Synthese 69 (1):27 - 39 (1986)
|Abstract||Quine has long maintained in connection with his theses of under-determination of physical theory and indeterminacy of translation that there is a fact of the matter to physics but no fact of the matter to translation. In this paper, I investigate Quine's reasoning for this claim. I show that Quine's thinking about under-determination over the last twenty-five years has landed him in a contradiction: he says of two global physical theories that are empirically equivalent but logically incompatible that only one is trueand that they are both true. In accord with the former position, I explain Quine'ssemantical argument for the claim that there is a fact of the matter to physics but not to translation. However, Quine has apparently come to regard this position as inconsistent with his empiricistic scruples: if both theories imply all and only true observation categoricals, then in what sense could one of them be false? Quine'strivial expedient argument construes such pairs of theories as merely two true descriptions of the same world in different terms. In accord with this latter position, I suggest that Quine is left without a way to differentiate under-determination and indeterminacy. In short, Quine's contradiction poses a serious dilemma: either only one such theory is true and his empiricism is sacrificed, or both theories are true and his distinction between under-determination and indeterminacy is sacrificed.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jay F. Rosenberg (1967). Synonymy and the Epistemology of Linguistics. Inquiry 10 (1-4):405-420.
Itay Shani (2005). Intension and Representation: Quine's Indeterminacy Thesis Revisited. Philosophical Psychology 18 (4):415 – 440.
Donald Hockney (1975). The Bifurcation of Scientific Theories and Indeterminacy of Translation. Philosophy of Science 42 (4):411-427.
Ian McDiarmid (2008). Underdetermination and Meaning Indeterminacy: What is the Difference? [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 69 (3):279 - 293.
H. G. Callaway (2003). The Esoteric Quine? Belief Attribution and the Significance of the Indeterminacy Thesis in Quine’s Kant Lectures. In H. G. Callaway (ed.), W.V. Quine, Wissenschaft und Empfindung. Frommann-Holzboog.
Eve Gaudet (2005). Indétermination de la Traduction Et Sous-Détermination Chez Quine. Dialogue 44 (2):313-330.
Rogério Passos Severo (2008). “Plausible Insofar as It is Intelligible”: Quine on Underdetermination. Synthese 161 (1):141 - 165.
Forrai (1999). Are Quine’s Two Indeterminacy Theses Compatible? Acta Analytica 14 (23.):89-99..
Yemima Ben-menahem (2005). Black, White and Gray: Quine on Convention. Synthese 146 (3):245 - 282.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #53,550 of 722,744 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,744 )
How can I increase my downloads?