David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
History and Philosophy of Logic 31 (1):3-29 (2011)
In a series of publications beginning in the 1980s, John Etchemendy has argued that the standard semantical account of logical consequence, due in its essentials to Alfred Tarski, is fundamentally mistaken. He argues that, while Tarski's definition requires us to classify the terms of a language as logical or non-logical, no such division is guaranteed to deliver the correct extension of our pre-theoretical or intuitive consequence relation. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, Tarski's account is claimed to be incapable of explaining an essential modal/epistemological feature of consequence, namely, its necessity and apriority. Bernard Bolzano (1781-1848) is widely recognized as having anticipated Tarski's definition in his Wissenschaftslehre (or Theory of Science ) of 1837. Because of the similarities between his account and Tarski's, Etchemendy's arguments have also been extended to cover Bolzano. The purpose of this article is to consider Bolzano's theory in the light of these criticisms. We argue that, due to important differences between Bolzano's and Tarski's theories, Etchemendy's objections do not apply immediately to Bolzano's account of consequence. Moreover, Bolzano's writings contain the elements of a detailed philosophical response to Etchemendy
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
Aristotle (1941/2001). The Basic Works of Aristotle. Modern Library.
Jan Berg (1962). Bolzano's Logic. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell.
Bernard Bolzano (2001). Wissenschaftslehre. [REVIEW] Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 2:134-136.
Rudolf Carnap (1937). The Logical Syntax of Language. London, K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd..
John Etchemendy (1988). Models, Semantics and Logical Truth. Linguistics and Philosophy 11 (1):91 - 106.
Citations of this work BETA
Clinton Tolley (2012). Bolzano and Kant on the Nature of Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 33 (4):307-327.
Antje Rumberg (2013). Bolzano's Concept of Grounding (Abfolge) Against the Background of Normal Proofs. Review of Symbolic Logic 6 (3):424-459.
Similar books and articles
Manuel García-Carpintero (2003). Gómez-Torrente on Modality and Tarskian Logical Consequence. Theoria 18 (2):159-170.
Greg Ray (1996). Logical Consequence: A Defense of Tarski. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):617 - 677.
Johan Benthem (1985). The Variety of Consequence, According to Bolzano. Studia Logica 44 (4):389 - 403.
Paul B. Thompson (1981). Bolzano's Deducibility and Tarski's Logical Consequence. History and Philosophy of Logic 2 (1-2):11-20.
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.
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.
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.
Added to index2010-07-27
Total downloads77 ( #18,172 of 1,102,470 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #85,420 of 1,102,470 )
How can I increase my downloads?