History and Philosophy of Logic 31 (1):3-29 (2010)

Authors
Paul Rusnock
University of Ottawa
Abstract
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)
Reprint years 2011
DOI 10.1080/01445340903445063
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,577
External links

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

The Logical Syntax of Language.Rudolf Carnap - 1937 - London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co..
What Are Logical Notions?John Corcoran & Alfred Tarski - 1986 - History and Philosophy of Logic 7 (2):143-154.

View all 41 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Why Is a Valid Inference a Good Inference?Sinan Dogramaci - 2017 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 94 (1):61-96.
Bolzano and Kant on the Nature of Logic.Clinton Tolley - 2012 - History and Philosophy of Logic 33 (4):307-327.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Logical Consequence: A Defense of Tarski.Greg Ray - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):617 - 677.
Bolzano's Deducibility and Tarski's Logical Consequence.Paul B. Thompson - 1981 - History and Philosophy of Logic 2 (1-2):11-20.
On a Fallacy Attributed to Tarski.Mario Gómez-Torrente - 1998 - History and Philosophy of Logic 19 (4):227-234.
Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence.William H. Hanson - 1999 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):605-616.
What is Tarski's Common Concept of Consequence?Ignacio Jané - 2006 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 12 (1):1-42.
Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence.Jared Bates - 1999 - Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1):47-54.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-07-27

Total views
114 ( #93,174 of 2,446,650 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #456,908 of 2,446,650 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes