Philosophical Problems of Foundations of Logic

1. Antonelli A.G., “Non-monotonic Logic”, [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-nonmonotonic/>.Search in Google Scholar

2. Barwise, J. and S. Feferman (eds.), Model-theoretic Logics. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987.Search in Google Scholar

3. Barwise, J., “Model-theoretic Logics: Background and Aims”, [in:] Jon Barwise and Solomon Feferman (eds.), Model-theoretic Logics, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987, 4-23.Search in Google Scholar

4. Bates, J., “Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence”, Southwest Philosophy Review 15.1 (1999): 47-54.10.5840/swphilreview199915119Search in Google Scholar

5. Beall, J.C. and G. Restall, “Logical Consequence”, [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence/>.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199288403.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

6. Beall, J.C. and G. Restall, Logical Pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199288403.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

7. Bellotti, L., “Tarski on Logical Notions”, Synthese 135 (2003): 401-13.10.1023/A:1023590504284Search in Google Scholar

8. Benthem, Van J., “Logical Constants Across Varying Types”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30 (1989): 315-342.10.1305/ndjfl/1093635152Search in Google Scholar

9. Benthem, Van J., “Where is Logic Going, and Should It?” Topoi 25 (2006): 117-22.10.1007/s11245-006-0018-xSearch in Google Scholar

10. Benthem, Van J., “Logic and the New Psychologims” Studia Logica 88 (2008): 67-84.10.1007/s11225-008-9101-1Search in Google Scholar

11. Benthem, Van J. and K. Doets, “Higher-order Logic”, [in:] Dov. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel, 2001, 189-243.Search in Google Scholar

12. Béziau, J.-Y. “Universal Logic”, [in:] T. Childers and O. Majer (eds.), Logica'94: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium. Prague: Filosofia, 1994, 73-93.Search in Google Scholar

13. Béziau, J.-Y. (ed). Logica Universalis: Towards a General Theory of Logic. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 2005. (2nd ed. 2007).10.1007/b137041Search in Google Scholar

14. Blanchette, P. A. “Logical Consequence”, [in:] Lou Goble (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001, 115-35.Search in Google Scholar

15. Bonnay, D., “Logicality and Invariance”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14.1 (2008): 29-68.10.2178/bsl/1208358843Search in Google Scholar

16. Bonnay, D. and D. Westerståhl, “Consequence mining: constants versus consequence relations”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 41.4 (2012): 671-709.10.1007/s10992-012-9234-6Search in Google Scholar

17. Boolos, G., “On Second-order Logic”, Journal of Philosophy 72 (1975): 509-27.10.2307/2025179Search in Google Scholar

18. Brown D.J. and R. Suszko, “Abstract Logics”, Dissertationes Mathematicae 102 (1973): 7-41.Search in Google Scholar

19. Carnielli, W. A., M. E. Coniglio, D. M. Gabbay, P. Gouveia and C. Sernadas, Analysis and Synthesis of Logics: How to Cut and Paste Reasoning Systems. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

20. Carnielli, W.A. and M.E. Coniglio, “Combining Logics”, [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-combining/>.Search in Google Scholar

21. Casanovas, E., “Logical Operations and Invariance”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (2007): 33-60.10.1007/s10992-006-9034-ySearch in Google Scholar

22. Chagrov, A. and M. Zakharyaschev, Modal Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.Search in Google Scholar

23. Chang, C. and H.J. Keisler, Model Theory. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990.Search in Google Scholar

24. Corcoran, J., “Conceptual Structure of Classical Logic”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 33 (1972): 25-47.10.2307/2106718Search in Google Scholar

25. Corcoran, J., and J.M. Sagüillo, “The Absence of Multiple Universes of Discourse in the 1936 Tarski Consequence-Definition Paper”, History and Philosophy of Logic 32.4 (2011): 359-74.10.1080/01445340.2011.577145Search in Google Scholar

26. Da Costa, N.C.A. and D. Krause, “Schrödinger logics”, Studia Logica 53.4 (1994): 533-50.10.1007/BF01057649Search in Google Scholar

27. Ebbinghaus, H.-D., “Extended Logics: The General Framework”, [in:] Jon Barwise and Solomon Feferman (eds.), Model-theoretic Logics, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987, 25-76.Search in Google Scholar

28. Edwards, J., “Reduction and Tarski's Definition of Logical Consequence”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 44 (2003): 49-62.10.1305/ndjfl/1082637614Search in Google Scholar

29. Engel, P., “Logic, Reasoning and the Logical Constants”, Croatian Journal of Philosophy VI.17 (2006): 219-35.Search in Google Scholar

30. Etchemendy, J., The Concept of Logical Consequence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990 (2nd ed. in 1999).Search in Google Scholar

31. Etchemendy, J., “Reflections on Consequence”, [in:] D. Patterson (ed.), New Essays on Tarski and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 263-99.Search in Google Scholar

32. Feferman, S., “Logic, Logics, and Logicism.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 40 (1999): 31-54.10.1305/ndjfl/1039096304Search in Google Scholar

33. Feferman, S., “What kind of logic is “Independence Friendly” logic?” [in:] Randall E. Auxier and Lewis E. Hahn (eds.), The Philosophy of Jaakko Hintikka. Library of Living Philosophers. Open Court, 2006, 453-69.Search in Google Scholar

34. Feferman, S., “Set-theoretical Invariance Criteria for Logicality”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51.1 (2010): 3-20.10.1215/00294527-2010-002Search in Google Scholar

35. Field, H., “Pluralism in Logic”, The Review of Symbolic Logic 2.2 (2009): 343-59.10.1017/S1755020309090182Search in Google Scholar

36. Field, H., “What is the Normative Role of Logic?” The Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society 83.1 (2009): 251-268.10.1111/j.1467-8349.2009.00181.xSearch in Google Scholar

37. Frege, G., Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle a. S.: Louis Nebert. Trans. as “Concept Script, a formal language of pure thought modelled upon that of arithmetic”, by S. Bauer-Mengelberg in Jean van Heijenoort (ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967, 1-83.Search in Google Scholar

38. Frege, G., Basic Laws of Arithmetic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.Search in Google Scholar

39. Gabbay, D.M. (ed.), What is a Logical System? Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994 (and New York, 1995).Search in Google Scholar

40. Gabbay, D.M. and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 1st ed. 4 vols. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983-1987.10.1007/978-94-009-7066-3Search in Google Scholar

41. Gabbay, D.M. and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd ed. 17 vols. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001-2013.10.1007/978-94-017-0452-6Search in Google Scholar

42. Gainfs, B. R., “Foundations of fuzzy reasoning”, Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 8 (1976): 623-68. 10.1016/S0020-7373(76)80027-2Search in Google Scholar

43. Gamut, L. T. F., Logic, Language, and Meaning, Vol. 2: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991.10.7208/chicago/9780226791708.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

44. Gorbunov, I.A. and M.N. Rybakov, “Continuum Classes of Logic”, Logical Investigations [Logicheskie issledovania] 14 (2007): 131-151 (in Russian).Search in Google Scholar

45. Gómez-Torrente, M., “Tarski on Logical Consequence”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37 (1996): 125-51.10.1305/ndjfl/1040067321Search in Google Scholar

46. Gómez-Torrente, M., “The Problem of Logical Constants”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 8 (2002): 1-37.10.2178/bsl/1182353851Search in Google Scholar

47. Gómez-Torrente, M., “Rereading Tarski on Logical Consequence”, Review of Symbolic Logic 2 (2009): 249-97.10.1017/S1755020309090200Search in Google Scholar

48. Groarke, L., “Informal Logic” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/>.Search in Google Scholar

49. Haack, S., Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic: Beyond the Formalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.Search in Google Scholar

50. Hacking, I., “What is logic?” The Journal of Philosophy 76.6 (1979): 285-319. (Reprinted in Dov M. Gabbay (ed.), What is a Logical System? Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, 1-33).Search in Google Scholar

51. Hanson, W.H., “Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 28.6 (1999): 605-16.10.1023/A:1004649130370Search in Google Scholar

