Recent scholarship indicates that Quine’s “Truth by Convention” does not present the radical critiques of analytic truth found fifteen years later in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” This prompts a historical question: what caused Quine’s radicalization? I argue that two crucial components of Quine’s development can be traced to the academic year 1940–1941, when he, Russell, Carnap, Tarski, Hempel, and Goodman were all at Harvard together. First, during those meetings, Quine recognizes that Carnap has abandoned the extensional, syntactic approach to philosophical (...) analysis, an approach espoused in Carnap’s 1934 Logical Syntax of Language, and which Quine endorsed his entire career. Second, Tarski presents Quine with a philosophically well-motivated reason to think that an apparently analytic discipline, arithmetic, could be synthetic; this reflects one of the central assertions found in “Two Dogmas” but not in “Truth by Convention.” I use this account of Quine’s development to resolve a dispute between Creath and Mancosu concerning the timeline for Quine’s evolving critiques of analyticity. (shrink)

Empiricist philosophers like Carnap invoked analyticity in order to explain a priori knowledge and necessary truth. Analyticity was “truth purely in virtue of meaning”. The view had a deflationary motivation: in Carnap’s proposal, linguistic conventions alone determine the truth of analytic sentences, and thus there is no mystery in our knowing their truth a priori, or in their necessary truth; for they are, as it were, truths of our own making. Let us call this “Carnapian conventionalism”, conventionalismC and cognates for (...) short. This conventionalistC explication of the a priori has been the target of sound criticisms. Arguments like Quine’s in “Truth by Convention” are in our view decisive: the truth of conventionalismC requires that the class of logical truths and logical validities be reductively accounted for as conventionally established; however, no such reduction is forthcoming, because logic is needed to generate the entire class from any given set of conventions properly so-called. Granted that conventionalismC is untenable, we want to take issue with a different, usually made criticism. Although the argument uncovers some difficulties for the way conventionalist claims are defended by some of its advocates, we will try to show that it fails. The criticism thus stands in the way of a proper appreciation of why the Carnapian account of the a priori is not correct. We will try to illustrate this by showing that the criticism we will dispute would dispose of conventionalist claims not only regarding philosophically problematic cases – logical and mathematical truths –, but also regarding cases for which they have some prima facie plausibility. One such case is that of truths that follow from mere abbreviations, “nominal” definitions; ‘someone is a bachelor if and only if he is an unmarried adult male’ can serve at this point for illustration. We will try to articulate a clear sense in which the contents of assertion such as this can be truths by convention. We do not need to prove that a conventionalist claim is true in those cases; it is enough for us to show that it is intelligible, for the arguments we will confront question even this. (shrink)

Alfred Tarski a joué un rôle déterminant dans la déconstruction du clivage classique de l’analytique et du synthétique alors même que les ouvrages consacrés à ce chapitre de la philosophie restent, en général, relativement discrets au sujet de son rôle au profit de W. V. O. Quine. La critique de Tarski, qui s’articule dès 1930, s’organise le long de deux axes principaux. Le premier a trait à la difficulté de définir objectivement la notion de logicité ; le second, qui s’appuie (...) sur une conception holiste de la science, admet la possibilité d’une rectification des principes logiques au nom de l’expérience. Sur ce point, les objections ponctuelles de Tarski anticipent la critique plus systématique que Quine adressera à la notion de l’analyticité. L’analyse des principales étapes de la critique de Tarski révèle toutefois que sa pensée n’est pas toujours exempte de tensions internes. Alfred Tarski has played a decisive role in the refutation of the classic cleavage between analytic and synthetic truths, though the studies which deal with this chapter of philosophy generally stress the role of W. V. O. Quine in this question and omit to mention Tarski’s name. Tarski’s critique, which has been expressing itself since 1930, is developed along two main lines. The first concerns the difficulty of giving an objective definition of logical notions ; the second, based on a holistic conception of science, maintains the possibility of the refutation of logical principles by experience. In this question the selective objections of Tarski anticipate the more systematic critique of analyticity by Quine. However, the analysis of the different steps in Tarski’s critique shows that his way of thinking is not free of inner tensions. (shrink)

This paper examines from a historical perspective Tarski's 1936 essay, "On the concept of logical consequence." I focus on two main aims. The primary aim is to show how Tarski's definition of logical consequence satisfies two desiderata he himself sets forth for it: (1) it must declare logically correct certain formalizations of the -rule and (2) it must allow for variation of the individual domain in the test for logical consequence. My arguments provide a refutation of some interpreters of Tarski, (...) and notably John Etchemendy, who have claimed that his definition does not satisfy those desiderata. A secondary aim of the paper is to offer some basic elements for an understanding of Tarski's definition in the historical logico-philosophical context in which it was proposed. Such historical understanding provides useful insights on Tarski's informal ideas on logical consequence and their internal cohesion. (shrink)

