Reduction and Tarski's Definition of Logical Consequence

In his classic 1936 paper Tarski sought to motivate his definition of logical consequence by appeal to the inference form: P(0), P(1), . . ., P(n), . . . therefore ∀nP(n). This is prima facie puzzling because these inferences are seemingly first-order and Tarski knew that Gödel had shown first-order proof methods to be complete, and because ∀nP(n) is not a logical consequence of P(0), P(1), . . ., P(n), . . . by Taski's proposed definition. An attempt to resolve the puzzle due to Etchemendy is considered and rejected. A second attempt due to Gómez-Torrente is accepted as far as it goes, but it is argued that it raises a further puzzle of its own: it takes the plausibility of Tarski's claim that his definition captures our common concept of logical consequence to depend upon our common concept being a reductive conception. A further interpretation of what Tarski had in mind when he offered the example is proposed, using materials well known to Tarski at the time. It is argued that this interpretation makes the motivating example independent of reductive definitions which take natural numbers to be higher-order set theoretic entities, and it also explains why he did not regard the distinction between defined and primitive terms as pressing, as was the distinction between logical and nonlogical terms
Keywords Tarski   logical consequence   reduction
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1305/ndjfl/1082637614
 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
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 25,662
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Rereading Tarski on Logical Consequence.Mario Gómez-Torrente - 2009 - Review of Symbolic Logic 2 (2):249-297.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence.Jared Bates - 1999 - Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1):47-54.
What is Tarski's Common Concept of Consequence?Ignacio Jané - 2006 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 12 (1):1-42.
Etchemendy and Bolzano on Logical Consequence.Paul Rusnock & Mark Burke - 2010 - History and Philosophy of Logic 31 (1):3-29.
Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence.William H. Hanson - 1999 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):605-616.
Theoremhood and Logical Consequence.Ignacio Jane - 1997 - Theoria 12 (1):139-160.
Logical Consequence: A Defense of Tarski.Greg Ray - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):617 - 677.
On a Fallacy Attributed to Tarski.Mario Gómez-Torrente - 1998 - History and Philosophy of Logic 19 (4):227-234.
Bolzano's Deducibility and Tarski's Logical Consequence.Paul B. Thompson - 1981 - History and Philosophy of Logic 2 (1-2):11-20.
Was Tarski's Theory of Truth Motivated by Physicalism?Greg Frost-Arnold - 2004 - History and Philosophy of Logic 25 (4):265-280.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

26 ( #188,288 of 2,143,766 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #280,273 of 2,143,766 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums