[hist-analytic] Steve's and Roger's recent interchange

Bruce Aune aune at philos.umass.edu
Wed Jul 29 19:44:41 EDT 2009

I think Steve got carried away by HUME's distinction between relations  
of ideas and matters of fact and existence. I started with that to  
emphasize the empiricist theme, but I quickly turned to Carnap's  
refinement of that distinction in terms of analytic truths (or  
falsity) and empirical truths.  My claims were about Carnap' views,  
not Hume's.  If Steve wants to refute me, he has to provide a counter- 
instance to my claims--specifically, he has to provide a clearly true  
(or false) statement that is (a) distinctively philosophical and (b)  
is neither analytically true (nor false) nor empirical--that is, not  
known by observation, memory, and (broadly speaking) inductive  
inference.  Furthermore, if (c) he provides an example satisfying (a)  
and (b), he should meet my challenge of telling us how we are supposed  
know that it is true.  I can't see that he has done any of this.

More information about the hist-analytic mailing list