Abstract:There have been recent arguments against the idea that substructural solutions are uniform. The claim is that even if the substructuralist solves the common semantic paradoxes uniformly by targeting Cut or Contraction, with additional machinery, we can construct higher-level paradoxes (e.g., a higher-level Liar, a higher-level Curry, and a meta-validity Curry). These higher-level paradoxes do not use metainferential Cut or Contraction, but rather, higher-level Cuts and higher-level Contractions. These kinds of paradoxes suggest that targeting Cut or Contraction is not enough for solving semantic paradoxes; the substructuralist must target Cut of every level or Contraction of every level to solve the paradoxes. Hence, the substructuralists do not provide as uniform of a solution as they hoped they did. In response, we argue that the substructuralists need not admit these additional machineries. In fact, they are redundant in light of the validity predicate (i.e., there is no gain in terms of expressive power). The validity predicate is powerful enough to creep these paradoxes in the object level. The substructuralist does not need to ascend to metainferences to construct higher-level paradoxes. Moreover, there is a reading available to the substructuralist such that all the higher-level structural rules would collapse to instances of the object-level structural rules (e.g., meta Cut and meta Contraction would become instances of Cut and Contraction). We then address Barrio et al.'s worry that the validity predicate has its shortcomings; the substructuralist cannot internalize some of its metarules. We claim that the validity of metarules can be internalized without the need to strengthen the validity predicate. However, a problem raised by Barrio et al. is still present—the problem of internalizing unwanted instances of Cut in Cut-free approaches. We argue that this internalization problem is not unique to the validity predicate; the same problem is present with other problematic predicates, such as the truth predicate and the provability predicate.

Queries on Hempel’s Solution to the Paradoxes of Confirmation

We Still Can Not Study Ornithology inside the House--An query on Hempel's dissolution

Queries on Hempel' s Logic of Instantial Confirmation

An Epistemological Solution to the Paradox of Confirmation

Resolving Bertrand's Probability Paradox

ON THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE CONVERSE CONSEQUENCE CONDITION AND HEMPELIAN QUALITATIVE CONFIRMATION

From Situation- absent to Situation- sensitive--The Development and Inspiration of Confirmation Paradoxes Research

The Methodological Research of Inductive Paradoxes

Beware of the Gödel- Wette paradox

Time-Symmetric Resolutions of the Renninger Negative-Result Paradoxes

An Feasible Method to Eliminate the Paradoxes of Material Implication

Channels' Confirmation and Predictions' Confirmation: from the Medical Test to the Raven Paradox

On Essence, Source and Main Solving Programs of Paradox from the Viewpoint of Paraconsistent Logic

Wittgenstein, Peirce, and paradoxes of mathematical proof

Higher-Level Paradoxes and Substructural Solutions

The Falsifiabilism Solution to the Grue Paradox

A New Approach to Material Implication Paradoxes from the Perspective of Formal Implication to Resolve the'Counterexample'of Paradoxical Theorem

The Surprise Exam Paradox and Its Solutions: Also on the Suitor Paradox and the Two Envelopes Paradox

The Analysis of Solutions to Grue Paradox

On Paradoxical Reasoning of Quality of Being Logic

The Two Envelope Problem: a Paradox or Fallacious Reasoning?