Share
Explore BrainMass

Consequences of rejecting two dogmas of empiricism

What are the consequences, according to Quine, of rejecting what he calls 'the two dogmas of empiricism?

Solution Preview

1. Which are the two dogmas?

First dogma: the analytic/synthetic distinction. That there is a distinction between analytic and synthetic statements, namely: analytic statements are true in virtue of meaning alone while synthetic statements are true in virtue of being grounded in experience.

Second dogma: reductionism. A radical version: each statement of a theory can be translated into a statement about immediate experience. A less radical version: to each statement there is a unique range of possible sensory events whose occurrence would add to the likelohood of truth of the statement (confirmation) and again a unique range of possible sensory events whose occurrence would detract from this likelihood (infirmation).

2. How does Quine argue against the two dogmas?

a.) Against the first dogma.
Quine's thesis: There is no non-trivial or non-arbitrary distinction between analytic and synthetic statements.
Rationale: there are various candidates that have been proposed to explain analyticity, but these are either trivial, circular, vacuous, or arbitrary. These candidates are:

I. Logical truths: (1) 'No unmarried man is married'. No problem with these. But these are trivial instances of analyticity. What are of interest with respect to analyticity are non-trivial instances like (2) 'No bachelor is married'.

II. Synonymy: (2) can be transformed into a statement like (1) by putting synonyms for synonyms, i.e. 'unmarried man' for 'bachelor'. But for this we need a clear ...

$2.19