A hallmark of correspondence theories of truth is the principle that sentences are made true by some truth-makers. A well-known objection to treating Tarski’s definition of truth as a correspondence theory has been put forward by Donald Davidson. He argued that Tarski’s approach does not relate sentences to any entities (like facts) to which true sentences might correspond. From the historical viewpoint, it is interesting to observe that Tarski’s philosophical teacher Tadeusz Kotarbinski advocated (...) an ontological doctrine of reism which accepted only concrete individuals and rejected all such abstract entities as facts, states of affairs, properties, and sets. Kotarbinski’s physicalism influenced Tarski who also avoided concepts like “fact” and “property” in his theory of truth, but—unlike Kotarbinski—he used freely set-theoretical terminology. In his mature work in model theory in the 1950s, Tarski used systematically the notion of a relational system (i.e., a domain of objects with designated elements, subsets, and relations). Wilfrid Hodges has argued that the notions of “structure” and “truth in a structure” appeared in Tarski’s work only in 1950. In my view, one can find the main ingredients of the model-theoretic account of truth already in the 1930s. These considerations suggest, against Davidson, that Tarski’s definition presupposes that material truth is always related to some kind of truth-maker. Further, facts as truth-makers can be reconstructed by employing the resources of model theory. (shrink)

Until Tarski’s semantic truth definition, the concept of truth was used informally in metalogic (metamathematics) or even proposed to be eliminated in favour of syntactic concepts, as in Rudolf Carnap’s early programme of philosophy via logical syntax. Tarski demonstrated that the concept of truth can be defined using precise mathematical devices. If L is a language for which the truth definition is given, it must be done in the metalanguage ML. According to this (...) construction, semantics for L must be performed in ML. The most important example concerns the arithmetic of natural numbers. According to Tarski’s theorem of undefinability, the set of truths of this theory cannot be defined in it – such a definition can be formulated in the metatheory. This fact illuminates the relation between syntax and semantics. If Th is a rich theory and presented as a syntactic theory (a calculus), its semantics is not reducible to its syntax. According to Tarski’s view, related to his work in the simple theory of types, semantics for L can be always constructed in the morphology of ML, provided that L is of the finite order. Two problems arise: what does the word “morphology” mean and how to formulate these ideas, when the framework is based on the distinction between first‑order logic and higher‑order logic. As far as the issue concerns morphology, it is possible to consider it as an extended syntax, i.e. vocabulary which does not refer to semantic concepts or defines such notions by not‑semantic, e.g. set‑theoretical, categories. If the hierarchy of logical types is replaced by the distinction of logics of various orders, in particular between first‑order and higher‑order (it is sufficient to use second‑order), it is possible to show that semantics of first‑order rich theories cannot be defined inside them. (shrink)

Tarski's manner of defining truth is generally considered highly significant. About why, there is less consensus. I argue first, that in his truth-definitions Tarski was trying to solve a set of philosophical problems; second, that he solved them successfully; third, that all of these that are simply problems about defining truth are as well or better solved by a simpler account of truth. But one of his crucial problems remains: to give an account of validity, one (...) requires an account not just of truth but of truth under varying interpretations. Tarski's account has the merit of generalizing to this, to model theory and to abstract algebra. (shrink)

This is a collection of eighteen solicited papers on the topics of the title: circularity, definition, and truth. The papers are loosely connected in subject matter, but present a great variety of issues, theories, and approaches. Amongst the many subjects discussed are: the revision theory of truth and applications of revision rules, partiality and fixed point constructions, substitutional quantification, fuzzy logic, negation, belief revision, context dependence, hierarchies, Tarski on truth, deflationism, correspondence theories of truth, and (...) normative aspects of truth. The Liar paradox figures prominently in this collection, but is not alone. Other familiar paradoxes are also discussed, including paradoxes of definability, the Sorites paradox, and the Surprise Exam paradox. So-called paradoxes of rationality, such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, receive attention as well. (shrink)

The paper is divided into the following sections: In the first section a short historical survey is given which presents precursors of both Tarski’s truth-condition and Tarski’s truth definition . Secondly some purported objections against Tarski’s truth condition are stated and two important presuppositions of Tarski’s truth condition are analyzed. Thirdly TTC is enlarged in different ways as to incorporate the preconditions explicitly. Finally in the fourth section it will be shown (...) how the revised T-conditions solve different versions of the Liar. All of these topics are discussed in much more detail in my forthcoming book, Chapter 7. (shrink)

Alfred Tarski's work on truth has become a touchstone for a great deal of philosophical work on truth. A good grasp of it is critical for understanding the contemporary literature on truth and semantics. In this paper, I present a fresh interpretation of Tarski's view, one which aims to draw it out more fully in areas of philosophical interest.

