I revisit my 1993 paper on Putnam and mathematical realism focusing on the indispensability argument and how it has fared over the years. This argument starts from the claim that mathematics is an indispensable part of science and draws the conclusion, from holistic considerations about confirmation, that the ontology of science includes abstract objects as well as the physical entities science deals with.

Im ersten Teil unseres Aufsatzes charakterisieren wir den Beitrag der ‘modernen’ Wissenschaftstheorie zur Methodologie des Textverstehens; im zweiten Teil diskutieren wir exemplarisch zwei Konzeptionen der ‘neueren’ Hermeneutik. Ziel dieser kritischen Untersuchungen ist eine Förderung des Dialogs zwischen Wissenschaftstheorie, Hermeneutik und Literaturwissenschaft.

Davidson approaches the notions of meaning and interpretation with the aim of characterizing semantic competence in the syntactically characterized natural language. The objective is to provide a truth-theory for a language, generating T-sentences expressed in the semantic metalanguage, so that each sentence of the object language receives an appropriate interpretation. Proceeding within the constraints of referential semantics, I will argue for the viability of reconstructing the notion of linguistic meaning within the Tarskian theory of reference. However, the view proposed here (...) involves a revision of Davidson’s con-ception of the object of semantic investigation. Taking (idealized) language-theories as the proper object of semantic characterization, provides solutions to outstanding problems in Davidson’s views, better approximates the practice in standard model-theoretic semantics, and incorporates the elements of semantic competence sought for in tradi¬tional theories of lexical analysis. Sources of evidence beyond those emphasized by Davidson will be invoked in order to allow for the selection of interpre¬tive T-sentences. In the final section, possible Quinean objections will be considered. (shrink)

This paper contains a discussion of Quine's thesis of indeterminacy of translation within the more general thesis that using and understanding a language are to be conceived of as a creative and interpretative-constructional activity. Indeterminacy is considered to be ineliminable. Three scenarios are distinguished concerning, first, the reasons for indeterminacy, second, the kinds of indeterminacy and, third, different levels of a general notion of recursive interpretation. Translational hypotheses are seen as interpretational constructs. The indeterminacy thesis turns out to be a (...) consequence of the externalizing of language, meaning, and epistemology. By means of a three-leveled interpretation model one can substantiate the crucial aspects, first, that indeterminacy is not an indeterminacy of facts of the matter and, second, that there is a significant difference between indeterminacy and underdetermination. In addition, the relationship between indeterminacy, interpretation, and charity is elucidated. Indeterminacy is seen not as an obstacle to but as a condition for communication. Charity and empathy in dialogue are conditional upon indeterminacy. All three components reveal the interpretative-constructional character of the inseparable connection of meaning and experience. (shrink)

Quine’s thesis of the indeterminacy of translation has puzzled the philosophical community for several decades. It is unquestionably among the best known and most disputed theses in contemporary philosophy. Quine’s classical argument for the indeterminacy thesis, in his seminal work Word and Object, has even been described by Putnam as “what may well be the most fascinating and the most discussed philosophical argument since Kant’s Transcendental Deduction of the Categories” (Putnam, 1975a: p. 159).

I argue that pace Quine, indeterminacy of translation affects observation sentences. I illustrate this indeterminacy with examples and show how it is tied to the indeterminacy affecting the analytical status of observation categoricals. I propose my own construal of the thesis of indeterminacy of translation, according to which indeterminacy is based on the inextricability of meaning and belief. I explain why this construal should be favored over Quine’s.

Despite offering many formulations of his controversial indeterminacy of translation thesis, Quine has never explored in detail the connection between indeterminacy and the conception of meaning that he supposedly derived from the work of Peirce and Duhem. The outline of such a conception of meaning, as well as its relationship to the indeterminacy thesis, is worked out in this paper; and its merits and implications are assessed both in the context of Quine’s own philosophical agenda, and also with a view (...) to a very different approach to meaning and understanding exemplified by the work of Gadamer. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ : Même s’il formule à diverses reprises sa thèse controversée de l’indétermination de la traduction, Quine n’a jamais examiné de près le lien entre l’indétermination et la conception de la signification qu’il aurait développée à partir des travaux de Peirce et de Duhem. Cet article esquisse le plan d’une telle conception de la signification dans sa relation à la thèse de l’indétermination et évalue les avantages et les implications de cette conception dans le contexte du programme philosophique de Quine (...) lui-même, ainsi que selon l’approche très différente de la signification et de la compréhension élaborée dans l’œuvre de Gadamer. (shrink)

Quine’s notion of fact of the matter has received very little attention, although a good grasp of it is crucial to an understanding of some of Quine’s famous formulations of the indeterminacy of translation thesis. The notion is used and cited by many but has to my knowledge never been thoroughly analysed. In the present article, I attempt to analyse and clarify it. In the first section, my exposition focuses on the relations Quine has developed between his notion of fact (...) of the matter and his views on physicalism and ontology. The main conclusion of this section is that Quine’s notion of fact of the matter is ontological. That is to say, for Quine, the notion concerns extralinguistic reality, which is ultimately described by physics. In the second section, I try to show what relations Quine sees between facts of the matter and truth. The main conclusion of this section is that, for Quine, facts of the matter determine truth. This determination is to be understood in the context of Quine’s genetic approach to evidence, which reveals that it is through the mechanism of conditioned response that facts of the matter determine truth. It is hoped that the present analyses will shed new light on Quine’s controversial indeterminacy of translation thesis as well as on the asymmetry that Quine sees between that thesis and underdetermination of theory. (shrink)

