David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 120 (478):193-237 (2011)
According to the standard story (a) W. V. Quine’s criticisms of the idea that logic is true by convention are directed against, and completely undermine, Rudolf Carnap’s idea that the logical truths of a language L are the sentences of L that are true-in- L solely in virtue of the linguistic conventions for L , and (b) Quine himself had no interest in or use for any notion of truth by convention. This paper argues that (a) and (b) are both false. Carnap did not endorse any truth-by-convention theses that are undermined by Quine’s technical observations. Quine knew this. Quine’s criticisms of the thesis that logic is true by convention are not directed against a truth-by-convention thesis that Carnap actually held, but are part of Quine’s own project of articulating the consequences of his scientific naturalism. Quine found that logic is not true by convention in any naturalistically acceptable sense. But he also observed that in set theory and other highly abstract parts of science we sometimes deliberately adopt postulates with no justification other than that they are elegant and convenient. For Quine such postulations constitute a naturalistically acceptable and fallible sort of truth by convention. It is only when an act of adopting a postulate is not indispensible to natural science that Quine sees it as affording truth by convention ‘unalloyed’. A naturalist who accepts Quine’s notion of truth by convention is therefore not limited (as naturalists are often thought to be) to accepting only those postulates that she regards as indispensible to natural science
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Alex George (2000). On Washing the Fur Without Wetting It. Mind 109 (433):1--24.
Alexander George (2000). On Washing the Fur Without Wetting It: Quine, Carnap, and Analyticity. Mind 109 (433):1-24.
G. Rosen (1999). Review of P. Maddy, Naturalism in Mathematics. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (3):467-474.
G. Rosen (1999). Review. Naturalism in Mathematics. Penelope Maddy. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (3):467-474.
Citations of this work BETA
Paul Dicken (2013). Tolerance and Voluntarism. Philosophical Papers 42 (1):25 - 48.
Similar books and articles
Yemima Ben-menahem (2005). Black, White and Gray: Quine on Convention. Synthese 146 (3):245 - 282.
Paul Artin Boghossian (1996). Analyticity Reconsidered. Noûs 30 (3):360-391.
Marian David (1996). Analyticity, Carnap, Quine, and Truth. Philosophical Perspectives 10:281 - 296.
Lars Bergström (1994). Quine's Truth. Inquiry 37 (4):421 – 435.
Lars Bergström (1994). Quine's Truth. Inquiry 37 (4):421-435.
Eric J. Loomis (2006). Empirical Equivalence in the Quine-Carnap Debate. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):499–508.
Yemima Ben-Menahem (2001). Convention: Poincaré and Some of His Critics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (3):471-513.
Cory Juhl (2009). Analyticity. Routledge.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1990). Quine's Relativism. Ratio 3 (2):142-149.
Paul Gregory (2003). Putting the Bite Back Into. Principia 7 (1-2):115-129.
Richard Creath (1991). Every Dogma has its Day. Erkenntnis 35 (1-3):347 - 389.
Donald Davidson (1994). What is Quine's View of Truth? Inquiry 37 (4):437 – 440.
Added to index2011-06-16
Total downloads97 ( #11,073 of 1,096,691 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #24,821 of 1,096,691 )
How can I increase my downloads?