John Etchemendy argumenta que, dado el fracaso del análisis tarskiano de la noción intuitiva de consecuencia lógica, no hay razones para considerar a la formalidad una condición necesaria para dicha relación. En el presente trabajo critico este argumento. Primeramente, busco mostrar que la crítica de Etchemendy al análisis tarskiano asume dos requisitos de éxito elucidatorio que no es razonable adoptar conjuntamente. En segundo lugar muestro que, rechazada la anterior asunción, dos argumentos a favor de la adecuación extensional de dicho análisis confieren apoyo al formalismo. Finalmente, menciono algunas conocidas consideraciones de índole pragmática en favor del formalismo.

“Etchemendy’s Critique to Formalism”. John Etchemendy claims that,given the failure of the Tarskian intuitive notion of logical consequence, there isno reason to consider formality as a necessary condition for this relationship.This paper critiques this argument. First, it seeks to show that Etchemendy’scritique to Tarskian analysis assumes two requisites of elucidatory success thatcannot be held together reasonably. Secondly, it shows that, once the previousassumption is rejected, two arguments in favour of the extensional adequacyof the former argument actually support formalism. Finally, this paper reviewssome well known pragmatic considerations in favour of formalism.

“Etchemendy’s Critique to Formalism”. John Etchemendy claims that,given the failure of the Tarskian intuitive notion of logical consequence, there isno reason to consider formality as a necessary condition for this relationship.This paper critiques this argument. First, it seeks to show that Etchemendy’scritique to Tarskian analysis assumes two requisites of elucidatory success thatcannot be held together reasonably. Secondly, it shows that, once the previousassumption is rejected, two arguments in favour of the extensional adequacyof the former argument actually support formalism. Finally, this paper reviewssome well known pragmatic considerations in favour of formalism.