Band 37, Heft 1

What is the relationship between syntax and logic? Is the former autonomous and independent of the latter? If it is not, what kind of logic syntax interfaces with? These questions are not unheard of, having been around for quite some time, along with different answers. In the generative tradition, for example, logic cannot provide a model for linguistic behaviour. Conversely, according to the logicality of language hypothesis logical considerations are relevant to syntactic formation and explain the ungrammaticality of certain constructions. This note offers a brief overview of the logicality of language hypothesis and proposes new evidence that seems to indicate that accepting the said hypothesis does not necessarily require assuming a “natural” logic.

In a recent article, Kyle Stanford gives an account of what he terms “externalisation”, understood as our tendency to objectify or externalise moral demands and obligations. According to Stanford, externalisation is a distinctive feature of our moral psychology which is adaptive since it enables and preserves cooperation. I claim that the main issue with this account is that it assumes an overly psychological and individualist, inward-to-outward looking perspective. I advocate taking an alternative perspective that turns the spotlight to social practices and the social reality they create. I show how, seen in this light, norm externalisation becomes a side-effect instead of an adaptation deserving of a special explanation.

In her account of scientific objectivity, feminist philosopher of science Helen Longino shows how scientific objectivity is not so much of individual practice, but rather a social commitment practiced by a scientific community, provided by the necessary accommodations for critical discourse. However, is this conception of scientific objectivity truly capable of living up to the social realities of critical discourse and deliberation within a scientific community? Drawing from Dutilh Novaes’ social epistemological account of argumentation, this paper highlights the challenges Longino’s scientific objectivity faces on a prescriptive and descriptive level, specifically in overcoming the various epistemic injustices Longino’s proposed structural accommodations for objectivity are still sensitive to. Dutilh Novaes’ social epistemological model of argumentation illustrates how the realities of critical debate too often don’t consist of true epistemic or knowledge exchange, even though such exchanges are essential to achieve Longino’s primary goal when redefining scientific objectivity: to wield out and address idiosyncratic background assumptions and individual bigotry that possibly influence a researcher’s scientific conduct.