Etchemendy's critique shows that Tarskian logical consequence already conflates model-theoretic stipulation with genuine necessity, undermining the authority of any formal structural reading.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Conflates(in argumentation and logic): Treats two different things as if they're the same thing, or mixes them up in a way that causes confusion.
Etchemendy(as a philosopher critiqued in this statement): John Etchemendy is a philosopher who studied logic and mathematics. He's known for pointing out problems with how other philosophers, particularly Tarski, explained logical consequence.
Formal structural reading(as the kind of reading Etchemendy thinks loses authority): An interpretation or explanation of logic that focuses only on the abstract pattern and structure of statements, rather than what they actually mean in the real world.
Genuine necessity(in metaphysics and philosophy of language): Real, substantive reasons something must be true, rather than just appearing necessary because of how we happen to define or think about words.

Based on where you are in your exploration