Tarski's model-theoretic truth definition of the 1950s differs from his 1930s truth definition by allowing the language to have a set of parameters that are interpreted by means of structures. The paper traces how the model-theoretic theorems that Tarski and others were proving in the period between these two truth definitions became increasingly difficult to fit into the framework of the earlier truth definition, making the later one more or less inevitable. The paper (...) also maintains that neither recursiveness nor satisfaction are essential features of the truth definition . The recursive form was a ‘practical’ step towards the explicit definition that was Tarski's target. There are model-theoretic languages for which satisfaction is provably too crude a notion for expressing those properties of formulas that are needed for determining the truth of sentences. (shrink)

In his seminal work “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages”, Alfred Tarski showed how to construct a formally correct and materially adequate definition of true sentence for certain formalized languages. These results have, eventually, been accepted and applauded by philosophers and logicians nearly in unison. Its Postscript, written two years later, however, has given rise to a considerable amount of controversy. There is an ongoing debate on what Tarski really said in the postscript. These discussions often regard (...) Tarski as putatively changing his logical framework from type theory to set theory. In what follows, we will compare the original results with those presented two years later. After a brief outline of Carnap’s program in The Logical Syntax of Language we will determine its significance for Tarski’s final results. (shrink)

We discuss misinformation about “the liar antinomy” with special reference to Tarski’s 1933 truth-definition paper [1]. Lies are speech-acts, not merely sentences or propositions. Roughly, lies are statements of propositions not believed by their speakers. Speakers who state their false beliefs are often not lying. And speakers who state true propositions that they don’t believe are often lying—regardless of whether the non-belief is disbelief. Persons who state propositions on which they have no opinion are lying as much (...) as those who state propositions they believe to be false. Not all lies are statements of false propositions—some lies are true; some have no truth-value. People who only occasionally lie are not liars: roughly, liars repeatedly and habitually lie. Some half-truths are statements intended to mislead even though the speakers “interpret” the sentences used as expressing true propositions. Others are statements of propositions believed by the speakers to be questionable but without revealing their supposed problematic nature. The two “formulations” of “the antinomy of the liar” in [1], pp.157–8 and 161–2, have nothing to do with lying or liars. The first focuses on an “expression” Tarski calls ‘c’, namely the following. -/- c is not a true sentence -/- The second focuses on another “expression”, also called ‘c’, namely the following. -/- for all p, if c is identical with the sentence ‘p’, then not p -/- Without argumentation or even discussion, Tarski implies that these strange “expressions” are English sentences. [1] Alfred Tarski, The concept of truth in formalized languages, pp. 152–278, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, papers from 1923 to 1938, ed. John Corcoran, Hackett, Indianapolis 1983. -/- https://www.academia.edu/12525833/Sentence_Proposition_Judgment_Statement_and_Fact_Speaking_about_th e_Written_English_Used_in_Logic. (shrink)

Many of Tarski’s better known papers are either about or include lengthy discussions of how to properly define various concepts: truth, logical consequence, semantic concepts, or definability. In general, these papers identify two primary conditions for successful definitions: formal correctness and material adequacy. Material adequacy requires that the concept expressed by the formal definition capture the intuitive content of truth. Our primary interest in this paper is to better understand Tarski’s thinking about material adequacy, and (...) whether components of his view developed over time. More precisely, we are concerned with how Tarski’s understanding of the content of the common-sense, every-day usage of truth may have developed over time. We distinguish this concern from the character of the extensional criterion of adequacy Tarski proposes: that a materially adequate definition must entail all instances of Convention T. We will develop our reading of Tarski as follows: first, we will review the “Polemical Remarks,” focusing primarily on §§14 and 17, and Tarski’s references to Naess’ empirical research. Next, we will provide a summary and discussion of Naess’ work, especially his findings with respect to Tarski’s definition of truth and his research that suggests there is no single common or everyday concept of truth. Third, we will consider several possible objections to our interpretation of the Tarski–Naess dialectic. We will conclude that Tarski’s conception of material adequacy developed over time, potentially because of what he had learned through his interactions with Naess. (shrink)

