Comments on Foster's 'On Tarski's theory of logical consequence--a reply to Bates'

Southwest Philosophy Review 16 (2):191-194 (2000)
Abstract
In the present commentary, I argue that Foster has attacked an uncharitable reconstruction of Etchemendy's argument against Tarski's account of the logical properties. I provide an alternative, more charitable reconstruction of that argument that withstands Foster's objections.
Keywords logical consequence  Tarski  Etchemendy
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,337
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Greg Ray (1996). Logical Consequence: A Defense of Tarski. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):617 - 677.
Mario Gómez-Torrente (1998). On a Fallacy Attributed to Tarski. History and Philosophy of Logic 19 (4):227-234.
William H. Hanson (1999). Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):605-616.
Timothy Bays (2001). On Tarski on Models. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (4):1701-1726.
Chris Foster (2000). On Tarski's Theory of Logical Consequence. Southwest Philosophy Review 16 (1):125-132.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-07-26

Total downloads

15 ( #103,892 of 1,096,612 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

4 ( #71,259 of 1,096,612 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.