Abstract
Logic is formal in the sense that all arguments of the same form as logically valid arguments are also logically valid and hence truth-preserving. However, it is not known whether all arguments that are valid in the usual model-theoretic sense are truth-preserving. Tarski claimed that it could be proved that all arguments that are valid (in the sense of validity he contemplated in his 1936 paper on logical consequence) are truth-preserving. But he did not offer the proof. The question arises whether the usual model-theoretic sense of validity and Tarski's 1936 sense are the same. I argue in this paper that they probably are not, and that the proof Tarski had in mind, although unusable to prove that model-theoretically valid arguments are truth-preserving, can be used to prove that arguments valid in Tarski's 1936 sense are truth-preserving.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Corcoran, J. (1972): Conceptual structure of classical logic, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 33, 25-47.
Etchemendy, J. (1990): The Concept of Logical Consequence, Harvard U.P., Cambridge, MA.
García-Carpintero, M. (1993): The grounds for the model-theoretic account of the logical properties, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 34, 107-131.
Gómez-Torrente, M. (1996a): Tarski on logical consequence, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37, 125-151.
Gómez-Torrente, M. (1996b): Tarski's Definition of Logical Consequence. Historical and Philosophical Aspects, Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Gómez-Torrente, M. (1998): On a fallacy attributed to Tarski, History and Philosophy of Logic 19, 227-234.
Gómez-Torrente, M. (1998/1999): Logical truth and Tarskian logical truth, Synthese 117, 375-408.
Hanson, W. H. (1997): The concept of logical consequence, Philosophical Review 106, 365-409.
Hanson, W. H. (1999): Ray on Tarski on logical consequence, Journal of Philosophical Logic 28, 607-618.
Hodges, W. (1985/1986): Truth in a structure, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, n.s. 86, 135-151.
Kreisel, G. (1967): Informal rigour and completeness proofs, in I. Lakatos (ed.), Problems in the Philosophy of Mathematics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 138-171.
McGee, V. (1992): Two problems with Tarski's theory of consequence, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, n.s. 92, 273-292.
Ray, G. (1996): Logical consequence: a defense of Tarski, Journal of Philosophical Logic 25, 617-677.
Sher, G. (1991): The Bounds of Logic, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sher, G. (1996): Did Tarski commit 'Tarski's Fallacy'?, Journal of Symbolic Logic 61, 653-686.
Soames, S. (1999): Understanding Truth, Oxford U.P., New York.
Tarski, A. (1935): The concept of truth in formalized languages, in Tarski (1983), pp. 152-278. A translation of Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen, Studia Philosophica 1, 261-405.
Tarski, A. (1936): On the concept of logical consequence, in Tarski (1983), pp. 409-420. A translation of Ñber den Begriff der logischen Folgerung, Actes du Congrès International de Philosophie Scientifique 7 (Actualités Scientifiques et Industrielles, vol. 394), Hermann et Cie, Paris, pp. 1-11.
Tarski, A. (1937): Sur la méthode déductive, in Travaux du IX e Congrès International de Philosophie, tome 6 (Actualités Scientifiques et Industrielles, vol. 535), Hermann et Cie, Paris, pp. 95-103.
Tarski, A. 1983: Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, second edition, Hackett, Indianapolis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gómez-Torrente, M. A Note on Formality and Logical Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29, 529–539 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026510905204
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026510905204