Every dogma has its day

Erkenntnis 35 (1-3):347 - 389 (1991)
This paper is a reexamination of Two Dogmas in the light of Quine's ongoing debate with Carnap over analyticity. It shows, first, that analytic is a technical term within Carnap's epistemology. As such it is intelligible, and Carnap's position can meet Quine's objections. Second, it shows that the core of Quine's objection is that he (Quine) has an alternative epistemology to advance, one which appears to make no room for analyticity. Finally, the paper shows that Quine's alternative epistemology is itself open to very serious objections. Quine is not thereby refuted, but neither can Carnap's analyticity be dismissed as dogma.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,357
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA
    Marc Alspector-Kelly (2002). Stroud's Carnap. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (2):276-302.
    Anthony Peressini (2008). Confirmational Holism and its Mathematical (W)Holes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 39 (1):102-111.
    Similar books and articles

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index


    Total downloads

    66 ( #18,322 of 1,088,424 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    2 ( #42,750 of 1,088,424 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature

    Start a new thread
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.