[hist-analytic] Carnap and Grice on 'beyond science'
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Tue Mar 2 17:55:26 EST 2010
In a message dated 3/2/2010 rbj at rbjones.com writes:
"I have the impression that [Carnap] regards synthetic propositions as
always belonging to science, He does not follow Aristotle in allowing
"demonstrative science" (perhaps he thought this referred only to metaphysics).
There is a fairly naive use of language with very clean lines, he feels no
obligation (as scientists usually do not) to pay homage to ordinary usage, it
would probably not occur to him as an objection to his use of the term
"scientific" that it is not the same as "normal usage",
Thanks. I was referring (I FOUND IT!) to footnote 1 on this essay indexed
below. The phrase is "convenience for science". The writer says that this
is so for QUINE. But he is unclear that 'science' has to be understood as
'implicated' as it were, by Carnap. The writer's argument: It is NOT clear, or
Carnap does not make it explicit, that 'convenience' has to be ALWAYS
'convenience for SCIENCE'. What the author is trying to show is that the
pluralism of Carnap, while not ontological, and not dogmatic, etc., is about the
internal ontologies brought by the choice of this or that language. And
that thus one can, say, introduce a language(*), say, as per below:
Scenario: New England, circa 1600. -- a witch =df. a little old lady that
keeps Bibles, black cats, and refuses to pay taxes. She is possibly also a
lesbian. -- Meaning Postulate, "All witches should be burned."
-- Elinor Whitebrimmingstone is a witch. "Either she is a witch or she
"She SHOULD not be burned."
"On what grounds?"
"She has repented."
"If the assertion made by Elinor to the effect that she'll pay taxes is
re-interpreted via correspondence rules into the Ramsified way of definition,
she did not mean what she said."
"Not mean what she said?"
"To the flames then!"
---- JL Speranza
(http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/price/preprints/metameta.pdf) p.7: "Quine 1966, 134. Note Quine's
revealing use of the term 'for science'. It is far from clear that for
Carnap the convenience of adopting a linguistic framework is always convenience
_for science_" (emphasis the author').
More information about the hist-analytic