In defense of the Quine-Duhem thesis: A reply to Greenwood

Philosophy of Science 59 (3):487-491 (1992)
While discussing the work of Kuhn and Hanson, John Greenwood (1990) misidentifies the nature of the relationship between the incommensurability of theories and the theory-ladenness of observation. After pointing out this error, I move on to consider Greenwood's main argument that the Quine-Duhem thesis suffers from a form of epistemological self-defeat if it is interpreted to mean that any recalcitrant observation can always be accommodated to any theory. Greenwood finds this interpretation implausible because some adjustments to auxiliary hypotheses undermine too much of the prior observational evidence for the test theory. I argue that Greenwood mistakes the logico-metaphysical Quine-Duhem thesis for an epistemological one. All the argument he takes to undercut it actually illustrates how well the thesis works on a practical level. This is illustrated with an example from contemporary immunology
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/289686
 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
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,208
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Real World Epistemic Under-Determination.Martin Bunzl - 2003 - Philosophia 31 (1-2):139-147.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

174 ( #25,935 of 2,164,295 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #188,554 of 2,164,295 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums