Grice and the 39 Articles

We are considering the visit by the Pope to England. The pope is said to be 'infallible'. This strikes one as anti-Popperian. As Jones remarks, it's best to translate 'infallible' as "definitive" (as per 'definition'). Plus, as he also remarks, there is a parallel with the 39 Articles.

Grice writes about the 39 Articles in "Logic and Conversation" (of all places) -- and I write this as I read that there is possibly a very interesting book -- if you are into that sort of specialised obsessions of academia -- called "Assertion" edited by Palgrave (who also edited Grice's bio):

Grice writes then,

"Now assertion presumably involves

committing oneself, and while

it is possible to commit oneself

to a statement which one has not

identified (I could commit myself to the

contents of the Thirty-Nine Articles

of the Church of England, without

knowing what they say), I do NOT

think I should be properly regarded

as having committed myself to the content

of the policeman's [or Pope's. JLS] statement,

merely in virtue of having said it was true. When to

my surprise I learn that the policeman [or Pope]

atually said, "Monkeys can talk", I say (perhaps):

"Well, I was wrong" -- NOT: "I withdraw that,"

or "I withdraw my commitment to that". I never was

committed to it."

---

We should compare this with the reference to the 39 articles in the wiki, "Papal infallibility" -- and recall that wiki also holds an entry for "infallibility of the church".

Etc.

While I agree with R. B. Jones that in the case of the Pope what is deemed to be infallible does not quite fit Carnap's view of a 'proposition', the point by Grice above that the 'articles' are 'statements' (or that an article is a statement) seems to have a different colouring to it.

Or something.