[MD] Putnam on Is-Ought and Truth

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Steve] 
> (as Putnam and Pierce insist) we are never in the 
> position of agreeing only on a set of ises but not on any oughts. 

But this doesn't help.  It's not truth or agreement concerning "oughts" 
that is at issue, rather whether they FOLLOW from some set of "ises".  
Craig