Abstract

Quine's account of why epistemology should be naturalized is examined. His claim that traditional epistemology has been misconceived and therefore should be abandoned is criticized and rejected. Quine's proposal to replace traditional epistemology with a naturalistic account is criticized and rejected. In the light of these criticisms, it is suggested that a "Yes" answer to the above metaepistemological question is, at best, premature. This response is then further weakened by a brief examination of some recent attempts to develop naturalistic accounts of the philosophy of science. The results of the investigation indicate that the most reasonable response to the question: Should epistemology be naturalized? is "No."