Another way logic might be normative

Abstract Is logic normative for reasoning? In the wake of work by Gilbert Harman and John MacFarlane, this question has been reduced to: are there any adequate bridge principles which link logical facts to constraints on Hitherto, defenders normativity have exclusively focussed identifying validity principles: linking facts—facts form $$\varGamma \models \varphi $$ Γ⊧φ —to reasoning. This paper argues two claims. First, time being at least, Harman’s challenge cannot be surmounted articulating principles. Second, can met invalidity \not \psi xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML">Γ⊭ψ doing so, I provide a novel defence logic.