Is Conventionalism About Logic Viciously Circular?

ABSTRACT The logical positivists' doctrine that logic is true by convention is often accused of involving vicious circularity. This paper examines that accusation, focusing primarily on Quine's version of the objection. The standard response, which appeals to implicit conventions, is argued to be of limited force. Instead, the paper maintains that conventionalism can be clarified and defended only by presupposing certain basic logical principles. Crucially, however, the same presupposition is shared by rival accounts of logical truth. If the circularity involved is fatal, it undermines not only conventionalism but the very possibility of a meaningful debate about the nature of logical truth.