[hist-analytic] Carnap and Grice on 'beyond science'

[Jlsperanza at aol.com]

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  
isn't"
 
"She SHOULD not be burned."
 
"On what grounds?"
 
"She has repented." 
 
"Formalise that".
 
"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?"
 
"No"

"To the flames then!"
 
---- JL Speranza
 
NOTE.
 
* _www.usyd.edu.au/time/price/preprints/metameta.pdf_ 
(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').