Our standard model-theoretic definition of logical consequence is originally based on Alfred Tarski’s (1936) semantic definition, which, in turn, is based on Rudolf Carnap’s (1934) similar definition. In recent literature, Tarski’s definition is described as a conceptual analysis of the intuitive ‘everyday’ concept of consequence or as an explication of it, but the use of these terms is loose and largely unaccounted for. I argue that the definition is not an analysis but an explication, in the Carnapian sense: the replacement (...) of the inexact everyday concept with an exact one. Some everyday intuitions were thus brought into a precise form, others were ignored and forgotten. How exactly did the concept of logical consequence change in this process? I suggest that we could find some of the forgotten intuitions in Bernard Bolzano’s (1837) definition of ‘deducibility’, which is traditionally viewed as the main precursor of Tarski’s definition from a time before formalized languages. It turns out that Bolzano’s definition is subject to just the kind of natural features—paradoxicality of everyday language, Platonism about propositions, and dependence on the external world—that Tarski sought to tame by constructing an artificial concept for the special needs of mathematical logic. (shrink)

There have been several different and even opposed conceptions of the problem of logical constants, i.e. of the requirements that a good theory of logical constants ought to satisfy. This paper is in the first place a survey of these conceptions and a critique of the theories they have given rise to. A second aim of the paper is to sketch some ideas about what a good theory would look like. A third aim is to draw from these ideas and (...) from the preceding survey the conclusion that most conceptions of the problem of logical constants involve requirements of a philosophically demanding nature which are probably not satisfiable by any minimally adequate theory. (shrink)

This book discusses the problem of mathematical knowledge, and its broader philosophical ramifications. It argues that the problem of explaining the (defeasible) justification of our mathematical beliefs (‘the justificatory challenge’), arises insofar as disagreement over axioms bottoms out in disagreement over intuitions. And it argues that the problem of explaining their reliability (‘the reliability challenge’), arises to the extent that we could have easily had different beliefs. The book shows that mathematical facts are not, in general, empirically accessible, contra Quine, (...) and that they cannot be dispensed with, contra Field. However, it argues that they might be so plentiful that our knowledge of them is intelligible. The book concludes with a complementary ‘pluralism’ about modality, logic and normative theory, highlighting its revisionary implications. Metaphysically, pluralism engenders a kind of perspectivalism and indeterminacy. Methodologically, it vindicates Carnap’s pragmatism, transposed to the key of realism. (shrink)

In his recent book, Daniel Dennett defends a novel account of semantic information in terms of design worth getting (Dennett, 2017). While this is an interesting proposal in itself, my purpose in this commentary is to challenge several of Dennett’s claims. First, he argues that semantic information can be transferred without encoding and storing it. Second, this lack of encoding is what makes semantic information unmeasurable. However, the argument for both these claims, presented by Dennett as an intuition pump, is (...) invalid. (shrink)

During the past few decades, a radical shift has occurred in how philosophers conceive of the relation between science and philosophy. A great number of analytic philosophers have adopted what is commonly called a ‘naturalistic’ approach, arguing that their inquiries ought to be in some sense continuous with science. Where early analytic philosophers often relied on a sharp distinction between science and philosophy—the former an empirical discipline concerned with fact, the latter an a priori discipline concerned with meaning—philosophers today largely (...) follow Willard Van Orman Quine (1908-2000) in his seminal rejection of this distinction. -/- This book offers a comprehensive study of Quine’s naturalism. Building on Quine’s published corpus as well as thousands of unpublished letters, notes, lectures, papers, proposals, and annotations from the Quine archives, this book aims to reconstruct both the nature (chapters 2-4) and the development (chapter 5-7) of his naturalism. As such, this book aims to contribute to the rapidly developing historiography of analytic philosophy, and to provide a better, historically informed, understanding of what is philosophically at stake in the contemporary naturalistic turn. (shrink)

Tarski characterized logical notions as invariant under permutations of the domain. The outcome, according to Tarski, is that our logic, which is commonly said to be a logic of extension rather than intension, is not even a logic of extension—it is a logic of cardinality. In this paper, I make this idea precise. We look at a scale inspired by Ruth Barcan Marcus of various levels of meaning: extensions, intensions and hyperintensions. On this scale, the lower the level of meaning, (...) the more coarse-grained and less “intensional” it is. I propose to extend this scale to accommodate a level of meaning appropriate for logic. Thus, below the level of extension, we will have a more coarse-grained level of form. I employ a semantic conception of form, adopted from Sher, where forms are features of things “in the world”. Each expression in the language embodies a form, and by the definition we give, forms will be invariant under permutations and thus Tarskian logical notions. I then define the logical terms of a language as those terms whose extension can be determined by their form. Logicality will be shown to be a lower level analogue of rigidity. Using Barcan Marcus’s principles of explicit and implicit extensionality, we are able to characterize purely logical languages as “sub-extensional”, namely, as concerned only with form, and we thus obtain a wider perspective on both logicality and extensionality. (shrink)