Tarski’s Convention T—presenting his notion of adequate definition of truth (sic)—contains two conditions: alpha and beta. Alpha requires that all instances of a certain T Schema be provable. Beta requires in effect the provability of ‘every truth is a sentence’. Beta formally recognizes the fact, repeatedly emphasized by Tarski, that sentences (devoid of free variable occurrences)—as opposed to pre-sentences (having free occurrences of variables)—exhaust the range of significance of is true. In Tarski’s preferred usage, it (...) is part of the meaning of true that attribution of being true to a given thing presupposes the thing is a sentence. Beta’s importance is further highlighted by the fact that alpha can be satisfied using the recursively definable concept of being satisfied by every infinite sequence, which Tarski explicitly rejects. Moreover, in Definition 23, the famous truth-definition, Tarski supplements “being satisfied by every infinite sequence” by adding the condition “being a sentence”. Even where truth is undefinable and treated by Tarski axiomatically, he adds as an explicit axiom a sentence to the effect that every truth is a sentence. Surprisingly, the sentence just before the presentation of Convention T seems to imply that alpha alone might be sufficient. Even more surprising is the sentence just after Convention T saying beta “is not essential”. Why include a condition if it is not essential? Tarski says nothing about this dissonance. Considering the broader context, the Polish original, the German translation from which the English was derived, and other sources, we attempt to determine what Tarski might have intended by the two troubling sentences which, as they stand, are contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of several other passages in Tarski’s corpus. (shrink)

We introduce a notion of semantical closure for theories by formalizing Nepeivoda notion of truth. [10]. Tarski theorem on truth definitions is discussed in the light of Kleene's three valued logic (here treated with a formal reinterpretation of logical constants). Connections with Definability Theory are also established.

The Idea behind Tarski's Definition of Truth. In Tarski's presentations of his truth-definition, the steps of the construction are not sufficiently explained. It is not clear, on what general strategy the construction is based, what the fundamental ideas are, how some crucial steps work, and especially how the transition from the definition of satisfaction to the definition of truth should be understood. The paper shows that the account given in the model-theoretic literature, which (...) is supported by Tarski's lemmata A and B, is unsatisfactory, because Tarski's notion of truth can't be interpreted as ‘truth independent of the assignment of values to the variables’. Moreover, a satisfactory account of all the crucial steps is given. (shrink)

The paper discusses the notion of finite model truth definitions (or FM-truth definitions), introduced by M. Mostowski as a finite model analogue of Tarski's classical notion of truth definition. We compare FM-truth definitions with Vardi's concept of the combined complexity of logics, noting an important difference: the difficulty of defining FM-truth for a logic ᵍ does not depend on the syntax of L, as long as it is decidable. It follows that for a natural (...) ᵍ there exist FM-truth definitions whose evaluation is much easier than the combined complexiy of ᵍ would suggest. We apply the general theory to give a complexity-theoretical characterization of the logics for which the $\Sigma_{m}^{d}$ classes (prenex classes of higher order logics) define FM-truth. For any $d \geq 2.m \geq 1$ we construct a family $\{[\Sigma_{m}^{d}]^{\leg\kappa}\}\kappa\in\omega$ of syntactically defined fragments of $\Sigma_{m}^{d}$ which satisfy this characterization. We also use the $[\Sigma_{m}^{d}]\leg\kappa$ classes to give a refinement of known results on the complexity classes captured by $\Sigma_{m}^{d}$ . We close with a few simple corollaries, one of which gives a sufficient condition for the existence, given a vocabulary $\sigma$ , of a fixed number $\kappa$ such that model checking for all first order sentences over $\sigma$ can be done in deterministic time $n^{\kappa}$. (shrink)

John Etchemendy has argued that it is but "a fortuitous accident" that Tarski's work on truth has any signifance at all for semantics. I argue, in response, that Etchemendy and others, such as Scott Soames and Hilary Putnam, have been misled by Tarski's emphasis on definitions of truth rather than theories of truth and that, once we appreciate how Tarski understood the relation between these, we can answer Etchemendy's implicit and explicit criticisms of neo-Davidsonian semantics.

In his famous paper Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen (Polish edition: Nakładem/Prace Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, wydzial, III, 1933), Alfred Tarski constructs a materially adequate and formally correct definition of the term “true sentence” for certain kinds of formalised languages. In the case of other formalised languages, he shows that such a construction is impossible but that the term “true sentence” can nevertheless be consistently postulated. In the Postscript that Tarski added to a later version of this paper (Studia (...) Philosophica, 1, 1935), he does not explicitly include limits for the kinds of language for which such a construction is possible. This absence of such limits has been interpreted as an implied claim that such a definition of the term “true sentence” can be constructed for every language. This has far-reaching consequences, not least for the widely held belief that Tarski changed from an universalistic to an anti-universalistic standpoint. We will claim that the consequence of anti-universalism is unwarranted, given that it can be argued that the Postscript is not in conflict with the existence of limits outside of which a definition of “true sentence” cannot be constructed. Moreover, by a discussion of transfinite type theory, we will also be able to accommodate other of the changes made in Tarski’s Postscript within a type-theoretical framework. The awareness of transfinite type theory afforded by this discussion will lead, in turn, to an account of Tarski’s Postscript that shows a gradual change in his logical work, rather than any of the more radical transitions which the Postscript has been claimed to reflect. (shrink)

