Bilateralism is the view that the speech act of denial is as primitive as that of assertion. Bilateralism has proved helpful in providing an intuitive interpretation of formalisms that, prima facie, look counterintuitive, namely, multiple‐conclusion sequent calculi. Under this interpretation, a sequent of the form is regarded as the statement that it is incoherent, according to our conversational norms, to occupy the position of asserting all the sentences in and denying all the sentences in . Some have argued, based on this interpretation, that the notion of invalidity is as conceptually primitive and important as the notion of validity: whereas the latter is couched in terms of what positions are incoherent and hence untenable, the former is couched in terms of what positions are coherent and hence tenable. My ultimate goal in this paper is to contest this view. Based on a novel technical account of the two notions—one that I find more accurate than the existing accounts in the literature—I shall argue that the notion of incoherence takes conceptual priority over the notion of coherence.

中文翻译：

---

双边主义、连贯性和不连贯性


双边主义认为否认的言语行为与断言的行为一样原始。事实证明，双边主义有助于提供对形式主义的直观解释，这些形式主义从表面上看似乎有悖常理，即多结论序列演算。在这种解释下，形式的 setails 被视为陈述，根据我们的会话规范，占据断言 中的所有句子并否认 中的所有句子的位置是不连贯的。基于这种解释，一些人认为，无效的概念在概念上与有效性的概念一样原始和重要：后者是根据哪些立场是不连贯的，因此是站不住脚的，而前者是根据什么立场是连贯的，因此站得住脚的。我在这篇文章中的最终目标是反驳这种观点。基于对这两个概念的新颖的技术描述——我认为这个概念比文献中的现有描述更准确——我将论证不连贯的概念在概念上优先于连贯的概念。