Bir Mantık Sistemini Aforoz Etmek: İkinci Derece Mantığın Statüsü Hakkında Yeni Tartışmalar

Öz

Biçimsel mantık sistemleri bir ifadenin değillenmiş biçiminin nasıl kurulacağını biçimsel yolla gösterir, her ne kadar çeşitli mantık sistemlerinin değilleme anlayışları farklı olsa da. Peki, bir mantık sisteminin kendisi nasıl değillenir? Diğer bir ifadeyle, bir argümanlar topluluğunu geçerli kılan bir kalkülüs, ne zaman, yani hangi koşullarda (sözcüğün belirli bir anlamında) “yanlış” görülüp terk edilir? Mantık tarihi incelendiğinde bunun açık bir ölçütünü bulmak güç bir iştir. Ancak bu çalışmada, böyle bir terkin henüz tamamen gerçekleşmemiş olsa da olası bir örneği incelenmektedir. 20. yüzyılın başında biçimsel mantığın doğal bir sistemi olarak görülen ikinci derece mantık (İDM), görece uzun zamandır mantıktan aforoz edilmektedir. Bu aforoz uluslararası eğitim kurumlarında ve pedagojik yapıtlarda büyük oranda tamamlanmıştır. Buna karşın çeşitli matematik ve felsefe çevreleri ikinci derece mantığın terk edilmemesi gerektiğini savunmaya devam etmektedir. Bu çalışmada işaret edilen tartışmalar teknik boyutlarıyla birlikte incelenmekte ve konuya dair son yıllardaki önemli gelişmeler de okuyucuya sunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Niceleme
• mantıksalcılık
• adcılık
• çoğul niceleme
• metamantık

Excommunicating a Logical System: New Debates on the Status of Second-Order Logic

Öz

Formal logical systems demonstrate, by formal means, how to construct the negated form of a statement—even though different logical systems may conceive of negation differently. But how might a logical system itself be negated? In other words, under what conditions (in a particular sense of the word) is a calculus that validates a given body of arguments deemed 'wrong' and subsequently abandoned? When one looks to the history of logic, it becomes apparent that there is no readily available or well-defined criterion by which such abandonment is decided. Nevertheless, this study examines a possible instance of such an abandonment, even if it has not yet been fully realized. Second-order logic (SOL), which was once considered a natural extension of formal logic in the early 20th century, has for some time been excommunicated from the domain of logic. This excommunication has been largely accomplished within international academic institutions and pedagogical texts. Nevertheless, various mathematical and philosophical circles continue to argue that second-order logic should not be forsaken. The present study investigates the technical dimensions of these debates and presents the reader with recent significant developments on the subject.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Quantification
• logicism
• nominalism
• plural quantification
• metalogic

Kaynakça

1. Agustín Rayo ve Stephen Yablo, “Nominalism through De-Nominalization,” Noûs 35, no. 1 (March 2001): 80. google scholar
2. Boolos, George S. “On Second-Order Logic.” The Journal of Philosophy 72, no. 16 (September 18, 1975): 509–527. google scholar
3. Boolos, George. “For Every A There Is a B.” Linguistic Inquiry 12, no. 3 (Summer 1981): 465–467. google scholar
4. Boolos, George. “To Be Is to Be a Value of a Variable (or to Be Some Values of Some Variables).” The Journal of Philosophy 81, no. 8 (August 1984): 430–449. google scholar
5. Bueno, Otávio. “A Defence of Second-Order Logic.” Axiomathes 20, nos. 2–3 (2010): 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-010-9101-4 google scholar
6. Otávio Bueno, “Philosophy of Logic,” in Philosophies of the Sciences: A Guide, ed. F. Allhoff (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 41–67. google scholar
7. C. S. Peirce, “On the Algebra of Logic: A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation,” American Journal of Mathematics 7, no. 2 (January 1885): 180–196. google scholar
8. Carnap, Rudolf. “The Logicist Foundations of Mathematics.” Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings içinde, ed. Paul Benacerraf ve Hilary Putnam, 2nd ed., 41–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. google scholar