It is well known that Tarski proved a result which can be stated roughly as: no sufficiently rich, consistent, classical language can contain its own truth definition. Tarski's way around this problem is to deal with two languages at a time, an object language for which we are defining truth and a metalanguage in which the definition occurs. An obvious question then is: under what conditions can we construct a definition of truth for a (...) given object language. Tarski claims that it is necessary and sufficient that the metalanguage be "essentially richer". Our contention, put bluntly, is that this claim deserves more scrutiny from philosophers than it usually gets and in fact is false unless "essentially richer" means nothing else than "sufficient to contain a truth definition for the object language.". (shrink)

In the early 20th century, scepticism was common among philosophers about the very meaningfulness of the notion of truth – and of the related notions of denotation, definition etc. (i.e., what Tarski called semantical concepts). Awareness was growing of the various logical paradoxes and anomalies arising from these concepts. In addition, more philosophical reasons were being given for this aversion.1 The atmosphere changed dramatically with Alfred Tarski’s path-breaking contribution. What Tarski did was to show that, assuming that (...) the syntax of the object language is specified exactly enough, and that the metatheory has a certain amount of set theoretic power,2 one can explicitly define truth in the object language. And what can be explicitly defined can be eliminated. It follows that the defined concept cannot give rise to any inconsistencies (that is, paradoxes). This gave new respectability to the concept of truth and related notions. Nevertheless, philosophers’ judgements on the nature and philosophical relevance of Tarski’s work have varied. It is my aim here to review and evaluate some threads in this debate. (shrink)

This paper describes Tarski’s project of rehabilitating the notion of truth, previously considered dubious by many philosophers. The project was realized by providing a formal truth definition, which does not employ any problematic concept.

In this paper the authors argue that if Tarski’s definition of truth for the calculus of classes is correct, then set theories which assert the existence of proper classes (classes which are not the member of anything) are incorrect.

Hilary Putnam's famous arguments criticizing Tarski's theory of truth are evaluated. It is argued that they do not succeed to undermine Tarski's approach. One of the arguments is based on the problematic idea of a false instance of T-schema. The other ignores various issues essential for Tarski's setting such as language-relativity of truth definition.

The larger part of Yearbook 6 of the Institute Vienna Circle constitutes the proceedings of a symposium on Alfred Tarski and his influence on and interchanges with the Vienna Circle, especially those on and with Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel. It is the first time that this topic has been treated on such a scale and in such depth. Attention is mainly paid to the origins, development and subsequent role of Tarski's definition of truth. Some contributions are primarily (...) historical, others analyze logical aspects of the concept of truth. Contributors include Anita and Saul Feferman, Jan Wolenski, Jan Tarski and Hans Sluga. Several Polish logicians contributed: Gzegorczyk, Wójcicki, Murawski and Rojszczak. The volume presents entirely new biographical material on Tarski, both from his Polish period and on his influential career in the United States: at Harvard, in Princeton, at Hunter, and at the University of California at Berkeley. The high point of the analysis involves Tarski's influence on Carnap's evolution from a narrow syntactical view of language, to the ontologically more sophisticated but more controversial semantical view. Another highlight involves the interchange between Tarski and Gödel on the connection between truth and proof and on the nature of metalanguages. The concluding part of Yearbook 6 includes documentation, book reviews and a summary of current activities of the Institute Vienna Circle. Jan Tarski introduces letters written by his father to Gödel; Paolo Parrini reports on the Vienna Circle's influence in Italy; several reviews cover recent books on logical empiricism, on Gödel, on cosmology, on holistic approaches in Germany, and on Mauthner. (shrink)

In this manuscript, published here for the first time, Tarski explores the concept of logical notion. He draws on Klein's Erlanger Programm to locate the logical notions of ordinary geometry as those invariant under all transformations of space. Generalizing, he explicates the concept of logical notion of an arbitrary discipline.

