As is reasonably well-appreciated, Quine struggled with his definition of the all-important notion of an observation sentence; especially in order to make them bear out his commitment to language’s being a ‘social art’. In an earlier article (_Mind_ 131(523):805–825, 2022), I proposed a certain repair, which here I will explain, justify and articulate further. But it also infects the definition of observation categoricals, and furthermore makes it a secondary matter, a seeming afterthought, that evidence, science and knowledge generally are shared—are (...) joint, social and collaborative products. Without forsaking Quine’s strict naturalism, I try to make the necessary adjustments to Quine’s scheme. (shrink)

W. V. Quine suggests that meaning derives from the stimulus, the effects of the outside world on the subject’s nerve endings. However, the idiosyncrasy of the stimulus poses challenges to the intersubjectivity of meaning. Gary Kemp proposes the stimulus field approach as a solution. The stimulus field approach focuses on the forces affecting the subject, rather than the effects on the subject. In this article, I critique Kemp’s solution. Furthermore, I argue that the Quinean approach can be refined in a (...) way that two agents may converge on the same meaning even without sharing the same stimuli or forces affecting them. (shrink)

In these replies, I respond to critics in the book symposium on my Quine, Conceptual Pragmatism, and the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction, Lexington Books, 2022.

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.