9. Carrara, Massimiliano, ve Enrico Martino. “To Be Is to Be the Object of a Possible Act of Choice.” Studia Logica 96 (2010): 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-010-9282-2 google scholar
10. Carrara, Massimiliano, ve Enrico Martino. Arbitrary Reference in Logic and Mathematics. Cham: Springer, 2024. google scholar
11. Church, Alonzo. Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956. google scholar
12. Cook, Roy T. A Dictionary of Philosophical Logic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009. google scholar
13. Ewald, William. “The Emergence of First-Order Logic.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition) içinde, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/logic-firstorder-emergence/. google scholar
14. Ferreirós, José. “The Road to Modern Logic—An Interpretation.” The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 7, no. 4 (2001): 441–484. https://doi.org/10.2307/2687794. google scholar
15. Frege, Gottlob. Aritmetiğin Temelleri: Sayı Kavramı Üzerine Mantıksal-Matematiksel Bir İnceleme. Çev. H. Bülent Gözkân. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2008. google scholar
16. Fritz, Peter, ve Nicholas K. Jones, eds. Higher-Order Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192894885.001.0001 google scholar
17. George Boolos, “Nominalist Platonism,” The Philosophical Review 94, no. 3 (July 1985): 327–344, https://doi.org/10.2307/2185003 google scholar
18. Gödel, Kurt. “The Completeness of the Axioms of the Functional Calculus of Logic.” From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931 içinde, ed. Jean van Heijenoort, 582–591. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. google scholar
19. Hilbert, David, ve Wilhelm Ackermann. Principles of Mathematical Logic. Çev. Lewis M. Hammond ve George G. Leckie. Ed. Robert E. Luce ve F. Steinhardt. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company, 1950. google scholar
20. Jerzak, Ethan. “Second-Order Logic, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Incompleteness Theorems.” Math Archive Paper, University of Chicago, August 21, 2009. https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2009/REUPapers/Jerzak.pdf. google scholar
21. MacBride, Fraser. “Against Second-Order Logic: Quine and Beyond.” In Higher-Order Metaphysics, ed. Peter Fritz ve Nicholas K. Jones, 378-401. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024. google scholar
22. Moore, Gregory H. “The Emergence of First-Order Logic.” History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics içinde, ed. William Aspray vePhilip Kitcher, 94–135. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988. google scholar
23. Peirce, C. S. “On the Algebra of Logic” American Journal of Mathematics 7, no. 3 (April 1885): 197–202. google scholar
24. Quine, W. V. Methods of Logic. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. google scholar
25. Quine, W. V. Philosophy of Logic. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. google scholar
26. Quine, Willard Van Orman. From a Logical Point of View: Logico-Philosophical Essays. 2nd ed., rev. New York: Harper & Row, 1961. google scholar
27. Quine, Willard Van Orman. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. google scholar
28. Quine, Willard Van Orman. Philosophy of Logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970. google scholar
29. Quine, Willard Van Orman. Pursuit of Truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. google scholar
30. Quine, Willard Van Orman. Set Theory and Its Logic. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1969. google scholar
31. Resnik, Michael D. “Second-Order Logic Still Wild.” The Journal of Philosophy 85, no. 2 (February 1988): 75–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026993 google scholar
32. Rossberg, Marcus. “Somehow Things Do Not Relate: On the Interpretation of Polyadic Second-Order Logic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 44, no. 3 (2015): 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-014-9326-6 google scholar
33. Shapiro, Stewart. Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-Order Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. google scholar
34. Tarski, Alfred. “On the Calculus of Relations.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 6, no. 3 (1941): 73–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/2268577. google scholar
35. Tharp, L. H. “Which Logic Is the Right Logic?” Synthese 31, no. 1 (1975): 1–21. google scholar
36. Williamson, Timothy. “Higher-Order Metaphysics and Small Differences.” Analysis 83, no. 1 (2022): 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anac052 google scholar
37. Williamson, Timothy. “Logic, Metalogic and Neutrality.” Erkenntnis 79, no. S2 (2014): 211-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9474-z google scholar
38. Williamson, Timothy. Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552078.001.0001 google scholar