The Absence of Multiple Universes of Discourse in the 1936 Tarski Consequence-Definition Paper
History and Philosophy of Logic 32 (4):359 - 374 (2011)
| Abstract | This paper discusses the history of the confusion and controversies over whether the definition of consequence presented in the 11-page 1936 Tarski consequence-definition paper is based on a monistic fixed-universe framework?like Begriffsschrift and Principia Mathematica. Monistic fixed-universe frameworks, common in pre-WWII logic, keep the range of the individual variables fixed as ?the class of all individuals?. The contrary alternative is that the definition is predicated on a pluralistic multiple-universe framework?like the 1931 Gödel incompleteness paper. A pluralistic multiple-universe framework recognizes multiple universes of discourse serving as different ranges of the individual variables in different interpretations?as in post-WWII model theory. In the early 1960s, many logicians?mistakenly, as we show?held the ?contrary alternative? that Tarski 1936 had already adopted a Gödel-type, pluralistic, multiple-universe framework. We explain that Tarski had not yet shifted out of the monistic, Frege?Russell, fixed-universe paradigm. We further argue that between his Principia-influenced pre-WWII Warsaw period and his model-theoretic post-WWII Berkeley period, Tarski's philosophy underwent many other radical changes | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
  |
| External links |
|
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesIgnacio Jané (2006). What is Tarski's Common Concept of Consequence? Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 12 (1):1-42.
Timothy Bays (2001). On Tarski on Models. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (4):1701-1726.
Jose M. Saguillo (1999). Domains of Sciences, Universes of Discourse and Omega Arguments. History and Philosophy of Logic 20 (3-4):267-290.
Jared Bates (1999). Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence. Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1):47-54.
Rafał Gruszczyński & Andrzej Pietruszczak (2008). Full Development of Tarski's Geometry of Solids. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14 (4):481-540.
Mario Gómez-Torrente (2000). A Note on Formality and Logical Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (5):529-539.
Greg Ray (1996). Logical Consequence: A Defense of Tarski. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):617 - 677.
Dirk Greimann (1997). Die Idee Hinter Tarskis Definition Von Wahrheit. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 28 (1):121-158.
Neil Manson (2003). Fine-Tuning, Multiple Universes, and the 'This Universe' Objection. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):67 - 83.
Matthew W. McKeon (2010). The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Pub..
Paul Rusnock & Mark Burke (2011). Etchemendy and Bolzano on Logical Consequence. History and Philosophy of Logic 31 (1):3-29.
Kevin Kinghorn (2005). Multiple Universes and the Surprisingness of Life: A Response to Roger White's Conclusions on Design Arguments. Philosophia Christi 7 (2):483 - 490.
Jose Saguillo (2009). Methodological Practice and Complementary Concepts of Logical Consequence: Tarski's Model-Theoretic Consequence and Corcoran's Information-Theoretic Consequence. History and Philosophy of Logic 30 (1):21-48.
Paul Draper, Kai Draper & Joel Pust (2007). Probabilistic Arguments for Multiple Universes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (3):288–307.
Greg Frost-Arnold (2004). Was Tarski's Theory of Truth Motivated by Physicalism? History and Philosophy of Logic 25 (4):265-280.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-09-10Total downloads36 ( #33,011 of 549,088 )Recent downloads (6 months)20 ( #2,820 of 549,088 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
