DISAGREEMENT IN LOGIC

In this brief paper the Quine's famous thesis, according to which a change of logic implies a change in the meaning that logical expressions convey, is analyzed and criticized. First, as a result of the analysis, I show that this thesis is important to understand what it means to put Classical First Order Logic in question. Secondly, as a result of some remarks I make against the quinean thesis, I hold that it is possible to find a genuine disagreement between a classical logician and a deviant logician. In particular, I propose that in defining logical expressions we have to considerer the relationship between logical laws and some general uses of those expressions. Besides, as a strategy to form a common basis to allow the disagreement between a classical logician and a deviant logician I appeal to some ways of weakening logical laws.