From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 08:30:52 GMT

In article <846447600snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley  wrote:
>In article  jqb@netcom.com "Jim Balter" writes:
>
>> In article <846296702snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
>> David Longley  wrote:
>> >In article <54qqdj$re9@ux.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu "Neil Rickert" writes:> >
>> >> In <846241304snz@longley.demon.co.uk> David@longley.demon.co.uk (David
>>  Longley)
>> >>  writes:
>> >> 
>> >> >All of these discussions are, at root, a fundamental disagreement 
>> >> >on  the  nature  of "meanings" and whether  one  *can*  say  that 
>> >> >two statements "*mean* the same thing".
>> >> 
>> >> Of course we can say that two statements "mean the same thing."
>> >> People often say this sort of thing.  And if people do say this,
>> >> clearly one can say this.  The mistake would be to confuse "mean the
>> >> same thing" with logical identity.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >No.....the confusion is in believing that in *saying*  something, 
>> >one is saying something which is true.
>> 
>> Saying something like, um, "This is all false"?
>> 
>Yes.....
>
>And  in the situation where *I* said that, it should be clear  to 
>all  who  know the field that claims listed by  the  author  were 
>indeed  false.  The  set of propositions were  not  false  simply 
>because I said so.

Then what was the point of saying it?
(Which was the same question concerning Rickert's "Agreed.").
--