Quine’s notion of fact of the matter has received very little attention, although a good grasp of it is crucial to an understanding of some of Quine’s famous formulations of the indeterminacy of translation thesis. The notion is used and cited by many but has to my knowledge never been thoroughly analysed. In the present article, I attempt to analyse and clarify it. In the first section, my exposition focuses on the relations Quine has developed between his notion of fact (...) of the matter and his views on physicalism and ontology. The main conclusion of this section is that Quine’s notion of fact of the matter is ontological. That is to say, for Quine, the notion concerns extralinguistic reality, which is ultimately described by physics. In the second section, I try to show what relations Quine sees between facts of the matter and truth. The main conclusion of this section is that, for Quine, facts of the matter determine truth. This determination is to be understood in the context of Quine’s genetic approach to evidence, which reveals that it is through the mechanism of conditioned response that facts of the matter determine truth. It is hoped that the present analyses will shed new light on Quine’s controversial indeterminacy of translation thesis as well as on the asymmetry that Quine sees between that thesis and underdetermination of theory. (shrink)

Dans la première section du présent article, mon but est d’extraire le contenu de la thèse de l’indétermination de la traduction, à partir d’une revue de plusieurs formulations de Quine. Je tente d’identifier ce qui est constant et ce qui varie dans celles-ci. Je retiens ce qui est constant comme le coeur de la thèse et je considère ce qui varie comme secondaire. J’arrive ainsi à lire une seule thèse à travers les diverses formulations. Je dois admettre, par ailleurs, que (...) les variations sont suffisamment importantes pour semer la confusion. Dans la deuxième section, je retrace les arguments offerts par Quine en guise de justification de l’indétermination de la traduction. Je rappelle l’évolution de cette argumentation et je montre qu’il y a des variations là aussi : au début, Quine fait surtout appel à son physicalisme et, à la fin, il invoque seulement son behaviorisme. Même si je conclus qu’il ne s’agit pas là d’un changement radical, force est d’admettre que le changement est suffisamment important pour déconcerter plus d’un lecteur. Finalement, dans la troisième section, je montre comment mon interprétation de la thèse de l’indétermination de Quine, si elle est correcte, contribue au débat sur l’asymétrie avec la sous-détermination. Les deux premières sections de l’article permettant de distinguer clairement les arguments épistémologiques du contenu ontologique de la thèse de l’indétermination de la traduction, il devient facile d’admettre l’asymétrie défendue par Quine : l’indétermination de la traduction est une thèse ontologique ; elle ne peut donc pas être confondue avec la sous-détermination, une thèse épistémologique.In the first section of this article, my aim is to grasp the content of Quine’s indeterminacy of translation thesis. I propose a review of Quine’s formulations, and I try to identify what is constant and what varies in them. Guided by charity, I keep what is constant as the core of Quine’s thesis, and I consider what varies as secondary. I thus achieve to read a single thesis throughout all the formulations. I must admit, however, that the variations are important enough to be confusing. In the second section, I identify Quine’s arguments for indeterminacy of translation. I retrace the evolution of his argumentation, and I notice that there are variations there too. At first, Quine appeals mainly to physicalism, and, at the end, he appeals only to behaviorism. Although I think that this is not a radical change of mind, I conclude that the change is, once again, important enough to have confused some readers. Finally, in the third section, I show how my interpretation of Quine’s indeterminacy of translation contributes to the debate over the asymmetry between this latter thesis and underdetermination of theory : my analysis of Quine’s treatment of indeterminacy of translation leads me to conclude that, whereas the arguments are epistemological, the content of the thesis is ontological. Once this ontological content is well seen, it is easy to acknowledge, with Quine, the asymmetry with underdetermination, which is an epistemological claim. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ: Je propose iei une interprétation de la position quinienne sur l’asymetrie entre l’indétermination de la traduction et la sous-détermination. Je discute les articIes de Chomsky, Rorty et Friedman, qui prétendent montrer que l’asymétrie défendue par Quine est inacceptable. J’examine en outre les points de vue de Føllesdal et Gibson, deux auteurs en accord avec Quine au sujet de l’asymétrie. Je défends l’idée selon laquelle il faut admettre le réalisme de Quine, mais pas son physicalisme, pour être en mesure de (...) reeonnaître l’asymétrie entre le cas des théories scientifiques et celui des manuels de traduction.ABSTRACT: I propose an interpretation of Quine’s position on the asymmetry between indeterminacy of translation and underdetermination of theory. The positions of Chomsky, Rorty, and Friedman, who reject the asymmetry, are presented and criticized. The same is done with Føllesdal’s and Gibson’s views, which are favourable to Quine’s. I argue that we must admit Quine’s realism but not his physicalism in order to accept the asymmetry. (shrink)