Journal of Philosophical Logic 43 (5):943-964 (2014)

Gil Sagi
University of Haifa
This paper deals with the adequacy of the model-theoretic definition of logical consequence. Logical consequence is commonly described as a necessary relation that can be determined by the form of the sentences involved. In this paper, necessity is assumed to be a metaphysical notion, and formality is viewed as a means to avoid dealing with complex metaphysical questions in logical investigations. Logical terms are an essential part of the form of sentences and thus have a crucial role in determining logical consequence. Gila Sher and Stewart Shapiro each propose a formal criterion for logical terms within a model-theoretic framework, based on the idea of invariance under isomorphism. The two criteria are formally equivalent, and thus we have a common ground for evaluating and comparing Sher and Shapiro philosophical justification of their criteria. It is argued that Shapiro's blended approach, by which models represent possible worlds under interpretations of the language, is preferable to Sher’s formal-structural view, according to which models represent formal structures. The advantages and disadvantages of both views’ reliance on isomorphism are discussed
Keywords Logical consequence  Logical terms  Formality  Invariance  Isomorphism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10992-013-9303-5
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: 71,316
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

Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics.Alfred Tarski - 1956 - Oxford, Clarendon Press.
The Concept of Logical Consequence.John Etchemendy - 1990 - Harvard University Press.
What Are Logical Notions?Alfred Tarski - 1986 - History and Philosophy of Logic 7 (2):143-154.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Logical Consequence.J. C. Beall, Greg Restall & Gil Sagi - 2019 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Logicality and Meaning.Gil Sagi - 2018 - Review of Symbolic Logic 11 (1):133-159.
Logical Truth.Mario Gomez-Torrente - 2014 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Extensionality and Logicality.Gil Sagi - 2017 - Synthese (Suppl 5):1-25.
On the (in)Significance of Hume’s Law.Samuele Chilovi & Daniel Wodak - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179 (2):633-653.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence.William H. Hanson - 1999 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):605-616.
Deflating Logical Consequence.Lionel Shapiro - 2011 - Philosophical Quarterly 61 (243):320-342.
Logical Consequence: A Defense of Tarski.Greg Ray - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):617 - 677.
Problems for Logical Pluralism.Owen Griffiths - 2013 - History and Philosophy of Logic 34 (2):170 - 182.
Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence.Jared Bates - 1999 - Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1):47-54.
Logicality and Invariance.Denis Bonnay - 2006 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14 (1):29-68.
Logical Pluralism and the Preservation of Warrant.Greg Restall - 2004 - In S. Rahman (ed.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 163--173.


Added to PP index

Total views
146 ( #81,333 of 2,519,442 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #407,861 of 2,519,442 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes