Abstract

According to a prominent argument, logical pluralism arises due to the ambiguity – or other semantic features – of natural language expressions such as 'valid' or 'follows from'. In this paper, I show that this argument is unsuccessful. First, I argue that there is no compelling linguistic evidence for the claim that 'valid' and its cognates are ambiguous. As a result, logical pluralism cannot arise from the ambiguity of these expressions. Second, I point out that semantic considerations are generally ill-suited to yield an interesting version of pluralism. The upshot is that logical pluralists cannot appeal to the semantics of 'valid' and its cognates to argue for their view.