The paper starts by remarking that the ancient Greek word for “truth” was “alétheia” (unveiling), which is a double negation. But, after Plato the affirmative meaning of the idea of truth has prevailed. The same meaning was reiterated by Romans’s word for truth, veritas . Not before the year 1968 the double negation law was re-evaluated, since its failure was recognized as representing, more appropriately than the failure of the excluded middle law, the borderline between classical logic and almost all non-classical kinds of logic. Moreover, its failure is easily recognized within a (scientific) text; which therefore can be analyzed in a new logical way. As an example, the analysis of Kolmogorov’s 1932 paper about the foundations of the intuitionist logic sho ws many interesting results, in particular his reasoning through arguments pertaining to the same intuitionist logic. In addition, previous papers have suggested—through a comparative analysis of all scientific theories which are based, like the previous one, on a general problem—that there exists a new model of organization of a theory which is alternative to the deductive-axiomatic model and it is governed by intuitionist logic. Some important logical events pertaining to non-classical logic are recognized by inspecting through both the double negations and this new model of organizing the original texts of past theories; so that the entire history of logic appears as a development along two main lines, one line representing classical logic dominated all others for a very long period of time, although at the origins the logical arguing had pertained to the alternative line. This history of logic confirms both K uhn’s category of a paradigm and Koyré’s categories, represented by him through a couple of “characteristic propositions” in mutual conflict; analogous couples of propositions are suggested as representing the categories for adequately interpreting the entire history of logic.
KeywordsDouble NegationIntuitionist LogicKolmogorov’s 1932 PaperProblem-Based Organization of a Scientific TheoryTwo Fundamental DichotomiesStructure of a TheoryKuhn’s Categories
Bazhanov, V. A., & Drago, A. (2010). A Logical Analysis of Lobachevsky’s Geometrical Theory. Atti della Fondazione Giorgio Ronchi, 64, 453-481.
Beth, E. W. (1959). The Foundations of Mathematics. A Study in the Philosophy of Science (chp.s X, XII, XIV). North-Holland. (in a Reduced Version: Foundations of Mathematics, Harper, 1959, ch. I, 2).
Birkhoff, G., & von Neumann, J. (1936). The Logic of Quantum Mechanics. Annals of Mathematics, 37, 823-843. https://doi.org/10.2307/1968621
Bishop, E. (1967). Constructive Analysis. McGraw-Hill.
Brouwer, L. E. J. (1975). 1908 C—The Unreliability of the Logical Principles. In Philosophy and Foundations of Mathematics (pp. 107-118). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7204-2076-0.50009-X
Carathéodory, C. (1909). Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Thermodynamik. Mathematische Annalen, 67, 355-386. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01450409 (Engl. Tr. in The Second Law of Thermodynamics, J. Kestin, Hutchinson (ed.), Stroudsburg, 1976).
Carnot, L. (1803). Géométrie de Position. Durat.
Carnot, S. (1824). Reflexions sur la puissance motrice du feu. Bachelier.
Cassirer, E. (1927). Individuum und Cosmos in der Philosophie der Reinaissance. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-15920-9
Cusanus, N. (1440). De docta Ignorantia. https://jasper-hopkins.info/
Cusanus, N. (1462). De Non Aliud. https://jasper-hopkins.info/
Cusanus, N. (1449). Apologia Doctae Lgnorantiae. https://jasper-hopkins.info/Apologia12-2000.pdf
De Luise, V. D. A. (2009). lI De Motu locali di G. Galilei: Sua analisi logica, matematica e principio d’inerzia. Atti della Fondazione Giorgio Ronchi, 64, 887-906.
Drago, A. (1989). Dalla Geometria Alla Formalizzazione Logica: Lazare Carnot. In G. Corsi et al. (Eds.), Atti del convegno internazionale di storia della logica: Le teorie delle modalità (pp. 313-318). CLUEB.
Drago, A. (1997). New lnterpretation of Cavalicri’s and Torricclli’s Method of Indivisibles. In J. Folta (Ed.), Science and Technology of Rudolfinian Time (pp. 150-167). National Technical Museum.
Koyré
’s Categories
Drago, A. (2002). Affidarci alla scienza? La lezione del nucleare e quella di Jonas. Biologi Italiani, 32, 13-21.
Drago, A. (2005). A.N. Kolmogorov and the Relevance of the Double Negation Law in Science. In O. Sica (Ed.), Essays on Foundations of Mathematics and Logic (pp. 57-81). Polimetrica.
Drago, A. (2009). Nicholas of Cusa’s Logical Way of Reasoning Interpreted and Re-Constructed According to Modern Logic. Metalogicon, 22, 51-86.
Drago, A. (2010). The Coincidentia Oppositorum in Cusanus (1401-1464), Lanza del Vasto (1901-1981) and Beyond. Epistemologia, 33, 305-328.
Drago, A. (2012). Pluralism in Logic: The Square of Opposition. Lcibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason and Markov’s Principle. In J.-Y. Beziau, & D. Jacquette (Eds.), Around and Beyond the Square of Opposition (pp. 175-189). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-0379-3_12
Drago, A. (2014). Il ruolo del sistema periodico degli elementi nel caratterizzare la chimica classica come teoria scientifica. Epistemologia, 37, 37-57.
Drago, A. (2018). Koyré’s Revolutionary Role in the Historiography of Science. In R. Pisano, J. Agassi, & D. Drozdova (Eds.), Hypotheses and Perspectives in the History and Philosophy of Science. Homage to Alexandre Koyré 1892-1964 (pp. 123-141). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61712-1_7
Drago, A. (2019). Intuitionist Reasoning in the Tri-Unitarian Theology of Nicholas of Cues (1401-1464). Journal of Logics and Their Applications, 6, 1143-1186.
Drago, A. (2021). An Intuitionist Reasoning upon Formal Intuitionist Logic: Logical Analysis of Kolmogorov’s 1932 Paper. Logica Universalis, 15, 250-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-021-00292-3
Drago, A., & Oliva, R. (1999). Atomism and the Reasoning by Non-Classical Logic. HYLE, 5, 43-55.
Drago, A., & Pisano, R. (2000). Interpretazione e Ricostruzione delle Réflexions di Sadi Carnot con la logic Non-Classica. Giornale di Fisica, 41, 195-215. (English Translation in Atti della Fondazione Giorgio Ronchi, 59, 2002, 615-644).
Drago, A., & Venezia, A. (2002). A Proposal for a New Approach to Quantum Logic. In C. Mataix, & Rivadulla, A. (Eds.), Fisica Quantica y Realidad. Quantum Physics and Reality (pp. 251-266). Facultad de Filosofía de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Dummett, M. (1977). Elements of Intuitionism. Oxford University Press
Einstein, A. (1905). Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper. Annalen der Physik, 17, 891-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19053221004
Flasch, K. (2001). Nikolaus von Kues. Geschichte einer Entwicklung. Vorlesungen fuer Einfuehrung in seine Philosophie. Klosterman.
Gabbey, D. M. (2014). What Is a Logical System? An Evolutionary View: 1964-2014. Handbook of History of Logic, 9, 43-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51624-4.50003-4
Galilei, G. (1638). Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze. Elsevirii. Modern Edition by Carugo A. and Geymonat L., Boringhieri (1958).
Garson, J. (2018). Modal Logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/
Goedel, K. (1933). Collected Works. Oxford University Press, Paper NO. 1933f.
Haak, S. (1978). Deviant Logic. Oxford University Press.
Hanson, N. R. (1963). The Law of Inertia: A Philosopher’s Touchstone. Philosophy of Science, 30, 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1086/287923
Heidegger, M. (1927). Sein und Zeit. Niemayer.
Heyting, A. (1930). Die formalen Regeln der intuitionistischen Logik I. In Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (pp. 42-56). (English Translation in Mancosu, P. (Ed.) (1998). From Brouwer to Hilbert. The Debate on the Foundations of Mathematics in the 1920s. Oxford University Press).
Hilbert, D. (1925). On the Infinity. Harvard University Press. (van Heijenoorth (Ed.), 1976, pp. 367-392)
Hintikka, J. (1989). Is There Completeness in Mathematics after Gödel? Philosophical Topics, 17, 69-90. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics19891724
Horn, L. (2001). The Logic of Logical Double Negation. Proc. Sophia Symposium on Negation, Tokyo: U. of Sophia, 79-112.