Contacts of the two logicians are listed, and all Gödel's written mentions of Tarski's work are quoted. Why did Gödel almost never mention Tarski's definition of truth in his notes and papers? This puzzle of Gödel's silence, proposed by Feferman, is not merely biographical or psychological but has interesting connections to Gödel's philosophical views.No satisfactory answer is given by the three “standard” explanations: no need to repeat the work already done; Tarski's achievement was obvious to Gödel; Gödel's exceptional caution. In (...) fact, , Tarski had done the work, but Gödel almost never mentioned the achievement; , the obviousness is no explanation for the omission of Tarski's work in contexts in which an application of the definition of satisfaction was useful, and even necessary; , the point was not just caution: if Gödel had felt the need to mention the program of scientific semantics he could easily have done that in his manuscripts, or in conversations.Three ideas, detectable in Gödel's approach, can help us understand Gödel's silence: the idea of truth as the intuitive provability in the most general sense; defining it set-theoretically would contribute nothing. the idea of truth as an inexhaustible idea in the sense of Kant; “truth in general” is a category that must be applicable to all kinds of sentential expressions; also, while for Gödel language was secondary, Tarski's definition is focused on language. the idea of logic as the universal language, in Hintikka's sense, as opposed to the perception of logic as a reinterpretable calculus; hence the thesis that semantics is inexpressible. Gödel always remains a Platonist who asks a natural question: what does really happen in the realm of abstract objects? (shrink)

The construction of a systematic philosophical foundation for logic is a notoriously difficult problem. In Part One I suggest that the problem is in large part methodological, having to do with the common philosophical conception of “providing a foundation”. I offer an alternative to the common methodology which combines a strong foundational requirement with the use of non-traditional, holistic tools to achieve this result. In Part Two I delineate an outline of a foundation for logic, employing the new methodology. The (...) outline is based on an investigation of why logic requires a veridical justification, i.e., a justification which involves the world and not just the mind, and what features or aspect of the world logic is grounded in. Logic, the investigation suggests, is grounded in the formal aspect of reality, and the outline proposes an account of this aspect, the way it both constrains and enables logic, logic's role in our overall system of knowledge, the relation between logic and mathematics, the normativity of logic, the characteristic traits of logic, and error and revision in logic. (shrink)

This study looks to the work of Tarski's mentors Stanislaw Lesniewski and Tadeusz Kotarbinski, and reconsiders all of the major issues in Tarski scholarship in light of the conception of Intuitionistic Formalism developed: semantics, truth, paradox, logical consequence.

Two unpublished contributions to meetings can be found in the Alfred Tarski Papers, at the University of California, Berkeley. The meetings took place in 1965, in Chicago and London, respectively....

We provide for the first time an exact translation into English of the Polish version of Alfred Tarski's classic 1936 paper, whose title we translate as ?On the Concept of Following Logically?. We also provide in footnotes an exact translation of all respects in which the German version, used as the basis of the previously published and rather inexact English translation, differs from the Polish. Although the two versions are basically identical, to an extent that is even uncanny, we note (...) more than 400 differences. Several dozen of these are substantive differences due to revisions by Tarski to the Polish version which he did not incorporate in the German version. With respect to these revisions the Polish version should be regarded as more authoritative than the German. Hence scholars limited to an English translation should use ours. (shrink)

In the nineteenth century, philosophy was at a crossroads. While the natural and technical sciences were developing in an unprecedented fashion, philosophy seemed to be stalled. Inspired by the progress of the natural sciences, many philosophers attempted to make such progress in philosophy and make philosophy a truly scientific discipline. This effort was also reflected in the philosophy of the Lvov-Warsaw school. While its founder, Kazimierz Twardowski, following his teacher Franz Brentano, promoted psychology as a method of scientific philosophy, one (...) of his first students, Jan Łukasiewicz, was convinced that mathematical logic was such a method. To use mathematical logic as a tool, Łukasiewicz had to, however, argue convincingly that logic is an independent science and hence is not a part of psychology, i.e., arguing for anti-psychologism in logic. He initially adopted the arguments provided by Husserl, then celebrated as a proponent of anti-psychologism, and Frege’s views. When Łukasiewicz developed, however, his systems of many-valued logic, he denied almost all the principles that characterise Husserl and Frege’s anti-psychologism, i.e., the objectivity of the laws of logic, the existence of apodictic propositions, and the distinction between a priori and empirical sciences. He was, however, a proponent of anti-psychologism up to the end of his life. The aim of my paper is to introduce Łukasiewicz’s unique concept of anti-psychologism that significantly affected the views of mathematical logic in the Lvov-Warsaw School, and the views of his colleagues which helped him develop the concept. (shrink)

