Publication Details

Abstract

The article examines the nature and functions of certain idealizations in logic. It compares them with idealizations that appear in theories and models of empirical sciences. Building on the work of Colyvan (2013) and Russell (2023), it shows in what sense idealizations of logic are deliberately accepted false statements. One source of the falsity of idealization assumptions in logic is the representational inconsistency with the reality of the empirical system. The second source of falsity is the comparison of the epistemic status of a statement (formula) in one logical system with its status in another logical system. The article also notes the idealizations that we (implicitly) accept when applying a certain logical apparatus to natural language.