Concerning Peter Vickers's Recent Treatment of ‘Paraconsistencitis’

References

• Arieli, O., and C. Straßer. 2014. “Sequent-based Logical Argumentation.” Under review.
   Google Scholar
• Asenjo, F. G. 1966. “A Calculus of Antinomies.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 7: 103–105. doi: 10.1305/ndjfl/1093958482
   Google Scholar
• Batens, D. 1999. “Inconsistency-adaptive Logics.” In Logic at Work: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Helena Rasiowa, edited by E. Orlowska, 445–472. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Batens, D. 2002. “In Defence of a Programme for Handling Inconsistencies.” In Inconsistency in Science, edited by J. Meheus, 129–150. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Batens, D. 2007. “A Universal Logic Approach to Adaptive Logics.” Logica Universalis 1: 221–242. doi: 10.1007/s11787-006-0012-5
   Google Scholar
• Batens, D., and D. Provijn. 2001. “Pushing the Search Paths in the Proofs: A Study in Proof Heuristics.” Logique et Analyse 173–175: 113–134.
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. C. 2013. “Free of Detachment: Logic, Rationality, and Gluts.” Noûs. doi:10.1111/nous.12029.
   Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., and A. Hunter. 2009. “Argumentation Based on Classical Logic.” In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, edited by I. Rahwan and G. R. Simary, 133–152. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, B. 2002. “On Paraconsistency.” In A Companion to Philosophical Logic, edited by D. Jacquette, 628–650. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. E. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doyle, J. 1992. “Rationality and Its Roles in Reasoning.” Computational Intelligence 8: 376–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8640.1992.tb00371.x
   Google Scholar
• Feyerabend, P. K. 1975. Against Method. London: New Left Books.
   Google Scholar
• Field, H. 2009. “I—What Is the Normative Role of Logic?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 83: 251–268. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8349.2009.00181.x
   Google Scholar
• Harman, G. 1986. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, A. 2000. “Reasoning with Contradictory Information Using Quasi-classical Logic.” Journal of Logic and Computation 10: 677–703. doi: 10.1093/logcom/10.5.677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knorpp, W. M. 1997. “The Relevance of Logic to Reasoning and Belief Revision: Harman on ‘Change in View’.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78: 78–92. doi: 10.1111/1468-0114.00029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyburg, H. E. 1961. Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Makinson, D. C. 1965. “The Paradox of the Preface.” Analysis 25: 205–207. doi: 10.1093/analys/25.6.205
   Google Scholar
• Meheus, J. 2000. “An Extremely Rich Paraconsistent Logic and the Adaptive Logic Based on It.” In Frontiers of Paraconsistent Logic, edited by D. Batens, C. Mortensen, G. Priest, and J.-P. Van Bendegem, 189–201. Baldock: Research Studies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meheus, J. 2002. “How to Reason Sensibly Yet Naturally from Inconsistencies.” In Inconsistency in Science, edited by J. Meheus, 151–164. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Meheus, J. 2003. “Inconsistencies and the Dynamics of Science.” Logic and Logical Philosophy 11–12: 129–148.
   Google Scholar
• Nickles, T. 2002. “From Copernicus to Ptolemy: Inconsistency and Method.” In Inconsistency in Science, edited by J. Meheus, 1–33. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, J. L. 1995. Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. [1935] 1959. Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 2006. In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G., K. Tanaka, and Z. Weber. 2013. “Paraconsistent Logic.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent
   Google Scholar
• Provijn, D. 2012. “The Generation of Abductive Explanations from Inconsistent Theories.” Logic Journal of the IGPL 20: 400–416. doi: 10.1093/jigpal/jzq056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rescher, N., and R. Manor. 1970. “On Inference from Inconsistent Premisses.” Theory and Decision 1: 179–217. doi: 10.1007/BF00154005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenning, K., and M. van Lambalgen. 2008. Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Straßer, C. 2014. Adaptive Logic and Defeasible Reasoning: Applications in Argumentation, Normative Reasoning and Default Reasoning. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Weingartner, P. 1994. “Can There Be Reasons for Putting Limitations on Classical Logic?” In Patrick Suppes: Scientific Philosopher, edited by P. Humphreys, 89–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar