Grice vs Grice

Or the case of Herbert Paul Grice.
--- by JLS
------ for the GC.

If you've seen Kramer vs. Kramer you see that the header is NOT contradictory. Oddly, G. R. Grice, a philosopher, wrote on 'Reasons for acting rationally' which looks Griceian on the face of it (i.e. of what Grice wrote).

Grice, Herbert Paul, writes on p. 368

of the lawyers' case (cfr. Socratic argumentation modeled on the sophistic modus) and the 'grand jury':

"Standardly, to suggest that so-and-so
invites a response, and, if the
suggestion IS reasonable, the response
it invites is to meet in one way or
antoher the case which the maker of the
suggestion, somewhat like a grand jury,"

Technicism of that? As opposed to little or small one, I would think.

"supposes there to be in favour
of the possibility that so-and-so."

Well, some grand juries I've known! Grice goes on:

"The existence of such a case"

in the strict lawyers' use of 'case' as in "The Case of Blanco Posnet" by Bernard Shaw,

"will require that
there should be a TRUTHFUL fact,
or set of facts, which might be
explained by the
hypothesis that so-and-so."

This is Grice at his 'who done it' best. Or not. 'whodunit', really.