Quine Writes 's Two Dogmas Of Empiricism

1691 WordsDec 12, 20157 Pages
Elisabeth Daigle Massey Contemporary Philosophy 8 December 2015 Contemp. PHL Paper Draft Quine writes “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” critiquing two parts of empiricism separate from the rest of what empiricism entails. These two dogmas are: a) there is a principled distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions, and b) reductionism is true. Quine also explains undetermination and its uses. His application is that anyone can believe anything if they are willing to let go of some background knowledge which could refute it. Commonly said as, believe x, come what may. Laudan has set out to demystify underdetermination because Quine’s use has been oversimplified and misused by many. It will be helpful to first define dogmas, reductionism and underdetermination. It will be helpful to first define empiricism, dogmas, reductionism, and underdetermination. The “dogmas” Quine puts on trial are two principles. Dogma is defined as a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Another definiton of dogma proves interesting and perhaps more poignant than the one previously mentioned. This one is that the dogma is wrong and went unnoticed because noone thinks to question it. The term dogma is often given to statements offered by someone who thinks, wrongly,that the beliefs and statements should be accepted without proof or testing. He sets out to claim that these two dogmas are in fact are false. These dogmas are held true within “empiricism.”

More about Quine Writes 's Two Dogmas Of Empiricism

Open Document