The classical view of the relationship between necessity and apriority, defended by Leibniz and Kant, is that all necessary truths are known a priori. The classical view is now almost universally rejected, ever since Saul Kripke and Hilary Putnam discovered that there are necessary truths that are known only a posteriori. However, in recent years a new debate has emerged over the epistemology of these necessary a posteriori truths. According to one view – call it the neo-classical view – knowledge (...) of a necessary truth always depends on at least one item of a priori knowledge. According to the rival view – call it the neoempiricist view – our knowledge of necessity is sometimes broadly empirical. In this paper I present and defend an argument against the neo-empiricist view. I argue that knowledge of the necessity of a necessary truth could not be broadly empirical. (shrink)

This is an extended critical notice of Gillian Russell's book, Barriers to Entailment.

In this paper I ask what logical consequence is, and give an answer that is somewhat different from the usual ones. It isn’t clear why anyone would need a new approach to logical consequence, so I begin by explaining the work that I need the answer to do and why the standard conceptions aren’t adequate. Then I articulate a replacement view which is.