52. Harman, G., Change in View. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986.Search in Google Scholar

53. Harman, G., “Internal Critique: A Logic is not a Theory of Reasoning and a Theory of Reasoning is not a Logic” [in:] D. M. Gabbay, R. H. Johnson, H. J. Ohlbach, and J. Woods (eds.), Handbook of the Logic of Argument and Inference: The Turn Towards the Practical. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2002, 171-86.Search in Google Scholar

54. Hintikka, J., “What is Elementary Logic? Independence-Friendly Logic as the True Core Area of Logic” [in:] K. Gavroglu, J.J. Stachel, and M.W. Wartofsky (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and the Scientific Community. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995, 301-26.Search in Google Scholar

55. Hintikka, J., “A Revolution in the Foundations of Mathematics?” Synthese 111 (1997): 155-70.10.1023/A:1004970403579Search in Google Scholar

56. Hintikka, J., “Rationality, Logic and Their Limits” [in:] Vladislav Lektorsky and Abdusalam Guseynov (eds.), Rationality and its Limits. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, RAS, 2012, 21-31.Search in Google Scholar

57. Hintikka, J. and G. Sandu, “A Revolution in Logic?” Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic” 1.2 (1996): 169-83.Search in Google Scholar

58. Hintikka, J. and G. Sandu, “What is Logic?” [in:] Dale Jacquette (ed.), Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. 13-40.Search in Google Scholar

59. Hodes, H.T., “On the sense and Reference of a Logical Constant”, Philosophical Quarterly 54 (2004): 134-65.10.1111/j.0031-8094.2004.00345.xSearch in Google Scholar

60. Hodges, W., “Elementary Predicate Logic” [in:] Dov. M. Gabbay and Franz Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel, 2001, 1-129.Search in Google Scholar

61. Hodges, W., “What is Logic?” [in:] Rusudan Asatiani et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation. ILLC, University of Amsterdam, 2004, 3-10.Search in Google Scholar

62. Hodges, W., “The Scope and Limits of Logic” [in:] Dale Jacquette (ed.), Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. 41-64.Search in Google Scholar

63. Jané, I., “What Is Tarski's Common Concept of Consequence?” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 12 (2006): 1-42.10.2178/bsl/1140640942Search in Google Scholar

64. Jankov, V.A., “Construction of the sequence strongly independent superintuitionistic propositional calculus”, Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR 181.1 (1968): 33-34 (in Russian).Search in Google Scholar

65. Jeffery, R., Formal Logic: its Scope and its Limits. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, 1990.Search in Google Scholar

66. Karpenko, A.S., Logic on the Boundary of Millenia”, Logical Investigations [Logicheskie issledovania] 7 (2000): 7-60 (in Russian).Search in Google Scholar

67. Karpenko, A.S., “Subject of Logic in the Light of the Main Trends of its Development”, Logical Investigations [Logicheskie issledovania] 11 (2004): 149-171 (in Russian).Search in Google Scholar

68. Karpenko, A.S., “Modern Study in Philosophical Logic: Worldwide Level and Russian Science”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 14.27 (2008): 35-71.Search in Google Scholar

69. Keenan, E.L. and J. Stavi, “A semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners”, Linguistic and Philosophy 9 (1986): 253-326.10.1007/BF00630273Search in Google Scholar

70. Koons, R., “Defeasible Reasoning” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-defeasible/>. Search in Google Scholar

71. Lambek, J., “What is a Deductive System?” [in:] Dov M. Gabbay (ed.), What is a Logical System? Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, 141-59.Search in Google Scholar

72. Leitgeb, H. (ed.), Special Issue: Psychologism in Logic? Studia Logica 88.1 (2008).10.1007/s11225-008-9097-6Search in Google Scholar

73. Lindenbaum, A. and A. Tarski, “On the Limitations of the Means of Expression of Deductive Theories”. Trans. of Lindenbaum and Tarski 1935 by J.H. Woodger in Tarski, A., Logic, Semantics, Metamatematics. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing, 1983, 384-92.Search in Google Scholar

74. Lindström, P., “On extensions of Elementary Logic”, Theoria 35 (1969): 1-11.10.1111/j.1755-2567.1969.tb00356.xSearch in Google Scholar

