Abstract

The pre-theoretic, intuitive notion of Logical Consequence is at the heart of logic, and many authors have attempted to make it into a mathematically tractable object. The received view is Tarski (1956)’s model-theoretic explication, which however found a fierce critic in Etchemendy (1983, 1990, 2008). In turn, Sagi (2014) argues that the strongest attack on Etchemendy has been advanced by Shapiro (1998). In this essay, I first outline the views of Tarski, Etchemendy, and Shapiro in three respective sections. I then argue that most of Etchemendy’s criticism of Tarski can also be raised against Shapiro’s criticism of Etchemendy, thus invaliding Shapiro’s attack. This means the model-theoretic explication of Logical Consequence is still in danger—a concern of the uttermost seriousness, given how widely the explication has been leveraged.