Logic and Norms of Reasoning

Abstract This paper defends the view that logic gives norms for reasoning. This view is often thought to be problematic given that logic is not itself a theory of reasoning and that valid inferences can lead to silly or pointless beliefs. To defend it, I highlight an overlooked distinction between norms for reasoning and norms for belief. With this distinction in hand, I motivate and defend a straightforward account of how logic gives norms for reasoning, showing that it avoids standard objections. I also show that, given some substantive assumptions, we can offer an attractive account of why logic gives norms for reasoning in the way I propose, and of how it is (also) relevant to norms for belief.