Brian McLoone, Professor of Philosophy at Auburn University
'Theory Choice in Science and Logic'
Αbstract: Anti-exceptionalism is the thesis that rational theory choice in logic is similar to rational theory choice in science; theory choice in logic is not "exceptional." Many proponents of anti-exceptionalism hold that abduction is the inference procedure that governs theory choice in both fields. We argue that abduction is in fact a poor model of how theory choice works in science, from which it follows trivially that it’s a poor model of how theory choice works across science and logic. But we also highlight a particular challenge that a plausible account of abduction faces as a model of theory choice in logic. This challenge emerges when one attempts to use the probability calculus to characterize evidential support for a classical or nonclassical logic. We expand on this point by presenting an argument for the claim that there could be no universal inference procedure across both science and logic. A logician can rationally prefer one logic over another, just as a scientist can rationally prefer one scientific theory over another. But there is not some single inference procedure that underlies theory choice in these fields.