An old Reedian, as they call them (cfr. "old Wykehamist," or "old Cliftonian,"
as Grice was), R. M. Smullyan (a friend of Grice's, incidentally) takes
positions which may be called anti-McEvoyian, in that they (the positions, that
is) were anti-Witters, and anti-Popper.
Against Witters, Smullyan (whose favourite book, for Grice, was his
"First-order logic" -- that he relied on for his "Vacuous Names") expressed:
i. Why should I worry about death? It's not going to happen in my lifetime!
This is in obvious opposition to the much more obscure thoughts on death and
dying by Witters in the, of all treatises -- or 'tractatuses', as Geary does
not prefer -- "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus".
The utterances against Popper is more convoluted; there are at least two:
ii. Of course the falsity of the fact that you believe that the pillar box is
blue IMPLIES that you don't believe it is blue; but this does not mean that you
believe it is NOT blue!
iii. Some people are always critical of vague statements. I tend rather to be
critical of precise statements; they are the only ones which can be correctly
Replace 'wrong' (in iii) and 'falsity' (in ii) with some Popperian version of
falsifiability and you see how un-Popperian Smullyan can be!