Foundations of Logical Consequence Workshop I: Proof-Theoretic vs Model-Theoretic Semantics

12 - 13 January 2009, St Andrews

Project website: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~arche/events/event?id=190

Two approaches have dominated discussion of logical consequence in recent years, the model-theoretic and the inferentialist. The model-theoretic analysis identifies logical consequence with truth-preservation in models: every model of the premises must also be a model of the conclusion. Such models can, in Etchemendy's terminology, be either interpretational (varying the interpretation of the vocabulary) or representational (varying the "facts"). In contrast, the inferentialist analysis of consequence concentrates on the notion of proof or derivation, consisting in the application of a set of rules of inference. Rather than judge the rules as correct if they are truth-preserving over models, the inferentialist approach takes the rules as autonomous, constitutive of the meaning of at least the logical terms they contain. For example, the reason Modus Ponens (to infer B from A and 'if A then B') is a correct form of inference is not because it preserves truth; on the contrary, 'if' gains its meaning from being that expression which permits inferences of this form. The order of explanation is reversed.

The aim of the Workshop was to explore these two approaches, clarify their statement and evaluate their relative success in providing a foundation for the notion of logical consequence.

e-Records of three of the talks are available from the links below. (Peter Milne's session will be available shortly.)

Sessions

SpeakerTitle
JC Beall, University of ConnecticutRemarks on validity and truth-preservation in some non-classical truth theories
Patrick Allo, Brussels Free UniversityA Logic of Ambiguous Connectives: Discrimination vs Disagreement
Stephen Read, ArchéGeneral-elimination harmony and the meaning of the logical constants
Marcus Rossberg, University of ConnecticutOn Validity
Peter Milne, University of StirlingProspects for a Modest Inferentialism Locked
Crispin Wright, Arché and NYUInferentialism and Harmony
Ole HjortlandThe Semantic Role of Proof-Conditions
Graham Priest, University of Melbourne and ArchéIs the ternary relation depraved?