Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):649-653 (2003)
Paul Gregory’s careful and insightful response to “Camap and Two Dogmas of Empiricism” highlights a number of points which were underdeveloped in that paper. I think that he has brought into relief a central issue between Camap and Quine by supplying a crucial distinction. However I still maintain that Quine’s assault is less than successful and that Gregory’s further analysis of the debate sheds light on why this is so
|Keywords||Analytic Philosophy Contemporary Philosophy Philosophy of Mind|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Is Etiquette Relevant to Medical Ethics? Ethics and Aesthetics in the Works of John Gregory (1724â1773).Giovanni Maio - 1999 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2 (2):181-187.
Would a Satanic Resurrection World Falsify Christian Theism? Reply to Gregory S. Kavka.Donald R. Gregory - 1978 - Religious Studies 14 (1):69 - 72.
Quine's Naturalism: Language, Theory, and the Knowing Subject.Paul Gregory - 2008 - Continuum.
The Scope of Deflationism.Paul O'Grady - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):649-653.
'Two Dogmas'--All Bark and No Bite? Carnap and Quine on Analyticity.Paul Gregory - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):633 - 648.
Two Dogmas'–All Bark and No Bite? Carnap and Quine on Analyticity.Paul A. Gregory - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):633–648.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #156,431 of 2,172,047 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #325,337 of 2,172,047 )
How can I increase my downloads?