Ideas from 'The Concept of Logical Consequence' by John Etchemendy [1999], by Theme Structure

[found in 'The Concept of Logical Consequence' by Etchemendy,John [CSLI 1999,1-57586-194-1]].

green numbers give full details    |     back to texts     |     unexpand these ideas


5. Theory of Logic / B. Logical Consequence / 1. Logical Consequence
Etchemendy says fix the situation and vary the interpretation, or fix interpretations with varying situations
                        Full Idea: In Etchemendy's Interpretational Semantics (perhaps better called 'Substitutional') we keep the situation fixed and vary the interpretation; in Representational Semantics ('Modal'?) we keep interpretations fixed but consider varying situations.
                        From: report of John Etchemendy (The Concept of Logical Consequence [1999]) by Stephen Read - Formal and Material Consequence 'Inval'
                        A reaction: [compressed] These are semantic strategies for interpreting logic, so they are two ways you might go about assessing an argument.
Validity is where either the situation or the interpretation blocks true premises and false conclusion
                        Full Idea: The Representational account of validity says an argument is valid if there is no situation where the premises are true and the conclusion false. The Interpretation account says the premises are true and conclusion false under no interpretations.
                        From: report of John Etchemendy (The Concept of Logical Consequence [1999]) by Stephen Read - Formal and Material Consequence 'Inval'
                        A reaction: My immediate instinct is to want logic to be about situations, rather than interpretations. Situations are more about thought, where interpretations are more about language. I think our account of logic should have some applicability to animals.