The larger part of Yearbook 6 of the Institute Vienna Circle constitutes the proceedings of a symposium on Alfred Tarski and his influence on and interchanges with the Vienna Circle, especially those on and with Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel. It is the first time that this topic has been treated on such a scale and in such depth. Attention is mainly paid to the origins, development and subsequent role of Tarski's definition of truth. Some contributions are primarily (...) historical, others analyze logical aspects of the concept of truth. Contributors include Anita and Saul Feferman, Jan Wolenski, Jan Tarski and Hans Sluga. Several Polish logicians contributed: Gzegorczyk, Wójcicki, Murawski and Rojszczak. The volume presents entirely new biographical material on Tarski, both from his Polish period and on his influential career in the United States: at Harvard, in Princeton, at Hunter, and at the University of California at Berkeley. The high point of the analysis involves Tarski's influence on Carnap's evolution from a narrow syntactical view of language, to the ontologically more sophisticated but more controversial semantical view. Another highlight involves the interchange between Tarski and Gödel on the connection between truth and proof and on the nature of metalanguages. The concluding part of Yearbook 6 includes documentation, book reviews and a summary of current activities of the Institute Vienna Circle. Jan Tarski introduces letters written by his father to Gödel; Paolo Parrini reports on the Vienna Circle's influence in Italy; several reviews cover recent books on logical empiricism, on Gödel, on cosmology, on holistic approaches in Germany, and on Mauthner. (shrink)

This chapter provides a detailed explanation of Tarski's definition of truth for formalized languages. It begins by indicating how he conceived the problem, how his criterion of adequacy guarantees that any definition satisfying it introduces a predicate that applies to all and only object‐language truths, and how he approached the technical problem of formulating a definition that would allow him to derive what he regarded as a “partial definition” of truth for each sentence of (...) the object language. Next, the formal techniques employed in his inductive definitions are explained, along with the method of turning those definitions into explicit definitions, and the way in which his definitions can be shown to be materially adequate. The explication concludes with a discussion of the relationship between truth and proof in the language of arithmetic, and the outlines of Tarski's theorem of the arithmetic indefinability of arithmetical truth. (shrink)

Tarski's definition of truth has rehabilitated the application of the word "true" to sentences of formalized languages. But a correspondence theory according to which a sentence is true if, And only if, It is related in the peculiar way of correspondence to the facts, Is incompatible with tarski's definition. Actually no theory of truth, Which claims to make proper assertions about sentences when calling them true, Is compatible with tarski's definition. Hence they all have to (...) find their own solution to the problem of the semantical antinomies and have to explain what it means to say that sentences are true. (shrink)

Of his numerous investigations ... Tarski was most proud of two: his work on truth and his design of an algorithm in 1930 to decide the truth or falsity of any sentence of the elementary theory of the high school Euclidean geometry. [...] His mathematical treatment of the semantics of languages and the concept of truth has had revolutionary consequences for mathematics, linguistics, and philosophy, and Tarski is widely thought of as the man who "defined truth". (...) The seeming simplicity of his famous example that the sentence "Snow is white" is true just in case snow is white belies the depth and complexity of the consequences which can be drawn from the possibility of giving a general treatment of the concept of truth in formal mathematical languages in a rigorous mathematical way. (J.W. Addison). (shrink)

Contacts of the two logicians are listed, and all Gödel's written mentions of Tarski's work are quoted. Why did Gödel almost never mention Tarski's definition of truth in his notes and papers? This puzzle of Gödel's silence, proposed by Feferman, is not merely biographical or psychological but has interesting connections to Gödel's philosophical views.No satisfactory answer is given by the three “standard” explanations: no need to repeat the work already done; Tarski's achievement was obvious to Gödel; Gödel's exceptional (...) caution. In fact, , Tarski had done the work, but Gödel almost never mentioned the achievement; , the obviousness is no explanation for the omission of Tarski's work in contexts in which an application of the definition of satisfaction was useful, and even necessary; , the point was not just caution: if Gödel had felt the need to mention the program of scientific semantics he could easily have done that in his manuscripts, or in conversations.Three ideas, detectable in Gödel's approach, can help us understand Gödel's silence: the idea of truth as the intuitive provability in the most general sense; defining it set-theoretically would contribute nothing. the idea of truth as an inexhaustible idea in the sense of Kant; “truth in general” is a category that must be applicable to all kinds of sentential expressions; also, while for Gödel language was secondary, Tarski's definition is focused on language. the idea of logic as the universal language, in Hintikka's sense, as opposed to the perception of logic as a reinterpretable calculus; hence the thesis that semantics is inexpressible. Gödel always remains a Platonist who asks a natural question: what does really happen in the realm of abstract objects? (shrink)

In her paper ‘Is it True What They Say About Tarski?’, Susan Haack argues that Popper is wrong to regard Tarski's theory of truth as a correspondence theory of truth. For, she says: … Tarksi does not present his theory as a correspondence theory. In fact Tarski explicitly comments that the correspondence theory cannot be considered a satisfactory definition of truth. And later he observes that he was ‘by no means surprised’ to learn that, in a (...) survey carried out by Naess, only 15 per cent agreed that truth is correspondence with reality, while 90 per cent agreed that ‘It is snowing’ is true if and only if it is snowing. (shrink)

Alfred Tarski frequently declared that his semantic definition of truth was inspired by Aristotle’s views. The present paper discusses this issue in the context of Marian Wesoły’s criticism of the thesis that there is an affinity between Tarski’s views and those of Aristotle. The article concludes with an inquiry into whether Aristotle’s definition of truthfulness can be identified with the correspondence theory of truth.