75. Lönning, J.T., “Plurals and Collectivity” [in:] Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1997, 1009-1053.Search in Google Scholar

76. MacFarlane, J., “Logical Constants” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-constants/>.Search in Google Scholar

77. Mancosu, P., “Tarski on Models and Logical Consequence” [in:] J. Ferreirós and J.J. Gray (eds.), The Architecture of Modern Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 209-37.Search in Google Scholar

78. Mancosu, P., “Fixed-versus Variable-domain Interpretations of Tarski’s Account of Logical Consequence”, Philosophy Compas 5.9 (2010): 745-759.10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00324.xSearch in Google Scholar

79. Manktelow, K.I. and D.E. Over, Inference and Uderstanding: A Philosophical and Psychological Perspective. London: Routledge, 1990.Search in Google Scholar

80. Mann, A.L., G. Sandu, and M. Sevenster, Independence-Friendly Logic: A Game-Theoretic Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2011.10.1017/CBO9780511981418Search in Google Scholar

81. Manzano, M., Extensions of First Order Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Search in Google Scholar

82. Markov, A.A., Elements of Mathematical Logic. Moscow: Moscow State University, 1984 (in Russian).Search in Google Scholar

83. Mautner, F. I., “An Extension of Klein's Erlanger Program: Logic as Invariant-Theory”, American Journal of Mathematics 68 (1946): 345-84.10.2307/2371821Search in Google Scholar

84. McCarthy, T., “The Idea of a Logical Constant”, Journal of Philosophy 78 (1981): 499-523.10.2307/2026088Search in Google Scholar

85. McCarthy, T., “Modality, Invariance, and Logical Truth”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 16 (1987): 423-43.10.1007/BF00431187Search in Google Scholar

86. McGee, Van, “Two Problems with Tarski's Theory of Consequence”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 92 (1992): 273-92.10.1093/aristotelian/92.1.273Search in Google Scholar

87. McGee, Van, “Logical Operations.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (1996): 567-80.10.1007/BF00265253Search in Google Scholar

88. McGee, Van, “Tarski's Staggering Existential Assumptions”, Synthese 142 (2004): 371-87.10.1007/s11229-005-3721-zSearch in Google Scholar

89. Mckeon, M.W., The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Publishing, 2010.10.3726/978-1-4539-0041-3Search in Google Scholar

90. Mendelson, E., Introduction to Mathematical Logic. 4th ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1997.Search in Google Scholar

91. Mostowski, A., “On a Generalization of Quantifiers.” Fundamenta Mathematicae 44 (1957): 12-36.10.4064/fm-44-1-12-36Search in Google Scholar

92. Peacocke, C., “What is a Logical Constant?” Journal of Philosophy 73 (1976): 221-241.10.2307/2025420Search in Google Scholar

93. Peacocke, C., “Understanding Logical Constants: A Realist's Account.” Proceedings of the British Academy 73 (1987): 153-200.Search in Google Scholar

94. Priest, G., An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is. 2nd rev. ed. Cambrigde University Press, 2008.10.1017/CBO9780511801174Search in Google Scholar

95. Prior, A.N., Time and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.Search in Google Scholar

96. Quine, W.V., Philosophy of Logic. 2nd ed. Harvard University Press, 1986.Search in Google Scholar

97. Rasiowa, H., “O pewnym fragmencie implikacyjnego rachunku zdań”, Studia Logica 3 (1955): 208-226.10.1007/BF02067260Search in Google Scholar

98. Ray, G., “Logical Consequence: a Defense of Tarski”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (1996): 617-77.10.1007/BF00265256Search in Google Scholar

99. Rossberg, M., “First-Order Logic, Second-Order Logic, and Completeness” [in:] V. Hendricks et al. (eds.), First-Order Logic Revisited. Berlin: Logos-Verlag, 2004, 303-21.Search in Google Scholar

100. Russell, G., “Logical Pluralism” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-pluralism/>.Search in Google Scholar

101. Rusnock P., and M. Burke, “Etchemendy and Bolzano on Logical Consequence”, History and Philosophy of Logic 31.1 (2011): 3-29.10.1080/01445340903445063Search in Google Scholar

