Am I right in locating the core error in pomoism (as currently defended) in its assumption that claims are either "true" or "unjudgeable opinions"? Such a view excludes the possibility of criteria that would pass judgment on claims even in the absence of any knowledge that they are truly "true". The Putnam-type argument (which I accept) undermines teleological criteria (a claim is better to the extent it approaches the final truth) but not the sort of criteria most of us use to judge claims: consistency with evidence, logical coherence, consistency with other claims we accept, passing ethical tests (like Kant's), etc. These kinds of criteria give me grounds for rejecting GW Bush even though I doubt I possess "the truth" about government, economics, etc. Peter
