Mind 120 (478):193-237 (2011)

Gary Ebbs
Indiana University, Bloomington
According to the standard story 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 Quine himself had no interest in or use for any notion of truth by convention. This paper argues that and 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 to accepting only those postulates that she regards as indispensible to natural science
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/mind/fzr020
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,943
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Review. Naturalism in Mathematics. Penelope Maddy.Gideon Rosen - 1999 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (3):467-474.
Review of P. Maddy, Naturalism in Mathematics[REVIEW]Gideon Rosen - 1999 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (3):467-474.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Possibility of Truth by Convention.Jared Warren - 2015 - Philosophical Quarterly 65 (258):84-93.
Boarding Neurath's Boat: The Early Development of Quine's Naturalism.Sander Verhaegh - 2017 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 55 (2):317-342.

View all 18 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analyticity Reconsidered.Paul Boghossian - 1996 - Noûs 30 (3):360-391.
Quine's Truth.Lars Bergström - 1994 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 37 (4):421-435.
Empirical Equivalence in the Quine-Carnap Debate.Eric J. Loomis - 2006 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):499–508.
Convention: Poincaré and Some of His Critics.Yemima Ben‐Menahem - 2001 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (3):471-513.
Quine's Relativism.Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward - 1990 - Ratio 3 (2):142-149.
Putting the Bite Back Into 'Two Dogmas'.Paul Gregory - 2003 - Principia 7 (1-2):115-129.
Every Dogma has its Day.Richard Creath - 1991 - Erkenntnis 35 (1-3):347-389.
What is Quine's View of Truth?Donald Davidson - 1994 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 37 (4):437 – 440.


Added to PP index

Total views
240 ( #37,893 of 2,426,897 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #122,043 of 2,426,897 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes