On a Definition of Logical Consequence

Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):64-71 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Bilateralists, who accept that there are two primitive speech acts, assertion and denial, can offer an attractive definition of consequence: Y follows from X if and only if it is incoherent to assert all formulas X and to deny all formulas Y. The present paper argues that this definition has consequences many will find problematic, amongst them that truth coincides with assertibility. Philosophers who reject these consequences should therefore reject this definition of consequence.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Reduction and Tarski's Definition of Logical Consequence.Jim Edwards - 2003 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 44 (1):49-62.
Did Tarski commit "Tarski's fallacy"?Gila Sher - 1996 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (2):653-686.
Did Tarski commit “Tarski's fallacy”?G. Y. Sher - 1996 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (2):653-686.
Logical Consequence.Gila Sher - 2022 - New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Material Consequence and Formal Grounding.Elena G. Dragalina-Chernaya - 2020 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 57 (2):79-95.
Tarski on Logical Consequence.Mario Gómez-Torrente - 1996 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37 (1):125-151.
Formal and informal consequence.Owen Griffiths - 2014 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 3 (1):9-20.
A conception of Tarskian logic.Gila Sher - 1989 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 70 (4):341-368.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-03-09

Downloads
600 (#45,090)

6 months
160 (#25,606)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nils Kürbis
Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Citations of this work

Supposition: no Problem for Bilateralism.Ryan Simonelli - forthcoming - Bulletin of the Section of Logic:18 pp..

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references