Tarski’s pioneering work on truth has been thought by some to motivate a robust, correspondence-style theory of truth, and by others to motivate a deflationary attitude toward truth. I argue that Tarski’s work suggests neither; if it motivates any contemporary theory of truth, it motivates conceptual primitivism, the view that truth is a fundamental, indefinable concept. After outlining conceptual primitivism and Tarski’s theory of truth, I show how the two approaches to (...) truth share much in common. While Tarski does not explicitly accept primitivism, the view is open to him, and fits better with his formal work on truth than do correspondence or deflationary theories. Primitivists, in turn, may rely on Tarski’s insights in motivating their own perspective on truth. I conclude by showing how viewing Tarski through the primitivist lens provides a fresh response to some familiar charges from Putnam and Etchemendy. (shrink)

One of Tarski’s stated aims was to give an explication of the classical conception of truth—truth as ‘saying it how it is’. Many subsequent commentators have felt that he achieved this aim. Tarski’s core idea of defining truth via satisfaction has now found its way into standard logic textbooks. This paper looks at such textbook definitions of truth in a model for standard first-order languages and argues that they fail from the point of view (...) of explication of the classical notion of truth. The paper furthermore argues that a subtly different definition—also to be found in classic textbooks but much less prevalent than the kind of definition that proceeds via satisfaction—succeeds from this point of view. (shrink)

1. Introduction. 2. Is Tarski’s theory of truth, as Popper claims after Tarski himself, a rehabilitation of the traditional view of truth as correspondence to facts? — Yes, but not for the reasons he gives. 3. Is Tarski’s explicit definition of truth , as Popper claims after Tarski himself, purely morphological ? — No. 4. Is Tarski’s theory, as Tarski claims it to be, « epistomologically neutral » ? — This thesis is ambiguous, (...) and Tarski can support it just as Popper can dispute it as well. 5. Is Popper right for all that when he goes as far as to claim that Tarski’s theory of truth provides an argument in favour of « metaphysical realism » — No. 6. Conclusions.Résumé1. Introduction 2. La théorie de la vérité de Tarski est-elle, comme Popper l’affirme à la suite de Tarski lui-même, une réhabilitation de la conception traditionnelle de la vérité comme correspondance aux faits ? — Oui, mais pas pour la raison qu’il donne. 3. La définition explicite de la vérité de Tarski est-elle, comme Popper l’affirme à la suite de Tarski lui-même, purement morphologique ? — Non. 4. La théorie de Tarski est-elle, comme celui-ci le prétend, « épistémologiquement neutre » ? — La thèse est équivoque, et Tarski peut aussi bien la soutenir que Popper la contester. 5. Popper a-t-il raison pour autant d’aller jusqu’à prétendre que la théorie de la vérité de Tarski fournit un argument en faveur du « réalisme métaphysique » ? — Non. 6. Conclusions. (shrink)

Tarski avoids the liar paradox by relativizing truth and falsehood to particular languages and forbidding the predication to sentences in a language of truth or falsehood by any sentences belonging to the same language. The Tarski truth-schemata stratify an object-language and indefinitely ascending hierarchy of meta-languages in which the truth or falsehood of sentences in a language can only be asserted or denied in a higher-order meta-language. However, Tarski’s statement of the truth-schemata themselves involve (...) general truth functions, and in particular the biconditional, defined in terms of truth conditions involving truth values standardly displayed in a truth table. Consistently with his semantic program, all such truth values should also be relativized to particular languages for Tarski. The objection thus points toward the more interesting problem of Tarski’s concept of the exact status of truth predications in a general logic of sentential connectives. Tarski’s three-part solution to the circularity objection which he anticipates is discussed and refuted in detail. (shrink)

