Prover-Skeptic Games and Logical Pluralism

Abstract

Logical Pluralists face an explanatory challenge: how is it that there are a multitude of different, equally correct, accounts of logical consequence. In this paper we will argue that this challenge can be met quite easily if one adopts the ‘built-in opponent’ conception of logic: a multi-agent, dialogical view of the nature of logical consequence. We introduce Prover-Skeptic games in order to model this view of logical consequence, and use our formal models to make clear how a certain kind of pluralism about explanation leads to an interesting variety of logical pluralism.