Kalantari SA (2018). A study of the normativity of logic thesis on the basis of Harman's criticisms and proposing an explanation for the thesis. Philosophy of Science. 8(16):65-84. [Persian] [Link]
12. MacFarlane J (2002). Frege, Kant, and the logic in logicism. The Philosophical Review. 111(1):25-65. [Link] [DOI:10.1215/00318108-111-1-25]
13. MacFarlane J (2004). In what sense (if any) is logic normative for thought. Chicago: Central Division APA. [Link]
14. Panahi S, Kalantari SA, Karbasizadeh A (2026). An analysis of the normativity of logic with reference to John MacFarlane's account. Wisdom And Philosophy. 21(84):155-186. [Persian] [Link]
15. Russell G (2020). Logic isn't normative. Inquiry. 63(3-4):371-388. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/0020174X.2017.1372305]
16. Steinberger F (2017a). Frege and Carnap on the normativity of logic. Synthese. 194(1):143-162. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11229-015-0880-4]
17. Steinberger F (2017b). The normative status of logic. Stanford: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Link]
18. Steinberger F (2019). Three ways in which logic might be normative. Journal of Philosophy. 116(1):5-31. [Link] [DOI:10.5840/jphil201911611]