Philosopher’s judgements on the philosophical value of Tarski’s contributions to the theory of truth have varied. For example Karl Popper, Rudolf Carnap, and Donald Davidson have, in their different ways, celebrated Tarski’s achievements and have been enthusiastic about their philosophical relevance. Hilary Putnam, on the other hand, pronounces that “[a]s a philosophical account of truth, Tarski’s theory fails as badly as it is possible for an account to fail.” Putnam has several alleged reasons for his (...) dissatisfaction,1 but one of them, the one I call the modal objection (cf. Raatikainen 2003), has been particularly influential. In fact, very similar objections have been presented over and over again in the literature. Already in 1954, Arthur Pap had criticized Tarski’s account with a similar argument (Pap 1954). Moreover, both Scott Soames (1984) and John Etchemendy (1988) use, with an explicit reference to Putnam, similar modal arguments in relation to Tarski. Richard Heck (1997), too, shows some sympathy for such considerations. Simon Blackburn (1984, Ch. 8) has put forward a related argument against Tarski. Recently, Marian David has criticized Tarski’s truth definition with an analogous argument as well (David 2004, p. 389-390).2 This line of argument is thus apparently one of the most influential critiques of Tarski. It is certainly worthy of serious attention. Nevertheless, I shall argue that, given closer scrutiny, it does not present such an acute problem for the Tarskian approach to truth as many philosophers think. But I also believe that it is important to understand clearly why this is so. Moreover, I think that a careful consideration of the issue illuminates certain important but somewhat neglected aspects of the Tarskian approach. (shrink)

Compared to the extensive amount of literature on various themes of W.V.O. Quine’s philosophy, his immanent concept of truth remains a relatively unexplored topic. This relative lack of research contributes to a persistent confusion on the deflationary and inflationary details of Quine’s truth. According to a popular reading, Quine’s disquotational definition of the truth predicate exhausts the content of truth, thus amounting to a deflationary view. Others promote opposing interpretations. I argue that by relying on (...) Tarski’s semantic conception of truth, Quine’s disquotational account inherits a commitment to classical correspondence intuitions. Based on this, Quine posits a firm constitution for truth as an intermediary between language and the world. From this constitution claim follows that the disquotational account proves incompatible with both the general deflationary thesis and, more specifically, the minimalist account, which deny any constitution for truth past what is given by the preferred deflationary schema. This reading is significant for refuting the widespread misrepresentations of Quine as a prominent deflationist. (shrink)

Alfred Tarski a joué un rôle déterminant dans la déconstruction du clivage classique de l’analytique et du synthétique alors même que les ouvrages consacrés à ce chapitre de la philosophie restent, en général, relativement discrets au sujet de son rôle au profit de W. V. O. Quine. La critique de Tarski, qui s’articule dès 1930, s’organise le long de deux axes principaux. Le premier a trait à la difficulté de définir objectivement la notion de logicité ; le second, qui s’appuie (...) sur une conception holiste de la science, admet la possibilité d’une rectification des principes logiques au nom de l’expérience. Sur ce point, les objections ponctuelles de Tarski anticipent la critique plus systématique que Quine adressera à la notion de l’analyticité. L’analyse des principales étapes de la critique de Tarski révèle toutefois que sa pensée n’est pas toujours exempte de tensions internes. Alfred Tarski has played a decisive role in the refutation of the classic cleavage between analytic and synthetic truths, though the studies which deal with this chapter of philosophy generally stress the role of W. V. O. Quine in this question and omit to mention Tarski’s name. Tarski’s critique, which has been expressing itself since 1930, is developed along two main lines. The first concerns the difficulty of giving an objective definition of logical notions ; the second, based on a holistic conception of science, maintains the possibility of the refutation of logical principles by experience. In this question the selective objections of Tarski anticipate the more systematic critique of analyticity by Quine. However, the analysis of the different steps in Tarski’s critique shows that his way of thinking is not free of inner tensions. (shrink)

§1. The mission of axiomatic set theory. What is set theory needed for in the foundations of mathematics? Why cannot we transact whatever foundational business we have to transact in terms of our ordinary logic without resorting to set theory? There are many possible answers, but most of them are likely to be variations of the same theme. The core area of ordinary logic is by a fairly common consent the received first-order logic. Why cannot it take care of itself? (...) What is it that it cannot do? A large part of every answer is probably that first-order logic cannot handle its own model theory and other metatheory. For instance, a first-order language does not allow the codification of the most important semantical concept, viz. the notion of truth, for that language in that language itself, as shown already in Tarski. In view of such negative results it is generally thought that one of the most important missions of set theory is to provide the wherewithal for a model theory of logic. For instance Gregory H. Moore asserts in his encyclopedia article “Logic and set theory” thatSet theory influenced logic, both through its semantics, by expanding the possible models of various theories and by the formal definition of a model; and through its syntax, by allowing for logical languages in which formulas can be infinite in length or in which the number of symbols is uncountable. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Tarski's Theory of Truth Tarski's Solution to the Liar Paradox Tarski's Method of Defining Truth for Formalized Languages Tarskian Semantics Three Criticisms of Tarski's Theory Kripke's Solution to the Liar Paradox A Reinterpretation of Tarski's Theory Truth Beyond Logic.

