\documentstyle[marc,12pt,24.151-ps]{article}
\pagestyle{empty}
\setallmargins{1.5in}
\begin{document}
\head{February 14, 1992}

\begin{enumerate}
\item[A)]
The sentences in (13) and (14) do not have the same cognitive
significance.  Although they may have the same truth value and truth
conditions, given facts from astronomical observations, the
information content is different.  Sentence (14) is a tautology: `If
{\bf P} then {\bf P}' is always true.  Sentence (13) is much more
complicated.  To evaluate the truth of this sentence, we must find the
relationship between the morning and evening stars, if there is one.
It is not intuitively obvious that the referents of `morning star' and
`evening star' are the same.  The first sentence can be proven or
disproven merely by using logic; it exists regardless of the nature of
our physical universe.  To verify the second requires some real
knowledge.
\item[B)]
According to the `Fido'-Fido theory, the proposition `Aphrodite =
Eros' is true.  Since the referents do not exist, they can be viewed
as being the same.  This results in a problem for `Fido'-Fido, since
we can substitute as co-referentials expressions which we observe as
different.  For example, if I have a story about Eros, I should be
able to substitute `Aphrodite' for `Eros' and still have a cognitively
equivalent story.  But, this is clearly not the case to anyone reading
the two stories.
\end{enumerate}
\end{document}
