The concept of inference is not only the central notion of logic, it is also the key
to our understanding of rationality and knowledge. A valid inference delivers a ground
for the conclusion given that there are grounds for the premisses. When it is deductive,
it even guarantees the truth of the conclusion given the truth of the premisses. As
Aristotle already put it: the conclusion follows by necessity from the premisses. The
nature of this modal notion of necessity is however a crucial issue. It has long been
thought that it can be explained in terms of logical consequence as this concept was
defined by Bolzano and Tarski. I shall argue that in this way we do not get an adequate
definition of what it is for an inference to be valid and that, instead, we have to regard
inferences as acts by which we transform grounds for premisses to grounds for the conclusion.