102. Sagüillo, J.M., “Logical Consequence Revisited”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 3 (1997): 216-41.10.2307/421014Search in Google Scholar

103. Seay, G. and S. Nuccetelli, How to Think Logically. 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

104. Shalack, V.I., “Semiotic Foundations of Logic”, Logical Investigations 19 (2013): 226-37.10.21146/2074-1472-2013-19-0-225-237Search in Google Scholar

105. Shapiro, S. (ed.), The Limits of Logic. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996. Search in Google Scholar

106. Shapiro, S., “Logical Consequence: Models and Modality” [in:] Matthias Schirn (ed.), The Philosophy of Mathematics Today. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, 131-56 (2nd ed. in 2003).Search in Google Scholar

107. Shapiro, S., Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-order Logic. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2000.10.1093/0198250290.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

108. Shapiro, S., “Logical Consequence, Proof Theory, and Model Theory” [in:] Stewart Shapiro (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Oxford University Press, USA, 2005, 651-70.10.1093/0195148770.003.0021Search in Google Scholar

109. Sher, G., The Bounds of Logic. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.Search in Google Scholar

110. Sher, G., “Did Tarski Commit ‘Tarski's Fallacy’?” Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (1996): 653-86.10.2307/2275681Search in Google Scholar

111. Sher, G., “The Formal-Structural View of Logical Consequence”, The Philosophical Review 110.2 (2001): 241-61.10.1215/00318108-110-2-241Search in Google Scholar

112. Sher, G., “Tarski's Thesis” [in:] Ed. Douglas Patterson (ed.), New Essays on Tarski and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 300-39.Search in Google Scholar

113. Schumann A., “A Novel Tendency in Philosophical Logic”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 14.27 (2008): 73-100.Search in Google Scholar

114. Simons, P. M., “Bolzano, Tarski, and the Limits of Logic”, Philosophia Naturalis 24 (1988): 378-405.Search in Google Scholar

115. Stenning, K. and M. van Lambalgen, Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

116. Straßburger, L., “What is a Logic, and What is a Proof” [in:] Jean-Yves Béziau (ed.) Logica Universalis: Towards a General Theory of Logic. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 2005, 135-45.Search in Google Scholar

117. Suber, P., A Bibliography of Non-Standard Logics, 2002. <http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/nonstbib.htm>.Search in Google Scholar

118. Tarski, A., “Fundamentale Begriffe der Methodologie der deduktiven Wissenschaften” I, Monatshefte für Mathenatik und Physik 37.1 (1930): 361-404. Trans: “Fundamental concepts of the methodology of the deductive sciences” [in:] Logic, Semantics, Metamatematics. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing, 1983, 60-109.Search in Google Scholar

119. Tarski, A., “On the Concept of Logical Consequence” [in:] A. Tarski, Logic, Semantics, Metamatematics. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing, 1983. 409-20.Search in Google Scholar

120. Tarski, A., “What are Logical Notions?” History and Philosophy of Logic 7 (1986): 143-54.10.1080/01445348608837096Search in Google Scholar

121. Tarski, A., “On the Concept of Following Logically”, History and Philosophy of Logic 23 (2002): 155-96.10.1080/0144534021000036683Search in Google Scholar

122. Tharp, L., “Which logic is the right logic?” Synthese 31 (1975): 1-21.10.1007/BF00869469Search in Google Scholar

123. Tulenheimo, T., “Independence Friendly Logic” [in:] Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-if/>.Search in Google Scholar

124. Wang, H., “What is logic?” The Monist 77.3 (1994): 261-77.10.5840/monist199477312Search in Google Scholar

125. Warmbrōd, K., “Logical Constants”, Mind 108.431 (1999): 503-38.10.1093/mind/108.431.503Search in Google Scholar

126. Wason, P.C., “Reasoning” [in:] B.M. Foss (ed.), New Horizons in Psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966. 135-51.Search in Google Scholar

127. Woleński, J., “Logical Consequence and the Limits of First-Order Logic”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 4.17 (2001): 21-40. Search in Google Scholar