Social indeterminacy and Quine's indeterminacy thesis

Contemporary Philosophy 26 (3) (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
This article examines whether Willard Van Orman Quine’s indeterminacy thesis can be sustained. The argument from above, Quine argues, can derive indeterminacy as its conclusion. I will argue that the indeterminacy claim cannot be sustained. I further argue that Quine changed the formulation of the underdetermination of theory by evidence (UTE) argument from what Duhem said to the Quine/Pierce meaning verification view, in order use the new formulation of UTE to imply indeterminacy. Given all that, we see when we apply the old UTE argument we only arrive at underdetermination of theory by evidence, and that applies to all sciences, philosophy and knowledge, including philosophy of language.
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2019-08-19
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
172 ( #40,042 of 71,318 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
33 ( #25,380 of 71,318 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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