Here is an abstract:
Logic isn’t special. Its theories are continuous with science; its method continuous with scientific method. Logic isn’t a priori, nor are its truths analytic truths. Logical theories are revisable, and if they are revised, they are revised on the same grounds as scientific theories. These are the tenets of anti-exceptionalism about logic. The position is most famously defended by Quine, but has more recent advocates in Maddy (2002), Priest (2006a; 2014), Russell (2014; 2015), and Williamson (2013b; 2015). Although these authors agree on many methodological issues about logic, they disagree about which logic anti-exceptionalism supports. Williamson, following Quine and Maddy, gives an anti-exceptionalist argument for classical logic, while Priest gives an anti-exceptionalist argument for nonclassical logic. This paper aims to show that both are wrong. By rejecting Williamson’s deflationary account of logical theories, we will undercut his abductive argument for classical logic. Instead an alternative account of logical theories is offered, on which logical pluralism is a plausible supplement to anti-exceptionalism.