1. home.sandiego.edu/~baber/analytic/twodogmas.ppt

2. Meaning What is this thing called meaning? NOT reference: “creature with a heart” ≢ “creature with kidneys” “Once the theory of meaning is sharply separated from the theory of reference, it is a short step to recognizing as the business of the theory of meaning simply the synonymy of linguistic forms and the analyticity of statements; meanings themselves, as obscure intermediary entities, may well be abandoned.” (pp. 22-23)

3. Synonymy A statement is analytic if it contains synonymous expressions, e.g. “No bachelor is married”, where “bachelor” and “unmarried” are synonyms. (“No bachelor is married” should really be phrased as “~( ∃ x) (Bx & Mx)” or “( ∀ x) (Bx  ~Mx)”.) ARGUMENT: 1.Suppose “No unmarried man is married” is analytic 2.& “bachelor” and “unmarried man” are synonymous 3.Then “No bachelor is married” is analytic But what is this thing called synonymy? What makes “bachelor” and “unmarried man” synonymous?

4. Synonymy (cont.) Answer (intuitive): “bachelor” and “unmarried man” are synonymous in virtue of having the same meaning. So “No bachelor is married” is true in virtue of meaning, i.e. it’s analytic. But meaning is obscure. Analyticity must be explained by synonymy. But synonymy consists in having the same meaning! Vicious CIRCLE

5. Interchangeability & Cognitive Synonymy Definition: interchangeability salva veritate, i.e. intersubstitutivity of expressions in all contexts without change of truth-value. Two kinds of language to test it on: 1.Extensional, where co-referring terms may be always substituted salva veritate; 2.Intensional, where co-referring terms may not be always substituted salva veritate.

6. Cognitive Synonymy in extensional languages A contingent fact of biology that every creature with a heart is a creature with kidneys. So “creature with a heart” and “creature with kidneys” co-refer. Thus in an extensional language these expressions can be always substituted salva veritate and are therefore synonymous.

7. Cognitive Synonymy in extensional languages Consider “Every creature with a heart is a creature with kidneys”. ARGUMENT 1.Given that synonymy should explain analyticity 2.& “creature with a heart” and “creature with kidneys” are synonymous 3.It follows that “Every creature with a heart is a creature with kidneys” is analytic, i.e. true in virtue of meaning alone. Odd result!

8. Cognitive Synonymy in extensional languages Every analytic statement should be a necessary statement. But the fact that every creature with a heart is also a creature with kidneys is contingent! So “Every creature with a heart is a creature with kidneys” is not analytic. Moral: substitution of co-referring terms in an extensional language results in co-referring terms always counting as synonymous, since co-referring terms can always be substituted salva veritate in such a language. “Interchangeability salva veritate, if construed in relation to an extensional language, is not a sufficient condition of cognitive synonymy in the sense needed for deriving analyticity.” (p. 30)

9. Cognitive Synonymy in intensional languages Consider a language with the term “necessarily”. Take pairs of co-referring expressions “unmarried man”–“bachelor” and “creature with a heart”–“creature with kidneys”. Substitute “bachelor” for “unmarried man” in the true statement “Necessarily, every unmarried man is an unmarried man”  “Necessarily, every bachelor is an unmarried man” is true. Substitute “creature with kidneys” for “creature with a heart” in the true statement “Necessarily, every creature with a heart is a creature with a heart”  “Necessarily, every creature with a heart is a creature with kidneys” is false.

10. Cognitive Synonymy in intensional languages Interchangeability of co-referring expressions “creature with a heart” and “creature with kidneys” does not preserve truth-value in an intentional language that contains the term “necessarily”. Thus “creature with a heart” and “creature with kidneys” are not synonymous, and hence not analytic. Good result! An account of analyticity in terms of synonymy is possible. Just appeal to necessity! But what is this thing called necessity?

11. Cognitive Synonymy in intensional languages For Quine (and the positivists) “Necessarily, S” means “S is analytic”. So necessity can only be made sense of by appealing to analyticity. Analyticity appeals to synonymy; synonymy appeals to necessity; necessity appeals to analyticity. Vicious Super- CIRCLE

12. Conclusion “[A] boundary between analytic and synthetic statements simply has not been drawn. That there is such a distinction to be drawn at all is an unempirical dogma of empiricists, a metaphysical article of faith.” (p. 34)