TY - THES ID - 138691609 TI - A Kripkean Challenge to Anti-Exceptionalism about Logic AU - Berteloot, Mathieu AU - Heylen, Jan. AU - KU Leuven. Hoger Instituut voor Wijsbegeerte. Opleiding Research Master of Philosophy (Abridged Programme) (Leuven) PY - 2018 PB - Leuven KU Leuven. Hoger Instituut voor Wijsbegeerte DB - UniCat UR - https://www.unicat.be/uniCat?func=search&query=sysid:138691609 AB - Anti-exceptionalism has become the dominant position in the epistemology of logic. Anti-exceptionalists about logic agree that theory-choice of logic is parallel to theory-choice in the sciences. Therefore, a core assumption is that logic, just like scientific theories, is revisable. According to the anti-exceptionalist standards of theory-choice in logic, clear-cut cases of revision are those cases where a better logic would allow for distinct and more adequate consequences in some domain of application than a logic that is worse off for the purpose. Interesting candidates are paraconsistent/relevant logics and intuitionistic logic as a challenge to a received classical logic. However, in some unpublished notes from the 1970s, Saul Kripke has offered a critical account of the possibility that logic is revisable. When introducing alternative logical languages and proof theories, a classical practice seems always in the background to interpret the language and to investigate deductive validity for the language. On the basis of this criticism, I develop an argumentative strategy against the possibility of revision of logic. It is highly questionable whether logics rival to classical logic really allow for more desirable consequences and whether rival logics can be developed without a classical practice in the background. The changes that these logics entail can be explained away. I will illustrate the strategy for paraconsistent/relevant logics and intuitionistic logic. If the best challenges to classical logic do not qualify as clear-cut cases of revision, then, as an inference to the best explanation, the revisability assumption is presumably mistaken. ER -