Horn, L. (2008). On the Contrary. Paper Presented at LNAT—Logic Then and Now Conference, Brussels, November 2008.
Hughes, G. E., & Cresswell, M. J. (1996). A New Introduction to Modal Logic. Routledge.
Jammer, D. (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Wiley.
Kolmogorov, A. N. (1924/25). On the Principle of “Tertium non datur”. Mathematicheskii Sbornik, 32, 646-667. (Engl. Transl. In J. van Heijenoorth (ed.), 1967, pp. 416-437).
Kolmogorov, A. N. (1932). Zur Deutung der Intuitionistischen Logik. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 35, 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01186549 (Engl. Transl. in Mancosu P. (Ed.), pp. 328-334)
Kuhn, T. S. (1969). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago University Press.
Lavoisier, A. L. (1789). Traité Elémentaire de Chimie. Cuchet.
Leibniz, G. W. (1710). Theodicy. Routledge.
Leibniz, G. W. (1714). Monadology (Engl. Ed. Oxford U.P., 1898).
Lobachevsky, N. I. (1840). Geometrische Untersuchungen zur der Theorie der Parallellinien. Finkl. (English Transl. as an Appendix in Bonola R. (1955), Non-Euclidean Geometry, Dover)
Lukasiewicz, J. (1970). Farewell Lecture by Professor Jan Lukasiewicz Delivered in the Warsaw University Lecture Hall on March 1918. In J. Lukasiewicz (Ed.), Selected Works (pp. 83-86). North-Holland.
Markov, A. A. (1962). On Constructive Mathematics. Trudy Matematicheskogo Instituta imeni V.A. Steklova, 67, 8-14. (Engl. Tr. Am. Math. Soc. Translations, 1971, Vol. 98, 1-9)
Martin-Loef, P. (2008). The Hilbert-Brouwer Controversy Resolved? In M. van Atten, P. Boldini, M. Bourdeau, & G. Heinzmann (Eds.), One Hundred Years of Intuitionism (1907-2007) (pp. 243-256). Birkhäuser. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8653-5_15
Popper, K. R. (1968). Birkhoff and von Neumann’s Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Nature, 219, 682-685. https://doi.org/10.1038/219682a0
Prawitz, D. (1977). Meaning and Proofs: On the Conflict between Classical and Intuitionistic Logic. Theoria, 43, 2-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1977.tb00776.x
Prawitz, D., & Melmnaas, P.-E. (1968). A Survey of Some Connections between Classical Intuitionistic and Minimal Logic. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 50, 215-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-237X(08)70527-5
Quine, W. O. (1974). On Popper’s Negative Ontology. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper (pp. 218-220.). The Library of Living Philosophers, Open Court.
Robelin, L. P. (1832). Notice sur Sadi. Revue Encyclopédique, 55, 528-530.
Stanfield, P. (2017). Hegel the Consummate Neoplatonist. https://philipstanfield.com/2017/11/22/hegel-the-consummate-neoplatonist-download/
Troelstra, A., & van Dalen, D. (1988). Constructivism in Mathematics. North-Holland.
van Frassen, B. C. (1974). The Labyrinth of Quantum Logic. In R.S. Cohen (Ed.), Logical and Epistemological Studies in Contemporary Physics (Vol. 13, pp. 224-254). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2656-7_8
van Heijenoort, J. (1963). Logic as Calculus and Logic as Language. In R. S. Cohen, & M. W. Wartofsky (Eds.), R. S. Cohen, & M. W. Wartowsfky (Ed.), Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1964/1966 (Vol. 3, pp. 440-446). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3508-8_26
van Heijenoort, J. (1967). Goedel’s Theorem. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (pp. 348-357). MacMillan.
Van Stigt, W. P. (1990). Brouwer’s Intuitionism. North-Holland.
Venezia, A. (2006). The Role of Logic and Mathematics in the Heisenberg Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. In C. Garola, et al. (Eds.), The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Historical Analysis and Open Questions (pp. 335-344). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812773258_0029