Evaluating Etchemendy's Critiques of Tarski’s Analysis of Logical Consequence
According to Tarski's model-theoretic analysis of logical consequence, the sentence X is a logical consequence of a set of sentences Γ if and only if any model for Γ is also a model for X. Etchemendy, however, does not accept the analysis and critiques it. According to Etchemendy, Tarski’s anal...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Tabriz, Faculty of Literature and Forigen Languages
2022-04-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Philosophical Investigations |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_13524_7fdfe369c6b79c1ff109f0f12bde7dc9.pdf |
| Summary: | According to Tarski's model-theoretic analysis of logical consequence, the sentence X is a logical consequence of a set of sentences Γ if and only if any model for Γ is also a model for X. Etchemendy, however, does not accept the analysis and critiques it. According to Etchemendy, Tarski’s analysis 1- involves a conceptual mistake: confusing the symptoms of logical consequence with their cause; 2- cannot properly explain the necessity of logical consequence; 3- faces the problem of overgeneration; and 4- faces the problem of undergeneration. In the present article, by evaluating these critiques and examining the effectiveness of some of the answers presented in defense of Tarski's analysis, we try to show that among these critiques, only the problem of undergeneration is not acceptable. According to our common sense understanding, if an argument is valid, it is truth-preserving, and by assuming the truth of the premises, the conclusion will be true as well. But it does not mean that we can reduce the logical consequence relation to truth preservation. This flaw leads Tarski’s analysis to be an unacceptable analysis of logical consequence. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2251-7960 2423-4419 |