Abstract: Hintikka and others have criticized Kripke Semantics for not being able to deliver a theory of consequence and validity when the box-operator is understood as logical necessity. The reason is supposed to be that the truth clause for box-claims is inadequate in models where the index set is not the set of all logically possible worlds, since then Box A can be true without A being true in all such worlds. Using Etchemendy's distinction between interpretational and representational model-theoretic semantics, it becomes clear that once we pay close attention to what it is that the model theory is supposed to capture, the criticism should not be accepted as it stands.

All are welcome!