[hist-analytic] Tarski, Carnap and Grice on "snow is white"

[Roger Bishop Jones]

On Thursday 04 Mar 2010 06:46, Jlsperanza at aol.com wrote:
...(jumble omitted)

> 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
> 
> "population"

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.
How about:
	 "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?

Not necessarily.

> I don't think so.

But often.

> 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.

RBJ