  Two possible misinterpretations of this “universalist” project should be flagged. First, Sylvan did not argue that some specific alternative logic is the absolutely correct one, or even that there should be one and only one correct alternative (see Section 3.3). Second, although he can sound rhetorically partisan and ideological, Sylvan’s approach was ultimately rather pragmatic: he couched theory choice in practical cost/benefit analyses familiar from conventional philosophy of science (Routley 1980a). On the meaning of ‘universality’ in this context see Mares (2019) and Nolan (2018). Brady’s 2006 book takes its title in part from Sylvan’s announced project, with a focus on logics for “meaning containment”.