This papers discuss the place, if any, of Convention T (the condition of material adequacy of the proper definition of truth formulated by Tarski) in the truth-makers account offered by Kevin Mulligan, Peter Simons and Barry Smith. It is argued that although Tarski’s requirement seems entirely acceptable in the frameworks of truth-makers theories for the first-sight, several doubts arise under a closer inspection. In particular, T-biconditionals have no clear meaning as sentences about truth-makers. Thus, (...) truth-makers theory cannot be considered as the semantic theory of truth enriched by metaphysical (ontological) data. The problem of truth-makers for sentences about future events is discussed at the end of the paper. (shrink)

This paper shows that the logic known as Information-friendly logic (IF-logic) introduced by Jaakko Hintikka and Gabriel Sandu defines its own truth-predicate. The result is interesting given that IF logic is a much stronger logic than ordinary first-order logic and has also a well behaved notion of negation which, on its first-order subfragment, behaves like classical, contradictory negation.

We prove that: • if there is a model of I∆₀ + ¬ exp with cofinal Σ₁-definable elements and a Σ₁ truth definition for Σ₁ sentences, then I∆₀ + ¬ exp +¬BΣ₁ is consistent, • there is a model of I∆₀ Ω₁ + ¬ exp with cofinal Σ₁-definable elements, both a Σ₂ and a ∏₂ truth definition for Σ₁ sentences, and for each n > 2, a Σ n truth definition for Σ n sentences. (...) The latter result is obtained by constructing a model with a recursive truth-preserving translation of Σ₁ sentences into boolean combinations of $\exists \sum {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} h \\ 0 \\ \end{array} } $ sentences. We also present an old but previously unpublished proof of the consistency of I∆₀ + ¬ exp + ¬BΣ₁ under the assumption that the size parameter in Lessan's ∆₀ universal formula is optimal. We then discuss a possible reason why proving the consistency of I∆₀ + ¬ exp + ¬BΣ₁ unconditionally has turned out to be so difficult. (shrink)

The first section (§1) of this essay defends reliance on truth values against those who, on nominalistic grounds, would uniformly substitute a truth predicate. I rehearse some practical, Carnapian advantages of working with truth values in logic. In the second section (§2), after introducing the key idea of auxiliary parameters (§2.1), I look at several cases in which logics involve, as part of their semantics, an extra auxiliary parameter to which truth is relativized, a parameter that (...) caters to special kinds of sentences. In many cases, this facility is said to produce truth values for sentences that on the face of it seem neither true nor false. Often enough, in this situation appeal is made to the method of supervaluations, which operate by “quantifying out” auxiliary parameters, and thereby produce something like a truth value. Logics of this kind exhibit striking differences. I first consider the role that Tarski gives to supervaluation in first order logic (§2.2), and then, after an interlude that asks whether neither-true-nor-false is itself a truth value (§2.3), I consider sentences with non-denoting terms (§2.4), vague sentences (§2.5), ambiguous sentences (§2.6), paradoxical sentences (§2.7), and future-tensed sentences in indeterministic tense logic (§2.8). I conclude my survey with a look at alethic modal logic considered as a cousin (§2.9), and finish with a few sentences of “advice to supervaluationists” (2.10), advice that is largely negative. The case for supervaluations as a road to truth is strong only when the auxiliary parameter that is “quantified out” is in fact irrelevant to the sentences of interest—as in Tarski’s definition of truth for classical logic. In all other cases, the best policy when reporting the results of supervaluation is to use only explicit phrases such as “settled true” or “determinately true,” never dropping the qualification. (shrink)

In this paper, I introduce and discuss a series of problems associated with answering the question of semantic unity, and argue that the truth theoretical approach to semantics put forward by Donald Davidson suggests a possible solution. Although not put forward explicitly as such by Davidson, it is argued that we in Davidson's interpretation of Tarski's definition of truth find the resources to illuminate and resolve the problem of unity.

Tarski's theory of truth brings out the question of whether he intended his theory to be a correspondence theory of truth and whether, whatever his intentions, his theory is, in fact, a correspondence theory. The aim of this paper is to answer both questions. The answer to the first question depends on Tarski's relevant assertions on semantics and his conception of truth. In order to answer the second question Popper's and Davidson's interpretations of Tarski's truth theory (...) are examined; to this end both Tarski's definition of truth in terms of satisfaction and the T-sentences are taken into account. (shrink)