Are Quine’s Two Indeterminacy Theses Compatible?

Acta Analytica 14 (23.):89-99. (1999)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The paper seeks to show that Quine’s theses concerning the underdetermination of scientific theories by experience and the indeterminacy of reference cannot be reconciled if some of Quine’s central assumptions are accepted. The argument is this. Quine holds that the thesis about reference is not just a special case of the other thesis. In order to make sense of this comment we must distinguish between factual and epistemic indeterminacy. Something is factual indeterminate if it is not determined by the facts. Epistemic indeterminacy, on the other hand, is due to the lack of evidence. Quine’s claim about the relationship between the two theses is best understood as saying that reference is factually indeterminate, whereas the underdetermination of scientific theories is merely epistemic. But the latter cannot be sustained in light of Quine’s verificationism, holism and naturalism.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
FORAQT
Upload history
Archival date: 2011-01-27
View other versions
Added to PP index
2011-01-27

Total views
212 ( #28,775 of 2,448,343 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #49,604 of 2,448,343 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.