David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 74 (1):237–280 (2000)
In 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism', Quine attacks the analytic/synthetic distinction and defends a doctrine that I call epistemological holism. Now, almost fifty years after the article's appearance, what are we to make of these ideas? I suggest that the philosophical naturalism that Quine did so much to promote should lead us to reject Quine's brief against the analytic/synthetic distinction; I also argue that Quine misunderstood Carnap's views on analyticity. As for epistemological holism, I claim that this thesis does not follow from the logical point that Duhem and Quine made about the role of auxiliary assumptions in hypothesis testing, and that the thesis should be rejected. \\\ [Peter Hylton] Section I of this essay discusses Quine's views about reference, contrasting them with those of Russell. For the latter, our language and thought succeed in being about the world because of our acquaintance with objects; the relation of reference-roughly, the relation between a name and its bearer-is thus fundamental. For Quine, by contrast, the fundamental relation by which our language comes to be about the world, and to have empirical content, is that between a sentence and stimulations of our sensory surfaces; reference, while important, is a derivative notion. Section II shows how this view of reference as derivative makes possible the notorious Quinean doctrine of ontological relativity. Section III raises the issue of realism. It argues that somewhat different notions of realism are in play for Quine and for Russell-for Russell, objects, and our knowledge of objects, play the fundamental role, while for quine objectivity and truth are fundamental, with ontology being derivative
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jacob Busch (2011). Scientific Realism and the Indispensability Argument for Mathematical Realism: A Marriage Made in Hell. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (4):307-325.
Jacob Busch (2011). Is the Indispensability Argument Dispensable? Theoria 77 (2):139-158.
Greg Frost-Arnold (2011). Quine's Evolution From 'Carnap's Disciple' to the Author of “Two Dogmas”. Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 1 (2):291-316.
Similar books and articles
Mark Colyvan (1999). Contrastive Empiricism and Indispensability. Erkenntnis 51 (2-3):323-332.
J. M. Katz (1990). The Domino Theory. Philosophical Studies 58 (1-2):3-39.
Marian David (1996). Analyticity, Carnap, Quine, and Truth. Philosophical Perspectives 10:281 - 296.
John P. Burgess (2008). 3. Cats, Dogs, and so On. In Dean W. Zimmerman (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics. Oxford University Press. 4--56.
Panu Raatikainen (2003). Is Quine a Verificationist? Southern Journal of Philosophy 41 (3):399-409.
Heikki J. Koskinen & Sami Pihlström (2006). Quine and Pragmatism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 42 (3):309-346.
H. G. Callaway (2003). The Esoteric Quine? Belief Attribution and the Significance of the Indeterminacy Thesis in Quine’s Kant Lectures. In , W.V. Quine, Wissenschaft und Empfindung. Frommann-Holzboog.
Roger F. Gibson (1994). Quine and Davidson: Two Naturalized Epistemologists. Inquiry 37 (4):449 – 463.
Benjamin Bayer (2010). Quine's Pragmatic Solution to Sceptical Doubts. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 18 (2):177-204.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads36 ( #54,910 of 1,410,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #155,456 of 1,410,304 )
How can I increase my downloads?