Verhaegh Sander
Tilburg Center for Logic, Ethics, and Philosophy of Science (TiLPS), Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2017 Feb;61:11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.12.002. Epub 2017 Jan 28.
Quine is routinely perceived as having changed his mind about the scope of the Duhem-Quine thesis, shifting from what has been called an 'extreme holism' to a more moderate view. Where the Quine of 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' argues that "the unit of empirical significance is the whole of science" (1951, 42), the later Quine seems to back away from this "needlessly strong statement of holism" (1991, 393). In this paper, I show that the received view is incorrect. I distinguish three ways in which Quine's early holism can be said to be wide-scoped and show that he has never changed his mind about any one of these aspects of his early view. Instead, I argue that Quine's apparent change of mind can be explained away as a mere shift of emphasis.
蒯因通常被认为在迪昂 - 蒯因论题的范围上改变了想法,从所谓的“极端整体论”转向了更为温和的观点。在《经验论的两个教条》中,蒯因主张“经验意义的单位是整个科学”(1951,42),而后期的蒯因似乎背离了这种“过于强硬的整体论表述”(1991,393)。在本文中,我将表明这种公认的观点是不正确的。我区分了蒯因早期整体论可以被认为范围广泛的三种方式,并表明他从未在早期观点的任何一个方面改变过想法。相反,我认为蒯因明显的观点转变可以解释为仅仅是侧重点的转移。