Confirmation Holism and Underdetermination in Quine’s Thought
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4013/fsu.2012.132.01Abstract
Quine is frequently acknowledged as one of the main proponents of both confirmation holism and underdetermination. In the recent literature, however, his views have been often criticized and misrepresented: the distinction between the two theses has been often blurred, the obviousness of holism has been rejected, and the plausibility of underdetermination has come under attack. This paper attempts to formulate both theses as clearly as possible and to defend Quine’s views against some recurrent criticisms. In particular, it is argued that Quine’s theses are significantly weaker than they have been taken to be and that only confirmation holism, but not underdetermination, plays a fundamental role in his philosophy.
Key words: confirmation holism, underdetermination, Quine.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
I grant the Filosofia Unisinos – Unisinos Journal of Philosophy the first publication of my article, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0 (which allows sharing of work, recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal).
I confirm that my article is not being submitted to another publication and has not been published in its entirely on another journal. I take full responsibility for its originality and I will also claim responsibility for charges from claims by third parties concerning the authorship of the article.
