Advertisement

Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 617–677 | Cite as

Logical consequence: A defense of Tarski

  • Greg Ray
Article

Abstract

In his classic 1936 essay “On the Concept of Logical Consequence”, Alfred Tarski used the notion of satisfaction to give a semantic characterization of the logical properties. Tarski is generally credited with introducing the model-theoretic characterization of the logical properties familiar to us today. However, in his book, The Concept of Logical Consequence, Etchemendy argues that Tarski's account is inadequate for quite a number of reasons, and is actually incompatible with the standard model-theoretic account. Many of his criticisms are meant to apply to the model-theoretic account as well.

In this paper, I discuss the following four critical charges that Etchemendy makes against Tarski and his account of the logical properties:
  1. (1)(a)

    Tarski's account of logical consequence diverges from the standard model-theoretic account at points where the latter account gets it right.

     
  2. (b)

    Tarski's account cannot be brought into line with the model-theoretic account, because the two are fundamentally incompatible.

     
  3. (2)

    There are simple counterexamples (enumerated by Etchemendy) which show that Tarski's account is wrong.

     
  4. (3)

    Tarski committed a modal fallacy when arguing that his account captures our pre-theoretical concept of logical consequence, and so obscured an essential weakness of the account.

     
  5. (4)

    Tarski's account depends on there being a distinction between the “logical terms” and the “non-logical terms” of a language, but (according to Etchemendy) there are very simple (even first-order) languages for which no such distinction can be made. Etchemendy's critique raises historical and philosophical questions about important foundational work. However, Etchemendy is mistaken about each of these central criticisms. In the course of justifying that claim, I give a sustained explication and defense of Tarski's account. Moreover, since I will argue that Tarski's account and the model-theoretic account really do come to the same thing, my subsequent defense of Tarski's account against Etchemendy's other attacks doubles as a defense against criticisms that would apply equally to the familiar model-theoretic account of the logical properties.

     

Keywords

Logical Consequence Logical Property Logical Term Philosophical Question Critical Charge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. “History of Logic: Bolzano” In Encyclopedia of Philosophy 4. Ed. PaulEdwards. Reprint 1972 ed. New York: Macmillan, 1967, pp. 540–541.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, Jon, and John, Etchemendy. Language of First-Order Logic. CSLI Lecture Notes #23. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. Bolzano, Bernard. Wissenschaftslehre. Sulzbach: 1837. Translated as Theory of Science. Ed. & trans. RolfGeorge. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  4. Carnap, Rudolf. “Intellectual Autobiography.” In The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. Library of Living Philosophers XI. Ed. Paul, Arthur Schilpp. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1963, pp. 3–84.Google Scholar
  5. Chihara, Charles. Constructibility and Mathematical Existence. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. Chihara, Charles. “Tarski's Thesis and the Ontology of Mathematics.” Forthcoming in Philosophy of Mathematics Today. Ed. Matthias Schirn. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  7. Corcoran, John. “Conceptual Structure of Classical Logic.” Phil Phen Res 33 (1972): 25–47.Google Scholar
  8. Corcoran, John. “Meanings of Implication.” Dialogos [Puerto Rico] 9 (1973): 59–76.Google Scholar
  9. Curtis, Gary N. Review of The Concept of Logical Consequence, by John Etchemendy. Nous 28 (1994): 132–135.Google Scholar
  10. Etchemendy, John. “Doctrine of Logic as Form.” Ling Phil 6 (1983): 319–334.Google Scholar
  11. Etchemendy, John. “Models, Semantics and Logical Truth.” Ling Phil 11 (1988a): 91–106.Google Scholar
  12. Etchemendy, John. “Tarski on Truth and Logical Consequence.” J Sym Log 53 (1988b): 51–79.Google Scholar
  13. Etchemendy, John. The Concept of Logical Consequence. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. Etchemendy, John W. “Tarski, Model Theory and Logical Truth.” PhD. Stanford University, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. George, Rolf. “Enthymematic Consequence.” Am Phil Q 9 (1972): 113–116.Google Scholar
  16. Hart, W.D. Review of The Concept of Logical Consequence, by John Etchemendy. Phil Q 41 (1991): 488–493.Google Scholar
  17. Hodges, Wilfrid. “Truth in a Structure.” Proc Arist Soc 86 (1986): 135–151.Google Scholar
  18. Kneale, William, and Martha, Kneale. The Development of Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  19. McGee, Vann. “Two problems with Tarski's Theory of Consequence.” Proc Arist Soc 92 (1992): 273–292.Google Scholar
  20. McGee, Vann. “The Concept of Logical Consequence and the Concept of Logical Consequence.” San Francisco: American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division Meeting, March 1993.Google Scholar
  21. Prawitz, Dag. “Remarks on Some Approaches to the Concept of Logical Consequence.” Synthese 62 (1985): 153–172.Google Scholar
  22. Sánchez-Miguel, Manuel. “The Grounds of the Model-Theoretic Account of the Logical Propertics.” Notre Dame J. Form Log 34 (1993): 107–131.Google Scholar
  23. Shapiro, Stewart. “Logical Consequence: Models and Modality.” Forthcoming in Philosophy of Mathematics Today. Ed. Mathias Schirn. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sher, Gila. The Bounds of Logic: A Generalized Viewpoint. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  25. Sher, Gila. “Did Tarski Commit ‘Tarski's Fallacy’?” J Sym Log 61 (1996): 653–686.Google Scholar
  26. Tarski, Alfred. “Pojecie prawdy w jezykach nauk dedukcyjnych.” (1933a). Translated as “On the Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages” in (Tarski, 1983), pp. 152–278.Google Scholar
  27. Tarski, Alfred. “Einige Betrachtungen über die Begriffe ω-Widerpruchsfreiheit und der ω-Vollständigkeit.” Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 40 (1933b): 97–112. Translated as “Some Observations on the Concepts of ω-consistency and ω-completeness” in (Tarski, 1983), pp. 279–295.Google Scholar
  28. Tarski, Alfred. “O pojciu wynikania logicznego.” Prezglad Filozoficzny 39 (1936): 58–68. Translated as “On the Concept of Logical Consequence” in (Tarski, 1983), pp. 409–420.Google Scholar
  29. Tarski, Alfred. “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics.” Phil Phen Res 4 (1944): 341–375. Reprinted in Philosophy of Language. Ed. A.P. Martinich. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1985, pp. 48–71.Google Scholar
  30. Tarski, Alfred. Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. 2nd ed. Trans. Woodger, J.H. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1983.Google Scholar
  31. Tarski, Alfred. “What Are Logical Notions?” Hist Phil Log 7 (1986): 145–154.Google Scholar
  32. Tarski, Alfred. “A Philosophical Letter of Alfred Tarski.” J Phil 84 (1987): 28–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greg Ray
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations