No is a logical mistake

—79— Methodus Nº 7 (2013) Many Logics - One Reason ... Many Logics - One Reason. Why logical pluralism is a mistake Michael Wolff 1. A preliminary remark on the relationship between the words 'logic' and 'reason' that appear in the title of this essay is an introduction to the subject I would like to address, be useful: ›Logic‹ comes from (Greek) ›‹, whose Latin translation is ›ratio‹, which is related to (English) ›reason‹ and (French) ›raison‹. In German it is translated as “reason”. Accordingly, when German began to become a scientific language in the 18th century, the word ›Reasoning‹ was coined as a synonym for ›logic‹ and as a replacement for the Latin name ›Philosophia ra tio na lis‹. Meanwhile, the words ›‹, ›ratio‹, ›raison‹ and ›reason‹ mean not only reason, but also reason, namely reason understood as the reason for a consequence (that is, as the reason from which something follows). In German (unlike in the other languages ​​mentioned) there is no common word for reason and reason. But even according to the German understanding, the concepts of reason and reason are closely related. Reason is understood to mean the ability to act for reasons, in particular to accept something for reasons or to find reasons for given assumptions. The ability to accept something for reasons includes the ability to draw conclusions from assumptions. Reason is therefore also the ability to draw conclusions or conclusions from given premises. It corresponds precisely to this conception of reason that logic (as the theory of correct reasoning) has, according to traditional understanding, been regarded as the science of reason. The relationship between reasons and consequences, in particular the relationship of the generally valid consequence for reasons, has always been the central subject of this science. 'Logical consequence' is just another expression for 'general consequence'. The fact that one traditionally speaks of both logic and reason preferably in the singular (and thus assumes that there is actually only one reason and only one general M thodus Nº 7 (2013) pp. 79 - 134