Theories of meaning and logical truth: Edwards versus Davidson

Abstract

Donald Davidson has claimed that for every logical truth S of a language L, a theory of meaning for L will entail that S is a logical truth of L. Jim Edwards has argued (2002) that this claim is false if we take 'entails' to mean 'has as a logical consequence'. In this paper, I first show that, pace Edwards, Davidson's claim is correct even under this strong reading. I then discuss the argument given by Edwards and offer a diagnosis of where he went wrong.