[hist-analytic] Tarski, Carnap and Grice on "snow is white"
Roger Bishop Jones
rbj at rbjones.com
Thu Mar 4 07:40:34 EST 2010
On Thursday 04 Mar 2010 06:46, Jlsperanza at aol.com wrote:
> Perhaps the first here was Loar, in his DPhil Oxon (under
> Warnock), "Sentence Meaning". They are at odds in
> defining what "snow is white" _means_. The Gricean
> complications are galore. But on the whole there is this
> consensus -- among all Griceians except Grice -- but
> then he is no Griceian, necessarily -- that we do need
> a reference to a
But I wouldn't myself say that came into the meaning of
"snow is white".
It does come (possibly) into the meaning of:
"Snow is white" (as a sentence of English) is analytic.
But only because it comes into the meaning of English, not
because it comes into the meaning of "snow" or "white".
And, by the way, I do think its mostly false (possibly not
it some "idolects").
> so your ref. to "language spoken by people in England" is
> just on spot. M. K. Davies has also considered this. So
> this will relate to Carnap's idea that at the
> meta-language level it is ALL synthetic and contigent.
> Never mind the object-language.
That sounds very intemperate.
"snow" means the same as "snow"?
> A related item here may have to do with Putnam's somewhat
> irritating idea of the division of linguistic labour. I
> have not checked your reply to the 'science' post, but I
> will after I send this. The idea that maybe
> "snow is NOT white"
> from a scientific point of view. Is it?
> I don't think so.
> It's good nobody (almost) could beat Carnap and Grice
> with _analysis_! Otherwise, this would be the end of
> analytic philosophy, almost!
It would be a pyrrhic victory.
More information about the hist-analytic