Tarski's 1936 paper, “On the concept of logical consequence”, is a rather philosophical, non-technical paper that leaves room for conflicting interpretations. My purpose is to review some important issues that explicitly or implicitly constitute its themes. My discussion contains four sections: terminological and conceptual preliminaries, Tarski's definition of the concept of logical consequence, Tarski's discussion of omega-incomplete theories, and concluding remarks concerning the kind of conception that Tarski's definition was intended to explicate. The third section involves subsidiary issues, such as (...) Tarski's discussion concerning the distinction between material and formal consequence and the important question ofthe criterion for distinguishing between logical and non-logical terms.§1. Preliminaries. In this paper an argument is a two-part system composed of a set of propositions P and a single proposition c. The expression ‘c is a [logical] consequence of P’ is used with the same meaning as the expression ‘c is [logically] implied by P’. The expressions ‘is a logical consequence of’ and the converse ‘implies’ are relational. Often, I shall be talking in the same sense of validity of an argument. Validity is a property of arguments; an argument with premise-set P and conclusion c is valid if and only if P implies c; i.e., c is a logical consequence of P. Notice that this notion of argument is strictly ontic; it does not involve any agent that thinks, determines or establishes that a given proposition is or is not a consequence of a given set of propositions. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to examine some passages of Tarski‘s paper ’On the concept of logical consequence’ and to show that some recent readings of those passages are wrong. John Etchemendy has claimed that in those passages Tarski gave an argument purporting to show that the notion of logical consequence defined by him (as opposed to some pretheoretic notion of logical consequence) possesses certain modal properties. Etchemendy further claims that the argument he attributes to Tarski is fallacious. Some (...) of Etchemendy’s critics have granted him that Tarski did give an argument purporting to show that the defined notion possesses certain modal properties ; but they have claimed that Tarski’s argument was not a fallacious one. I will show that both Etchemendy and his critics are wrong; in the relevant passages, Tarski did not offer (nor did he intend to offer) an argument that the defined notion of logical consequence possesses any modal properties. (shrink)

Resumo: Pedro Hispano define os sincategoremas como expressões que revelam de que maneira os sujeitos e os predicados estão de fato relacionados nas proposições, contribuindo assim para o estabelecer o que elas significam e fixar as condições de verdade e as formas lógicas correspondentes. Entre as expressões que ele julga serem sincategoremáticas, ‘não’, ‘e’, ‘ou’, ‘se’, ‘todo’ e ‘necessário’ se destacam atualmente como constantes lógicas. Todavia, opondo-se a grande parte dos lógicos contemporâneos para quem tais expressões possuem um significado fixo (...) na medida em que integram as formas lógicas das respectivas proposições, Pedro Hispano admite que seu significado pode ser modificado quando a expressões do mesmo tipo credita a capacidade de atuarem em determinados contextos como categoremas. Além disso, ao defender que as expressões ora em questão explicitam as formas lógicas das proposições mediante a articulação dos categoremas a elas associados, ele também demonstra divergir dos principais critérios de demarcação das constantes lógicas atualmente vigentes que não preveem a atribuição de tal comportamento a expressões desse tipo. Portanto, não resta dúvida de que a teoria de Pedro Hispano sobre os sincategoremas enriquece a nossa compreensão ainda insuficiente da natureza das constantes lógicas e contribui para a resolução do problema da demarcação de tais expressões.: According to Petrus Hispanus, syncategoremata are expressions that determine how subjects and predicates are actually related in propositions. They contribute to establishing what the categoremata mean and to specifying the truth conditions of the corresponding logical forms. Among the expressions Peter of Spain thinks of as syncategorematic, ‘not’, ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘if’, ‘all, and ‘necessary’ are nowadays considered to be logical operators. But unlike the contemporary logicians who argue that these expressions have fixed meanings because they belong to the logical forms of the corresponding propositions, Peter of Spain allows that their meanings can be modified, attributing to them the ability to act in certain contexts as categoremata. In addition, he argues that these expressions make explicit the logical forms through the articulation of corresponding propositions’ categoremata; thus he also diverges from the main contemporary criteria of demarcation of logical constants, which does not allow that these expressions have such behavior. Therefore, there is no doubt that Hispanus’ theory of the syncategoremata enriches our still insufficient understanding of the logical constants and contributes to the resolution of the problem of the demarcation of such expressions. (shrink)