David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
History and Philosophy of Logic 19 (4):227-234 (1998)
The purpose of this paper is to examine some passages of Tarski?s paper ?On the concept of logical consequence? and to show that some recent readings of those passages are wrong. John Etchemendy has claimed that in those passages Tarski gave an argument purporting to show that the notion of logical consequence defined by him (as opposed to some pretheoretic notion of logical consequence) possesses certain modal properties. Etchemendy further claims that the argument he attributes to Tarski is fallacious. Some of Etchemendy?s critics have granted him that Tarski did give an argument purporting to show that the defined notion possesses certain modal properties ; but they have claimed that Tarski?s argument was not a fallacious one. I will show that both Etchemendy and his critics are wrong; in the relevant passages, Tarski did not offer (nor did he intend to offer) an argument that the defined notion of logical consequence possesses any modal properties
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Matthew W. McKeon (2010). The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Pub..
Mario Gómez-torrente (1998). Logical Truth and Tarskian Logical Truth. Synthese 117 (3):375-408.
Paul Rusnock & Mark Burke (2011). Etchemendy and Bolzano on Logical Consequence. History and Philosophy of Logic 31 (1):3-29.
William H. Hanson (1999). Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):605-616.
Manuel García-Carpintero (2003). Gómez-Torrente on Modality and Tarskian Logical Consequence. Theoria 18 (2):159-170.
Jared Bates (2000). Comments on Foster's 'On Tarski's Theory of Logical Consequence--A Reply to Bates'. Southwest Philosophy Review 16 (2):191-194.
Ignacio Jané (2006). What is Tarski's Common Concept of Consequence? Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 12 (1):1-42.
Jared Bates (1999). Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence. Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1):47-54.
Greg Ray (1996). Logical Consequence: A Defense of Tarski. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):617 - 677.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads15 ( #88,959 of 1,014,525 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,366 of 1,014,525 )
How can I increase my downloads?